The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-21-Minutes for Meeting December 17,2007 Recorded 1/9/2008NADESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS ~J 1~Q8.11 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111 lllllll~l~u~ii 1111111 01/09/2008 11;44;51 AM Z00S-21 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk CertITIcate Page V 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 G 0 { 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 MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007 Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Tom Anderson, Community Development; and one other citizen. No representatives of the media were present. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 2: 30 p.m. 1. Update on South County Groundwater Advisory Committee. Dave Inbody said that the Commissioners seem to agree on ten members. Commissioner Baney suggested eleven total members; Commissioner Luke suggested up to thirteen. Mr. Inbody said that the ten covered all but one block group, so another is needed; and there are a couple of others that at least one Commissioner wanted due to areas of expertise. (He provided handouts at this time) It was decided that thirteen was a good number in case someone drops out. Other than the ten that are agreed upon, #42, #63 and #54 were selected. Another one that Commissioner Daly had wanted on the committee is only available between 8-10 in the mornings, and most of the potential members want to meet in the afternoon or evening. Commissioner Baney wants to make sure that none of the members would stand to benefit financially by being a part of the group. Commissioner Luke stated that most of them will have to connect and may benefit from the funding. Dave Kanner said that this is an advisory group and they can disclose a potential conflict of interest per statute. Tom Anderson presented an agreement form for a DLCD technical assistance grant; part I is for assistance with the advisory committee ($16,000 for three to four months, and five to six meetings). Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, December 17, 2007 Page 1 of 3 Pages Part II would cover the additional costs of a facilitator to work with a steering committee to address the red lot/high water issue. This issue could take up to a year. The total is $52,000, with a matching in-kind amount handled through staff time. 2. Work Session on Amateur Radio Transmission Tower Text Amendment. This item will be addressed at the January 2, 2008 work session. 3. Discussion of Community/Employee Surveys. Mr. Kanner said that he hopes to have Board participation on this at the December 31 work session. This was one of the goals and objectives decided upon at the goal-setting meeting last year. The consultant will come up with the questions and conduct the survey. Commissioner Baney asked about the purpose of the survey. Mr. Kanner said that the specific questions aren't necessary but there needs to be a general idea of the types of questions to ask. He stated that the one that employees will be asked to complete would ask about their values and how they feel the County fits into this. He also wants to find out how people are finding out about County services and programs to make sure the outreach is adequate. Commissioner Luke stated that most people are not interested in what government does unless or until it impacts them personally. Commissioner Luke prefers questions that are factual and specific; not those that are too general which wouldn't result in a definitive response. After a lengthy conversation, it was decided that the potential questions would be discussed further at the Wednesday work session. 4. Economic Development Funding Requests: Women's Civic Improvement League - $500 each was granted by Commissioners Baney and Luke Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, December 17, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Pages 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None was discussed. 6. Other Items. Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations; and ORS 192.660(2)(b), Personnel Issues Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3: 50 p.m., at which time the Board adjourned into executive session under ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation. DATED this 17th Day of December 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Commiss oner Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, December 17, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Pages Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair G ❑ -C 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., MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007 1. Update on South County Groundwater Advisory Committee 2. Work Session on Amateur Radio Transmission Tower Text Amendment - Kristen Maze 3. Discussion of Community/Employee Surveys 4. Economic Development Funding Requests: Women's Civic Improvement League 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 6. Other Items 7. Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations; and ORS 192.660(2)(b), Personnel Issues 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. If you have questions regarding a 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. Applicants supported by all three commissioners (10) 58 9903-001 (North) Recommended Recommended by Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition 47 9903-001 (South) Recommended Recommended by Ponderosa Pines 27 9903-002 Recommended Recommended by Newberry Estates 57 9903-002 Rural Residence Distant Rural 2 9903-003 Water Wells Licensed domestic water well driller 37 9904-002 Recommended Recomended by Pine Crest 52 9904-002 Water; Science Oceanography professor at OSU: Director, Waterway Environmental Services for Port of Portland 8 9904-003 Recommended Recommended by Anderson Acres 61 9904-004 Financial Business and financial background 12 9905-005 Recommended Recommended by Upper Deschutes River Natural Resource Coalition Applicants from 9904-001 supported by at least one commissioner (4) 54 9904-001 Real Estate Real estate broker 25 9904-001 Real Estate "Use my experience" 30 9904-001 Committees La Pine Community Action team's Economic Development chair 53 9904-001 Land Use Professional land surveyor Other applicants supported by at least one commissioner (201 42 9903-001(North) Recommended; Financial Recommended by DRRH, Unit #6; Budget development experience 19 9903-001(North) Real Estate Real estate developer 46 9903-001(South) Recommended Recommended by Ponderosa Pines (second choice); 12 letters of endorsement 64 9903-001(South) Science General science 23 9903-003 Engineering; Real Estate Engineer; real estate developer; 50 vacant lots 15 9903-003 Efficiency and effectiveness will come first" 36 9903-003 " I have researched this issue extensively" 48 9904-0002 Recommended Recommended by Terra de Oro Estates 39 9904-002 Land Use; Committees Member of Planning Commission 9 9904-003 "see that things are done just) and fairly" 10 9904-003 "see that things are done justly and fairly" 43 9904-003 Minimal responses 44 9904-003 No responses 13 9904-004 Land Use; Committees Appointed to Forest View Road District 18 9904-004 Committees Certified safety professional; committee experience 22 9904-004 "be informed on the true facts and have input on La Pine area" 38 9904-004 "effective and efficient... stay on topic" 11 9905-005 Engineering "projects involving technical, engineering, financial and manufacturing" 17 9905-005 Water Systems Excavation contractor with "knowledge of sewer and septic systems" 24 9905-005 Minimal responses Applicants 1311 55 9903-001(North) Recommended; Engineering Recommended by Wild River (second choice); Engineering and mathematics 51 9903-001 (North) Financial Financial Analysis 63 9903-001 (North) Recommended; Science Recommended by Wild River (first choice); Public Health 40 9903-001 (North) Science Geochemistry 20 9903-001 (North) Water "public drinking water field" 41 9903-001 (South) Financial Retired business owner 65 9903-001 (South) "need full accounting of funds" 3 9903-001 (South) No responses 14 9903-001 (South) No responses 31 9903-001 (South) Minimal responses 60 9903-002 Withdrew in support of #27 16 9903-002 Withdrew in support of #27 33 9903-002 Withdrew in support of #27 34 9903-002 Withdrew in support of #27 26 9904-001 "I am concerned about overpopulation in Deschutes County" 28 9904-001 No responses 32 9904-002 Committees Retired community college instructor; advisory committee experience 35 9904-002 "Obtain complete, unbiased and accurate reports and information" 21 9904-002 "punctual, thorough and follow-up on projects" 50 9904-003 Recommended Recommended by residents on Dyke, Strawn, Leona, Dick, Fir, Pine 1 9904-004 Science Biologist; teaches freshwater ecology, attend via conference call 49 9904-004 No responses 59 9904-004 "assist in making a sound decision" 4 9904-004 Minimal responses 6 9904-004 No responses 7 9904-004 "bring... attention to finances in the area" 5 9905-005 Land Use; Committees Commissioner, Special Road District 45 9905-005 Real Estate Realtor 62 9905-005 Committees committee experience 56 9905-005 "represent other widows and low income people" 29 9905-005 "careful and hopefully informed thought to the facts as related by experts" T 9903 - 001 (North) rn .n1. Multiple property owner; "I want to continue to 19 Fall River Estates NPA developer Mon-Fri anytime brio the community and the coup together" "31 years in public drinking 20 Fall River Eastates water field" Mon, Thu, Fri & Sat 1- Vacant lot; lives in Portland; geochemistry for Pacific Vacant lot; lives in Pasco, WA, interested in advising on 40 "along the river' Northwest National Lab Sat anytime technical issues "The finished budget will set much of the policy 42 DRRH, Unit 6 DRRH, Unit #6 HOA Budget development Anytime and strata for the entire retrofit program" Financial analyst; Sat anytime; Mon-Fri "any solution needs to be economically feasible and 51 River Forest Acres budgeting 7 fair to both the coup and all if its taxpayers" Engineering and Anytime except Sat 8- Need to identify true costs of new systems, 55 Wild River Wild River HOA (#21 mathematics 10 or 3-7 landscaping, availability of financial assistance.. fit is szry impixiLant that what We ask of the eitiacns of Lipper askllp;es River Natural Mon 8 Sat- all day, Wed 1-7, Two-Thu 7 south county is something that is reapy going to Work m " 58 River Forest acres Fdsourc8 Otis oon Fn 3_7 - problems" to Sol 'e any and all fi Negotiation skills; public "It is time to have a collaborative effort with the 63 Wild River Wild River HOA health Every day 8-12 people and the county government on this issue" 9903 - 001 (South) 3 "Southwest' Anytime No responses 14 "Southwest" Every day 10-5 No responses 31 Ponderosa Pines Every day 10-5 Minimal responses Search and rescue volunteer; retired business Sat anytime; M, W & F "input from technical people as well as the general 41 Ponderosa Pines owner 10-5; T & Th 8-3 public is important for any recommendations" Ponderosa Pines HOA; 12 letters 46 Ponder a Pin=c learn PP residents Not provided Minimal responses _ - by multiple sources including qualified third parries hilt lend a high degree of credihilm [to] the Ponderosa Pines HOA. 4lettarc eventual decision that will emerge from the a? Pnndams 3 Pn es from FP residents Mon a Tue 5-7 uocess' _ _ "I wish to learn more about the problem and assist in finding a solution that preserves the quality of Served on county advisory committees; general Anytime except Wed life in south county and is acceptable to both the 64 Northeast of Ponderosa Pines science 10.3 county and the homeowners" "['here needs to be a full accounting of all funds that have been intended for this project and that accounting should be performed by an objective 65 Ponderosa Pines Anytime party" 9903 - 002 16 Newherrv Estates withdrew in si rt of #27 mi states A; 2 latter from residents, ether Nevhtetry _ 27 ~Newbemy Estates Estates applicants Anytime Minimal r uses . U-:eh:~ru Estate= j rcithdr,w in "'r xnt "t interested ni exatrnntng "how the issue would effcc Qife ill S II-C-j people - bused on technical, 57 "Southeast" ArtyNme envirmvne~tttal, teonomical_ effect oil hifbst le- 60 Newberry Estates _ withdrew in support of 42 7 9903 - 003 a y6ma, Dl ense(ldornestic water I Weekdays 5-7 & Mon `extensive knout{edge of tewall systells in SOutt4- _ : iplne Meadows Wall drl4er r3-10, Wed 3-5 DascNtos county- - Information necessary: "data concerning the water table level history, access to any data specific to nitrate level concentrations from any past sample data, groundwater flow data, soil data in the area of interest, new building permit application data, land 15 Sand Lilly Estates Mon-Fri 8-5 use data, and forestry data" 50 vacant lots; Critical considerations in making a recommendation - cost and timing for property Mon anytime; Wed 7 owners, funds available from county and finance Engineer, real estate Thur 10-7, Tue 1-3 Fri options, DEQ recommendations, upgrade costs, 23 La Pine Acres developer 8-12 pros and cons for each option "I have researched this issue extensively and feel Weekdays anytime; that I have a lot of positive input that would be 36 Woodland Park prefer Mon-Thu 10-5 useful to our commissioners" T l f 9903 - 004 9904-001 Rte-- 8 A111 abi CemnwMa Vacant lots; sower residence in 9903-001 33 vacant ots; sewer; residence in 9904•002 25 Lazy, River An day 8.10 Vacan hi dwater lots; minimal responses Mon, Tue, Wed & Fri `I am concerned about overpopulation in Deschutes 26 Oregon Water Wonderland anytkne; Ttw 1.15 Coun " 12; ue 1.3; 28 OregmWaterWondertand Wed 8-10; Thu 1412 No responses Sehftd as La Phe CcmmunNy Adorn Teems Economic Development "My greatest concern is that the people of La chair, volunteer and grant Pine... are now being asked to pay for 'retrofitting 30 Vandervert Acres South writer Anyfte their waste and drinkhr water facilities" "All available information (scientific studies, demographic data, testimony from previous hearings, CDD staff notes, economic studies and engineering data) must be studied and considered 53 Pine River Estates WotessWW land surveyor Tue &Wed 3-7 before a recommendation to the BOCC" lion "I try to flank `out of the like to use 54 Lary River Real satate broker Anytime creative ideas" 9904-002 Applicant 1 n,: w rwcommena.oans r9lare a VO THTWUTw 2 A.Ipine Meadows Multiple owner listed under 9903-003 i. k: Mme. "Thera are akamative solutions to the problems 9 Ev n Park Mon, Wed & Fri 3.5 that the coun needs to consider' s , of # 10 Sat anytime; 'There are alternative solutions to the problems 10 Eve en Park Weekdays S7 that the county needs to consider' ; spouse of #9 43 Los Pinos Mon-Fri 10.3 Minimal responses 44 Los Pima Not provided No os 50 CW Reeve Resort Everyday 3-7 Minimal responses ~a 9904-004 Applicant a Ne hborhood Recommarngtions likilisMackground Availability Unable Biobplat teaches parson; but via Wes in San Bernardino, CA; Wants to represent absentee I Tall Pines freshwater ecology conference can property owners 4 Tan Pines ' Anytime Minimal responses 6 Tan Pines Tue-Thu 5-7 No responses "We wish to be allowed other seienti6c studies to take place regarding issues for South Deschutes 7 Tan Pines Mon-Thu 1412 Comity that have been proposed" "Various sources of funding need to be identified. Would a public/private foundation be an effective Appointed to Forestview Mon, Wad, Fri, Sat and efficient way to administer any assistance 13 Forest View Road District anytime; Tue & Thu 1- 0 T' Certified "f* professional: "served as a Committee will need "to be provided empirical data member and ctlkar on and the most current science based modeling of the nwnerous and various o4akatkxts issues... reliable information on current , t ss and technologies that offer feasible solutions... look at 18 Ammon Estates executive corwilltifte Anytime except Tus other communities" "Many people in [the] area are low income and will. need to have financial aid... We would like to explore various ways to help pay for these upgrade 22 Tan Pines Everyday day 1-3 stems" Information needed: "Scientific data supporting or Anytime; prefers Tue• refuting the concem, cost estimates to implement 38 Jacobsenh North Thu 8-10 or 3-5 solutions and funning and/or financing 49 Parkway Acres Every day 5.7 No responses Need "independent engineering feasibility study 59 Tan Pines Every day &5 coveting more than one o die nsat stem" t0! 1114 f181d~M$ y,, rr ; ~ fiuf pR'ected`~d tifetr eu~ . ~ ~ ; t F 'ay~fr ~ Tr]q.sNec~ftt~.~4L' ~itbet trkatbie avorl: ~G[dClailslfrrtwoudd 6l, M Ta ~ ri,: ~ r siam~ s 3: _ ~ r _ jcslfnuw i 9905-005 i tcanta Neighborhood! Recommendations UNISMI Availability Comments " Sources to assist direction takingidecision nuking: "the orginal long-range watershed studies, a list of suitable laird for treatment facilities, identification of wetlands within the development area, E1Ss from previously approved resat and golf course Consntissioner, Special developments, federal grant procedures for sewage 5 DRRH Road District Mon-Fri 8-10 & 3-5 treatment ants" Background in "large complex proiects involving technical, Recommendation to BOCC: "First, what the engineering, financial committee did or did not mach a consensus on and 11 DRRH sad man Anytime; prof- 8-10 why. Secon the financial ire M, a Ai "cost oflow mtrak stem, for man), of these people in South Deschutes County may be shove Excavation contractor "a' what they can afford. Also low nitrate septic lot of knowledge about- systems are not approved anywhere in Oregon 17 DRRH sewer and'ssptic systeI Tus-Thu 5.7 exce .for,South Deschutes County" 24 DRRH Not provided' Minimelvesponsas Need: "Facts, accurate statistics on like problems faced by other counties and knowledgeable 29 River Meadows Every day 8-3 advisors" Information needed: "How serious is the water problem and how confident/reliable [are] the 45 DRRH Realor Anylkrme; Prefers 1-3 reports" I could help represent other widows and low 56 DRRH Tue & Sat 1412 income people" "We will need existing information on the different have been on Tue-Thu anytime; Fri systems the county has tried and all the info on up 62 DRRH committees before" 12 to date systems that will work in the area' Community Survey Questions Demographics • Gender • Age Category • Children in the home Income Range • Employment Status • Home Ownership • Registered to Vote • Length of Residency Quality of Life How do you rate Deschutes County as a place to live? • What do you like most about living in Deschutes County? What is the most important problem facing Deschutes County? • How does life in Deschutes County compare to a few years ago? • How would you rate the county on the following characteristics? o Openness and acceptance of new residents o Recreational resources o Job opportunities o Transportation options o Shopping convenience o Cultural activities o Affordable housing o As a place to raise children o As a place to shop o ' As a place to work o Quality of housing and retail • Rank the following county activities: o Protecting the county's natural features, parks and water quality o Providing and maintaining infrastructure like roads, bridges and bike, trails o Encouraging development. of new housing, commerical and industrial areas' o Preserving undeveloped land • How responsive is the county? • How do you rate the county's efforts? o To address the needs of low income people o Regarding affordable housing o Towards energy and water conservation programs o To reduce the risk of fire in our watershed o Toward economic development o Keeps its promises to residents o Makes efficient use of tax dollars t 1 1 o Generally headed in the right direction o Provides effective leadership on issues that matter to me o Employee&are consistently courteous and helpful o' Listens and responds appropriately to citizen concerns o Keeping the public informed o Managing population growth o Managing retail-growth o `Managing jab growth • How is growth and development in Deschutes County during the past several years? • Has Deschutes County been positively or negatively affected by; o Growth? o Tourism? County Services • Satisfaction with overall level of services provided: • Rating county services: o Maintaining county roads o Protecting streams and waterways o Maintenance of county land o Solid waste services o Sheriff protection o Planning for growth and development o Providing information for local residents o Overall quality of work from county employees o Budget management County Government • Level of satisfaction with opportunities to give input • Level of trust in county government Incidence of contacting county in the past year • County departments contacted in past 12 months: o Community development o Solid waste o Sheriffs Office o Administration o County Commissioners o Roads o County clerk o County assessor o Finance o Health Services o Mental Health • How informed do you feel you are regarding happenings in Deschutes County government? Sources used to get information about Deschutes County: a o Cable access TV o TV news programs o Community or neighborhood meetings o Free newspapers o The Bulletin... o Radio o County website o "Inside Deschutes County" o County Newsletter o Friends/Co-workers/neighbors o County commission meetings/planning commission meetings • Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: o The county should aggressively recruit new businesses o The county should help businesses currently located here to create and retain jobs o The county should do more to support coutny non-profit organizations o I am better off economically today than I was 5 years ago o The county should engage in sustainable environmental practices o Generally, `I feel safe in Deschutes County o I know my neighbors and often greet them by name o I am confident that the Deschutes County Sheriff s Office will be there if I need them o There are plenty of opportunities to give input on county issues o I am personally well informed regarding issues facing Deschutes County ; i I Employee Survey Questions Job Satisfaction • Overall, how satisfied are you with your job? • Overall, how positive do you feel about working for Deschutes County? How enjoyable is your work? • What first attracted you to employment at Deschutes County? • What do you like best about your job? • Overall, how would you rate Deschutes County as an employer? • Do you feel that Deschutes County treats its employees fairly? • Would you recommend Deschutes County as a good place to work? • Would you prefer another job in Deschutes County to the one you have now? • Would you prefer to have a job somewhere other than Deschutes County? • How proud are you of being associated with Deschutes County? Personal Satisfaction • How satisfied are you with your current balance between work and personal life? • Do you feel overworked? • Do you feel that Deschutes County cares about me as a person? • At work, how much do your opinions seem to count? Communication • How well does Deschutes County communicate high standards of ethical behavior to its employees? Quality of Work • How committed are your associates to doing quality work? • Overall how would you rate the quality of work being done in your work group? • To what degree does your work makes a difference in the success of Deschutes County government? Do you believe there is a culture of good customer service in Deschutes County? o if not, what can be done to improve on it? • How much opportunity do you have at work to do what you do best? • Overall, how productive do you feel at work? • Do you have the right skills and abilities for doing your job? Leadership • Do you believe county leadership is flexible and adapts quickly to changing circumstances? • Do you believe you have adequate access to county leadership? • Do you believe you have adequate access to your department leadership? • To what degree does Deschutes County cares what employees like you think? • Do you feel you can honestly and openly discuss issues of concern with your supervisor? f • Do you believe the county is open to oche points of view? • How well does your work group communicate relevant information in a timely manner? • How clearly does Deschutes County: communicate its strategic direction, vision, mission and values? • How well does Deschutes County communicate information in a timely manner? • Do you believe you get enough information about what's going on in Deschutes ` County? o If not, what would enable you to gain this information? • What is your primary source of information about things going on in Deschutes County? • Do you read the Friday Update? o Why or why not? o What would make you more likely to read it? o ` What improvements should be made to it? Team work/Personalities • Do the people in your work group encourage each other to give their best effort? • Overall, to what degree. does Deschutes County motivate you to do good work? • Is your personality a good match for your job? * How well do you fit in at work without having to change who you are? • Do your values match or fit with the values of Deschutes County? • What do you believe the county values most in its employees? • Do you sense a spirit of teamwork among your co-workers? • Do you have good friends at work? • To what extent does the mission/purpose of your department makes you feel your, job is important? • Do you believe the couty encourages collaboration and innovation? Education and Training • In the last year, have you had opportunities at work to learn and grow? • Does Deschutes County support learning and development? • In the past year, have you had adequate training opportunities to help you to develop knowledge and skills? • Do your current work assignments enable you to apply or practice newly acquired knowledge or skills? • How effectively does Deschutes County uses coaching or mentoring as a way to train new employees? Process and Procedure • How clearly defined are your work unit performance objectives? • How effective is the organizational structure of Deschutes County? • How clear are procedures for you to do your job? • How clearly defined are the working relationship within units? • i How clearly defined are the relationships between units? Dave Inbody "mono From: Mike Dugan Sent: Monday, December 17, 2047 8:49 AM To: Dave lnbody Cc: Dave Kanner; Erik Kropp Subject: RE Community and Employee Surveys After reviewing the proposed questions for the community survey I notices that there was virtually nothing concerning public safety. The only question I saw was whether the person had any contact with various departments, including the Sheriff, in the past 12 months. I think that there should be a section devoted to public safety. Jail issues: 1. Are you aware of the jail overcrowding in Deschutes County? 2. Do you agree that expansion of the jail is a necessary step-in the right direction? Public Safety issues: 1. Do you consider your neighborhood a safe place to live? 2. Do you regularly see police patrols in your neighborhood? 3. What do you think isthe number one public safety issue facing Deschutes County. Public Safety Leadership 1. In making public safety decisions for county government who would you rely upon to t report the most accurate information? a. Sheriff of Deschutes County b. County Administrator C. County Commissioner d. District Attorney e. Chief of Police 2. How would you rate public safety in Deschutes County? a. superior b. excellent c. good d. fair e. poor Crime Victims: 1. If you have reported a crime of which you were a victim, how would you rate the response of the police? a. excellent b. good c. fair d. poor 2. If the criminal. case of which ,you'were the victim was prosecuted, how would you rate the following services? 1. Victims assistance: a. good b. Fair c. Poor 2. District Attorney staff: a good b. Fair c. poor f 3. Court room experience: 1 a. good b. fair G 1 s 4 c. poor i These are just my thoughts. Michael T. Dugan District Attorney -----Original Message---- From: Dave Inbody Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:42 PM To: _Department Heads Subject: Community and Employee Surveys Plans for our community and employee surveys scheduled for January are progressing. Our intent is to select a consulting company to conduct the surveys by end of next week (12/21). In an effort to provide input'to -our eventual consultant I have attached some sample questions for each type of survey. During that meeting Dave will solicit your input on the types of questions you would like us to ask and the information youwould like to gain from the surveys. Please 'review the list and bring it to the department heads meeting on Monday. Thanks, Dave Inbody Assistant to the County Administrator Deschutes County (541) 322-7697 office' (541) 385-3202 fax 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 ( i p 2 s lam: 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/ Memorandum TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commission FROM: Kristen Maze, Laurie Craghead DATE: December 5, 2007 SUBJECT: Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10 Record Purpose The following issues were identified at the November 26, 2007 public hearing before the Board of County Commissioner's ("Board"). Staff would like to address these issues for the Board's review and include them into the amateur radio text amendment record. Issues 1. Does the wireless telecommunications code apply to amateur radio facilities Does the definition of Wireless Telecommunications include amateur radio as a personal wireless communication service? The FCC determined in 1999 that amateur radio facilities are not regulated by Section 704 of the Federal Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996. That FCC order is included in the record. Section 704 is the section of that act that limits local governments' ability to regulation "personal wireless services." That 1999 FCC ruling, which interpreted 1985 FCC ruling (PRB-1), found that section of the Act to not apply to use of amateur radio facilities because that use does not fit the definition of "personal wireless services" because that amateur use is not for a fee. The definition of "Telecommunications Service" found in 47 USC §153(46) is: (46) Telecommunications service The term "telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used." (Emphasis added). Therefore, amateur radio services are not telecommunication services and not covered by the Federal Telecommunications Act. Quality Services Performed with Pride The federal telecommunications law does not define general "telecommunications facility" and only defines a "personal wireless services facility", which is a facility that provides "commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services." Nonetheless, one can apply the definition of "telecommunications service" to the term "telecommunications facility" and determine that the term does not apply to amateur radio towers under the federal law. The County Code definition of "wireless telecommunications facility," however, could be interpreted as including amateur radio facilities. That definition is as follows: "Wireless telecommunications facility" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure such as a self-supporting monopole or lattice tower, antennas, microwave dishes or other transmission and reception devices. This definition includes "personal wireless services facilities" as defined under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That definition includes "personal wireless services facilities" as merely a subset of what is a wireless telecommunications facility. Thus, the federal definition of "telecommunications services" is not applicable for interpreting the County Code for all telecommunications facilities. Another interpretation of the definition might be that it does not include amateur radio facilities because the towers are not "unstaffed" in that the towers are located on the same property as the users. If the Board chooses not to adopt any new amateur radio tower regulations and to interpret the current County Code, contrary to staff's interpretation, to include amateur radio facilities as a "wireless telecommunications facilities", then those facilities would be regulated by the provisions in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 18.116.250. The Tier 3 facility, which would be the type of facility that would be most likely requested by the many amateur radio tower owners that testified at the hearing, requires the application of DCC 18.128.340, which lists the conditional use criteria objected to by those same tower owners. If the Board interprets DCC 18.116.250 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as applicable to amateur radio towers, the Board will need to make findings as to why those regulations are the "minimum practicable regulation" necessary to accomplish the purpose of the county." ORS 221.295 and 47 C.F.R. 97.15 (the federal regulations adds "legitimate" to "purpose."). No findings were attached to the previous ordinances that resulted in DCC 18.116.250 that explained how the county's wireless telecommunications regulations fit within those guidelines. If the Board decides to adopt new amateur radio facility regulations, the Board will have to adopt similar findings. The Board will have to make findings that clearly articulate the county's legitimate purposes and why the new regulations are the minimum practicable regulations to achieve those purposes. 2 2. Aesthetic Findings Public testimony pointed out that the Deschutes County Code Zoning Purpose statement does not list scenic/open space value for all zoning districts. It was claimed that the County cannot make aesthetic (scenic vista) findings for amateur radio facilities for those zones in which the purpose statements do not include an aesthetic purpose. The following Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan statements clearly identify scenic value throughout the County: • Chapter 23.24.020 Rural Development clearly states Goal A. "To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the County." • Chapter 23.88 Agricultural Lands states "Agriculture also provides secondary benefits such as open space and scenic appearance...." • Chapter 23.92 Forest Lands also refers to "the `beauty' in Deschutes County is directly related to the large expanse of forestland." • Chapter 23.96 Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality states in Goal V 'To conserve open spaces and areas of historic, natural or scenic resources." The policies section identifies the Landscape Management Combining zone. Specifically, Policy 6 states "Its primary purpose is to require site plan review to maintain structures compatible with the site and existing scenic vistas, rather than establish arbitrary standards for appearance or to otherwise restrict construction of appropriate structures." Aesthetic findings for the preservation of scenic values and appearances throughout rural Deschutes County could be made by the "Board" based on these Comprehensive Plan statements. 3. State Statute Compliance Do the two proposals meet the intent of the State Statute ORS 221.295? 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] Streamline Proposal meets the intent of State Statute 221.295 and PRB-1 based on the following: • This proposal does not place a limit on the height of the amateur radio facilities • At this time health issues have not been identified with amateur radio facilities and federal administrative rulings and case laws have found that federal laws preempts any potential regulations based on radio frequencies. 3 Safety issues are addressed with the requirement of a building permit and provide proof of Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and Oregon Department of Aviation licenses. Aesthetic concerns have been addressed with design criteria such as, applying galvanized non-reflective metal, the prohibition of the placement of any signs or light upon the amateur radio facility, and the requirement of yard setbacks for antenna structures. Planning Commission Recommendation is more restrictive than state statute. This proposal requires neighborhood site plan review for facilities over 75 feet. • The "Board" must make aesthetic or safety findings based on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code which clearly identify the preservation of scenic views and open space identified in the Chapters listed above. • The "Board" must also clearly identify the aesthetic or safety objectives of Deschutes County that represent the minimum practicable regulation. 4 November 26, 2007 TO: Deschutes County Commissioners and Planning Department From: James A Williams (WA7TYD ) PO 2056 16125 Sparks Drive La Pine, Oregon 97739 Subject: Armature Radio (HAM) Towers and Antennas To who this might concern. For many years our county has existed just fine without some kind of county regulations on HAM Radio towers and Antennas. That is because they are covered by the FCC. For many years they have not been a problem, just like the towers up on Aubrey Butte. Then along comes someone who does not understand why they are there and what they are for. They want them removed because they don't like them. The HAM's that own and operate them are volunteers. They install the system at no expense to anyone but their selves. These towers are used for their hobby but also serve as an emergency communication system for the United States of America and the World. This is not to mention the good that is done for Deschutes County. In times of disasters around the country or world the people who own this equipment provide at no cost the emergency communications needed until commercial communications can resume normal operation. Now in order to provide this service, an antenna system is needed. It is more effective to install a good antenna system than to run lots of power. The system is only as good as to what it can hear. That is why an operator with one of the higher class of licenses can and does install such a system. You look at your cell phone and your computer system and think that you are just fine. They are the first things to go out of service when a disaster strikes. In a matter of just a few minutes a HAM living in the disaster area can rig up some sort of an antenna with what remains and get on the air with a weak signal. A good station with a very good antenna system can now hear them and communicate with them. From that point the Red Cross can work with the local HAM's in the disaster area and start getting the needed help. In our county we also have what you see and hear are repeaters. Our local search and rescue units use them to have communications for the volunteer assistance that they give the county. This is done with a repeater up high on a hilltop and a small antenna system or even a hand held radio to operate it with. That is OK for the county but after that it is extremely limited. That is where the HF system comes to life. That is the tall towers you see around the country. These are people that have taken the extra step and got the education and knowledge to use and operate such a system. The BF HAM frequencies have daily nets where the system is tested and perfected in order to be prepared for any disaster that might hit the State of Oregon. We also have the same thing for the State of Alaska. It was used during the 1964 earthquake. The people who are HAM's are also volunteers. These are people that you will find in search and rescue groups, serve the needs of the Sheriff Department, provide communications for the Red Cross and provide services for the Fire Departments like we do in La Pine. By imposing this form of regulations you will be limiting the volunteer services that we provide Deschutes County, the State of Oregon, the United States of America and the World. I would really like to think you do not want to do that. There might be one new antenna tower installed each year in Deschutes County and maybe one in the 100-foot class every ten years because of the cost involved. I feel this is not a problem for our area and the issue should be dropped. I am a retired electrician, high voltage utility worker, electrical inspector for Deschutes County. I am a volunteer with the La Pine Fire Department. I volunteer with the Red Cross and set up the emergency communication system at the Sky View School when the Black Crater fire hit Sisters area. I have been a Ham for over 36 years, I own and operate two VHF repeaters on emergency power in Southern Deschutes County. My wife and I have been volunteers all of our adult life. We plan on keeping it that way. My wife is KA7QAV is also a HAM I would hope that you give this matter some very serious consideration and be aware of what you might be losing for our or others life and safety. Jim Williams WA7TYD Kristen Maze From: kenlakin@bendbroadband.com Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:03 AM To: Kristen Maze Subject: Amateur Radio Antenna Tower Issue Deschutes County Commissioners, To introduce myself; I am a retired physicists and electrical engineer, a Life Fellow of the international IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers), and have been a radio amateur for over 50 years. I live in the Tetherow Crossing subdivision northwest of Redmond, on the Deschutes River and within the quarter mile scenic area (Thus a radio tower is not a likely possibility for me.). Ham radio is a very diverse group. An FCC Commissioner recently joked at a large ham meeting that "If there are three hams in a town there will be two radio clubs..." The point he was trying to get across was that the FCC and other governing bodies have to address the issue of ham radio in the broad context and not just the concerns of one sub-group or another. For example, the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) is a very narrow subset of ham radio. I was a MARS member in Iowa for ten years and assistant state director for a period of time. During Desert Storm I spent over 20 hours a week handling health and welfare traffic, so I know a lot about the MARS system. That message traffic system was narrowly confined to local state message handling and we had no need for towers and high antennas. The tower issue is complex. For a ham, not having an antenna is like having a car with no road to drive it on. As a kid I had a beam antenna on an old windmill tower on the farm in Michigan. It was fantastic and I could make contacts all over the world even Russia during the cold war. (Yes, the Russian government felt ham radio was so important that they let their hams talk to others outside the country.) So how high should a tower be? Most hams would truthfully answer "the higher the better", which is technically correct. Hams who communicate by bouncing signals off the moon would opt for very wide antennas but maybe not so high off the ground. You will not get a single simple answer to that question because there is none. In my opinion the issue of antenna height should be one of safety only. Could it fall on a neighbor's property? If so there should be a setback requirement. For liability reasons, tower manufacturers have very conservative engineered details on how to erect their towers and most hams follow those guidelines when installing a tower. The scenic obstruction issue is a complex judgment call, I don't envy you your job on that issue. The house built across the river from me obstructed my view of the natural scenic river and wild area and probably decreased my property's value. But I knew that might happen when I bought my house. I also knew that property values as such are not protected, not from ham antennas, not from nearby houses, and much of anything else. Blight is in the eyes of the beholder. The lady who rides her horse down my street and leaves behind piles of horse manure probably does not consider that a scenic blight or worse. Aubrey Butte used to be a nice scenic wooded area in the city of Bend is urban blight too strong a wording to describe the area now? Ham antennas should be considered tolerable just like so many other things are in our lives. They are certainly not the worst offenders that might mar our scenic areas. I respectively urge you to give ham radio antennas the widest latitude possible and look to the Beaverton and Washington County statues as possible models. Thank you, Ken Lakin 6560 NW Atkinson Ave Redmond, OR 97756 541-923-1013 1 Page 1 of 3 Kristen Maze From: Dave Kanner Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:09 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: FW: ham radio antennas. how high is high enough. From: The Culvers [mailto:culvers@bendcable.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:42 PM To: Board Cc: knshenm@co.deschutes.or.us Subject: ham radio antennas. how high is high enough. To the Board of County Commissioners and the rest of Deschutes county My name is David Culver, I live at 370 N. Tamarack street. in Sisters. I hold a Extra Class Ham radio license and have been licensed by the Federal government since 1991. 1 attempted to address the board at the November 26th hearing. With a question. I feel I failed, Why? Because the subject of Ham Radio is so broad and complex. Ham radio is very delicate in operation, It is comprised Of many complex parts, and just like a hospital works well because many people in the technical field of medicine come together to make for many successful outcomes ( We hope) Many of us in ham radio pool our resources to provide a combined public resource for the benefit of all. Many parts coming together is why it works, It is not broken and does not need fixed. Please do not alter the delicate balance that comprises the working of Ham Radio. I know you heard from Search and Rescue, Army MARS, DX Club, High desert emergency group, Central Oregon Radio Amateurs, and Sisters Repeater group. As well as many independent unaffiliated Hams. I think the only thing we have in common is we all use some KIND of antenna and not the same kind. There is no one kind of Antenna that will do all things at all times, Neither Is there one Medicine that will cure all ill's. I personally Have antennas from 400 feet long to about 6 inches, More than 10 in total, I operate on frequencies starting just above the Broadcast AM radio band at 1.8 Megacycles and my equipments ability to 11/29/2007 Page 2 of 3 transmit ends at 450 megacycles that's within short range public service frequency range. Why Do I tell you this? Because You need to know what you are dealing with. It is complex and is done with volunteers' that can take NO money for their services, as a condition of my license and BY LAW. Money is tight, and doesn't grow on trees and just imagine if Hospitals were run with just volunteers that could take, by law, NO MONEY. Probably would not work. But Ham radio has demonstrated time and again that it does work and while we as Hams, stand ready to serve we need all our resources' to make it work. I hope you noticed at the hearing on the 26th that there were estimates' of 10 to 50 towers. Estimates' of only 3-5 Mars stations, of 500-700 Hams total. And probably no 2 have the same station in operation, we do not have the same capability's, There are three classes of license, the higher the license class the more frequencies you can use. That is how Ham radio works, we cooperate to a common end, and in a emergency it works well. Please do not cripple our abilities. The question about HOW HIGH is HIGH ENOUGH, The answer is that Electrical Power has certain needs that have to be met for a desired result to happen. The wire has to be big enough to handle the amount of current, or length of run. (look at extension cord run charts), The antenna has to be high enough to Transmit to those desiring to hear what is being transmitted and that depends on what frequency is being used and what the time of day and what year it is in the sun spot cycle. (11year cycle) and like everyone else you can only conform to the laws of physics. A good rule of thumb concerning height is that heights should be about half the frequency in meters. Too short and all the power goes up and IF you are ARMY mars and only need to talk 300-1200 miles on frequencies of 3-8 megacycles approximately. Then a long (120feet) and shot in height antenna will work fine. But Army mars using vertical launch will not hear the family in danger of Drowning in their attic in Louisiana as a result of Katrina. That Family was heard in Portland Oregon and the Information was relayed to the appropriate rescue agency and saved by way of Ham Radio. (Some Ham had a good antenna.) Army mars by no means only uses vertical launch antennas, they use long range, and high antennas too. 11/29/2007 Page 3 of 3 What Frequency do you use and when. A good rule of thumb is Listen first, if you can hear it you can probably talk there maybe and if a lot of other things do and don't happen. Look at part 15 of the FCC rules and regulations, that is to be found in almost anything electronic in nature , phones. Radios. Ect, ect. Please dig up a old instruction manual for a telephone or tv and you will find part 15. it"s the worst thing ever thought up but it keeps the cost of what we buy low. Interference is a big issue, High antenna interfere less. End of physics and ham radio I lesson. If you think you want to be a ham please give me a call. Thank you . David R.Culver 420-1459. sisters. 11/29/2007 22920 Superior Ct. Bend, Or 97702-9271 November 29, 2007 Deschutes County Community Development Commission 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR Re: Pending Code Amendments TA-06-10 Dear Commissioners, request that SERIOUS consideration be given to my request that Amateur Radio Stations and their operators be granted an exemption from County Wireless regulations with the only limitation being that self-supporting towers or masts be set-back from the property line by at least 1/3 the height of the structure. My reasons for this request can be summarized as: 1. Amateur Radio is fully and adequately controlled by existing federal and state regulations. 2. Amateur Radio is an essential public communications resource in emergencies. 3. Amateur Radio has been and continues to be a PRIMARY source of technical information, invention, and development. 4. Amateur Radio provides a cadre of self-trained experts that are available as both operators and technical trainers during national emergencies. 5. Continued contributions from this "national treasure" must not be unnecessarily restricted (economically or physically). I retired from forty-five years of employment as an engineer in 1995. In 1990 my wife and I explored various locations as a retirement home. After several inquiries of the Planning Department, we purchased a ten-acre site based on their assurances that there were NO restrictions on erecting amateur radio antennas (other than the FAA and FCC requirements for tower illumination and runway clearance). We built our home in 1997. After having lived most of my life in cities where it was not practical to experiment with various types of antenna structures, it was a delight to now be able to do so. Therefore I was very disappointed to find out that there were now plans to severely restrict Amateur antenna structures in rural county areas. There really is NO justification for such regulation because Amateur Radio is already fully controlled and licensed by the FCC. Their rules clearly state that no unnecessary restrictions should be placed on licensed Amateurs by state, county or city governments. In previous public hearings on this subject there has been voluminous testimony as to the value of Amateur stations in supplying emergency communications. However, there are many other reasons why Amateur Radio has been preserved and encouraged by federal authorities over the last nearly one hundred years. Amateur Radio is a "national treasure". It consists of persons who have passed a technical and administrative examination in order to qualify for a license. That license entitles the holder to design, construct, modify, and operate radio equipment in portions of the radio spectrum specifically assigned to them. The examination assures that the holder has sufficient technical education to be able to do these things without causing interference to other services, and to assure that electromagnetic radiation will be below the safe limits for persons in proximity to the station. In times of national emergency the government can call upon this cadre of trained persons to provide technical skills and act as instructors in training schools. I was first licensed as a Ham during WWII. As a teenager I received several letters from the Army and Navy requesting that I notify them if I volunteered or was drafted for service because they valued my license and had a place to use me. I served during the Korean War and when they found that I had both amateur and commercial licenses, they assigned me to teach in a radio communications school. Later I served as chief engineer of an Armed Forces Radio Service station in Japan. A very large percentage of patents issued in the communications field were issued to Hams. The Cubical Quad antenna, the super heterodyne receiver (i.e. nearly all modern radio receivers), the Lamb crystal filter, and frequency modulation are only a few of the contributions of Hams. Amateurs were the first to prove that short-wave radio stations could span the Atlantic Ocean with very low power. Their experiments with very short waves made such things as RADAR possible. I am very interested in designing new and improved antennas. I purchased a computer program that allows me to model various types of antennas and estimate their performance. However, it is necessary to construct a working model in order to confirm performance. That is why I live on a ten-acre parcel of land in the county with room to do so. As was pointed out during the public hearings, the size of an antenna is related to the wavelength on which it operates. Some antenna designs (e.g. large horizontal loops) require multiple supporting structures. The height of an antenna above ground contributes to the way in which the radio waves develop and thus the angle at which they leave the earth and bounce off (or are absorbed by) the ionosphere. Placing unnecessary restrictions on the height and number of supporting structures limits the ability to experiment. Some persons have raised objections to the "looks" of an antenna structure. This is strictly a matter of personal opinion. Is the Eiffel tower a work of art or an ugly eyesore? Such differences should be settled on an individual case-by-case basis and cannot rationally be settled by an ordinance. The question of structural safety can be settled by a simple rule that is supported by many years of engineering experience. Towers (masts, columns, etc.) that fail do not fall in a straight line. They break or collapse, and this is true whether they are self-supporting or guyed. Thus, a setback of 1/3 of the height of the structure from the property line assures that the structure will not fall onto an adjoining property. This rule is not really needed for guyed structures because an even greater setback is needed to provide room for the guy wires. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, John E. Ogden, W9CZ Amateur Extra class, Commercial Radiotelephone 1 srt class (now General Radiotelephone), Radio Telegraph 2nd class (now obsolete), B.S. Mathematics, B.S. Physics, Registered Professional Engineer (California, retired) Page 1 of 2 Kristen Maze From: Patricia Cook [wd6ecc@dishmail.net) Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:04 PM To: Kristen Maze; Kristen Maze Subject: Pending code amendment TA-06-10 Kristen, I was at the meeting on the 26th Of November. There were a couple of points that I felt were in need of clearing up. 1. The military gentleman stated that he got out with a very low antenna. He did state it was about 900 miles. In the Katrina emergency we had hams in Canada passing messages to US stations. Without high towers we would not have gotten those messages to the right people. The band he uses is not required to reach out any farther than the 900 miles he stated. 2. In an Urban area it is safer for people to have an antenna higher. We do think of other people when we put our towers up. As a mater of fact other than a few obnoxious people the amateur radio people are very considerate to their neighbors. 3. One other point I would like to point out is that a lot of the ham community put together emergency trailers with supplies like generators, antennas, radios, and yes towers at our own expense to help in times of need. We train together to make a very efficient team to work with police, fire, and rescue. And communication with hospitals. This does take having a good antenna system . Most of us try very hard to do the right thing and we feel like we are being punished for one persons pigheadedness. Consider this, I had a friend who is a ham he is legaly blind and on a pension, but he is part of the emergency team . He was a big help to people in the floods in Yuba City Ca. with communication to the hospitals. Thank you for your consideration. Patricia Cook wd6ecc Ted Cook w7xrx POBox 3454 La Pine,Or. 97739 12/3/2007 Page 1 of 2 Kristen Maze From: Rkdietsch@aol.com Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:11 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: ham towers Hi. I was at the meeting, and I did speak, but I was so nervous that even though I had my statement written out, I still skipped over things I wanted to say. So, I decided to send the missing parts and my observations of the public meeting to you. As I had stated, my neighbor across the road put in a 30-35 foot ham tower. They located it to the south of their house in a location where they cannot see it from their front and back porches, but where I have to look at it from every front window of my house. When I asked if it could be moved or hidden, I was told if I didn't like it, to go sit on my back porch. As far as I'm concerned, not only did I lose my view, but my property value has gone down because of the location of their tower, plus it's going to take longer to sell, to find a buyer willing to look at it. I'm also concerned about my TV reception being disrupted when the radio is in use because it has been my experience this does happen. When I talk about "my view" I'm not just talking about the mountain tops I can see, but what I see at ground level. To me, a metal tower is no different from a bunch of rusting cars or an ugly metal fence. It is an eyesore. And with the location of my neighbor's tower, out of their view, they think it is an eyesore also. Additionally, I do have some things to say about what went on in the meeting. It seems to me that all the ham tower proponents who spoke, basically wrapped themselves in the American flag and bullied all that dared to speak against them as if the questioner was attacking the flag. They all seemed to think they, and only they, could do what they wanted, when they wanted and neighbors/the county be damned. Not unlike my own neighbors. I am just as much an American as the ham operators are. I was offended by their behavior. From what I understand the Federal rules allow local governments to consider the visual impact these towers have on the neighbors and the surrounding area. The ham operators seem to think to do so was an affront to the flag. I hope the commission can see past their huffing and puffing and consider the impact these towers (and shorter ones) have for everyone and understand they are within Federal statutes to require a conditional permit for neighborhood input. I do not want to stop these ham operators from practicing their hobby (and it is only a hobby), I just want their hobby not to infringe on their neighbors. I live in the Cimmeron City subdivision between McGrath Rd and Powell Butte Hwy, a residential/ag use area. I would like to run a small dog boarding facility and I understand that I need a conditional use permit. What I want to do would be my livelihood, not a hobby. And even I understand the need for a conditional permit as this could impact the neighborhood. I am asking that a conditional permit process be created, requiring neighbor input a a primary criteria. I do not believe this is an undue imposition on ham operators. I would also request that the placement of any tower allowed, be required to be located so that the owners of said tower have a full view of it so that they can truly enjoy their hobby to the fullest. I am also asking an immediate moratorium on installing towers be enacted, until such time as a final policy is decided upon, as my neighbors mentioned already, are planning on installing a second, taller and retractable tower. This tower will need cement footing and I am petrified as to what I will have to look at, given that they have no concern about the neighborhood's character or their neighbor's views. There was a gentleman from Beaverton who spoke at the meeting. He seemed (as did all the ham operators there) that it is wrong to require to screen the towers, even the lower half. I see it as being a good neighbor. That is all I am asking for. And while the current ruling is on 75 ft or taller towers, it is my hope the Commission will also consider the impact of 30-75 foot towers on the neighborhood also. 12/3/2007 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your time and consideration. Ronelle Dietsch Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007. 12/3/2007 Page 1 of 2 Kristen Maze From: Darrell Fevergeon [darrell@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:03 PM To: Kristen Maze Cc: Board Subject: Amateur Radio Towers December 3, 2007 Greetings, This is my plea that you DROP your possible zone changes to requirements and fees for Amateur Radio Towers. Please change your code to PRE-2000. This was when Amateur Radio Towers were EXEMPT. As they should be. I lived in Southern California during the devastating Sylmar Earthquake. I lived about 70 miles from the epicenter. As you may know, almost all phone, cell phones and other communications were interrupted by this earthquake. Some, for weeks. After feeling the quake, I turned on my Amateur Radio. Within 15 minutes, I had heard from many Amateur Radio Operators near the epicenter. Many of us Amateur Radio Operators quickly had a long list of: -Streets that were broken and were in flames because of ruptured natural gas lines -Areas without power -Broken bridges (Sadly, long before the CA Highway Patrol Officer perished as he drove his vehicle off the overpass that had missing sections) -Intersections with traffic accidents -Collapsed and damaged homes, businesses and apartments -Collapsed hospital wing -and much, much more. If there were not already towers in place (along with backup power), emergency personnel would have not learned about these many needs nearly as quickly! This is critical! It is true that in the events of major fires, the National Forest Service/BLM have the resources to helicopter radio equipment to specific mountain tops for communication. However, this will take a lot of valuable time and their resources are limited and we can not count on them. However, in Descutes County, we NEED to have Amateur Radio Towers and Repeater Towers ALREADY RUNNING AND READY TO GO BEFORE an emergency. Be assured that we will be there to assist in the event of an emergency! However, if we cannot have these few towers, we will be very limited! Please understand this. Amateur Radio Operators are NOT LIKE commercial radio or cell phones or even County/city radios. Most of us are private citizens and struggling to purchase equipment. Fees, neighborhood meetings, hearings, building plans etc, etc, etc will essentially shut us down. This is NOT in the best interest of our great county, state or nation. These proposed restrictions are EXTREMELY unusual anywhere in our country!! I suspect that there has been no county in our entire country with such restrictions. These proposals are harmful, unusual and unnecessary. Please decide to NOT regulate Amateur Radio towers. The best move would be to go back to the intended wording prior to 2000 and keep our towers EXEMPT. 12/3/2007 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Darrell Fevergeon KD6WWK Bonnie Fevergeon KE6GOQ 20911 Clear View Ct Bend OR 97702 12/3/2007 Page 1 of 2 Kristen Maze From: Gerald Thye [wOglt@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:44 AM To: Kristen Maze Subject: HAM RADIO TOWER PROJECT To be entered into the files concerning the "Ham Radio Tower" issue. PLEASE VERIFY RECEIPT BY SENDING THIS DOCUMENT BACK TO THE SENDER. kristenm@co.deschutes.or.us Mr. Dennis Luke Mr. Mike Daily Ms. Tammy Baney Towers manufactured by commercial companies have engineering credentials attached to them. The county should respect professional engineering and accept commercially manufactured towers as meeting required specifications. The towers used by the Amateur radio community are the same as manufactures sell to the military, embassies, government agencies etc. After all it is in the amateur's best interest to assure that what is erected is able to meet or exceed the specs. It is his/her property and one would assume that he/she wants the structure to remain in place which makes county regulation of the engineering pertaining to commercial towers redundant. Concerning transmitted RF (Radio Frequency) Energy harming people. The FCC, working with the ARRL (American Radio Relay League), has published criteria to keep people from harmful radiated energy. The ARRL continues to publish articles in their monthly magazine and have available on their web site instructions about the process of making sure your antenna system is not producing energy levels harmful to people. It takes into account power, distance, and frequency, the three dynamics involved with this topic. Without subjecting you to the theory on this issue let me give you a simple example. A common device used for decades to show if power to an appliance is on, like an electrical kitchen range, mixer, toaster, is the neon bulb with a part number of NE-2. This is a small encapsulated clear glass bulb with neon gas inside and two wires protruding through the glass envelope. This device will show if an appliance is powered when a switch is positioned, on, allowing current/voltage to flow through the two wires activating the neon gas. Take this same device, NE-2, and bring it very close to a radiating antenna element (1/64" or less). If the antenna is driven with enough power, a few watts, the energy surrounding the antenna wire or small metal tube will be enough to make the NE-2 glow. The NE-2 is responding to the voltage that is on antennas. As the NE-2 is moved away a 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 very small amount (say 3/64") the glow will disappear do the fact that the radiated energy received is reduced by a large factor with only a very small increase in distance from the radiating element. The point of all this has to do with antenna height. The further off the ground the antenna, the safer the energy levels for living things. I wanted to bring up one item while discussing the Search & Rescue process. Three weeks ago when the search for the professor was in the first day there were many resources on the ground and in the air supporting that search. Civil Air Patrol was task with the job of being "High Bird". What that means is that we were the communication platform for relaying between the people on the ground and their command communication center. The portable repeaters had not yet been set up. It turned out that the military helicopter involved in the search lost some its radio communication ability. We then became a radio tool to their command control base. The point of all this is the higher the antenna the greater the ability to provide communication. As to the Army gentleman and his discussion about a low to the ground antenna system providing "umbrella" like radio coverage. He is a member of MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System). I think his comment about the length of the antenna was misinterpreted. It appeared to the hams in attendance the Commissioners had a vision of vertical distance rather than the total length of a horizontal wire several feet above ground when they heard a figure of 190 feet. The diagram showing the two property lots and where the antenna was placed needs explanation. The antenna and its efficiency depend somewhat on the ground it is over. Sea shore makes a better radio ground than does sandy desert areas. To think the person who erected the antenna had any dark purpose and located the antenna close to his neighbor for spite or such is absurd. I would bet the antenna was located over the best, most conductive soil convenient to his "Ham Shack" or place where he operates his radio station from. I wish to again state there should not be a regulatory connection between commercial cell phone towers and antenna systems and those of the amateur radio community. Sincerely, Jerry Thye, Major CAP Commander High Desert Composite Squadron 11/28/2007 RE EIV BY. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 - 1900 SUBJECT: Recent Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Dear Sirs and Madam; DEC 1 0 2007 uftIVE~ C.) A number of people gave oral testimony during your hearing on November 26, 2007. Most of the testimony was cogent and to the point but a small amount was either erroneous or misleading in some way or another.. I am a member of the Communications Team of the Deschutes County Sheriff's Search and Rescue Unit (DCSSAR), I am a Radio Amateur with the highest level license (Amateur Extra), I am a former Platoon and Company Commander in a US Army Corps Signal Battalion. I am also a member of the Deschutes County Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES) and a member of the Oregon State Fire Marshall Overhead Communications Team. I believe I can speak with some knowledge of the issues. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify or correct some of the oral testimony that you heard. With respect to testimony given by the Military Amateur Radio Service (MARS) member, the impression he may have given about the use of Near Vertical Incident Skywave (NVIS) propagation, I believe its use on Search and Rescue missions would be highly problematical. At Fire Marshall training sessions and on readiness tests of ARES this method has been used or demonstrated. It requires relatively high power and a stationary station. Its use would not be feasible for SAR units in the field, who carry lightweight, portable, low power hand transceivers. It would be folly for us to rely on this mode of communication. Our little private joke has been that this method together with a cell phone works well. I fear the testimony may have given a wrong impression regarding the reliability and usefulness of this mode. Mr. Ken Rennick, the attorney for Mr. Swiney, made a point that may not have been given proper emphasis. This was with respect to the ruling regarding a lawsuit in which a plaintiff complained the construction of a barn had blocked his or her view of the mountains. The ruling of the court was that absent deed restrictions on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land, there is no particular "right" to an existing view. This is a particularly germane point to the issue under review. One of you Commissioners asked a question regarding how range of reception of a groundwave signal is related to antenna height. The answer given, that range depended upon a number of factors, including differences in soil, presence of mountains, trees, lakes etc., is correct. However, the most immediate dependency, at least to a first approximation, is that the range of a signal is proportional to the square root of the antenna height and the other factors are of secondary importance. Thus, if one doubles the antenna height, the range can be expected to increase by the square root of two, or 1.4 times. It would be nice if there were a better mathematical relationship, but this is the physical reality, and one cannot `argue with Mother Nature'; it is still much more advantageous to heighten antennas than to increase the transmission power. I believe most of the people in the room were sympathetic to the plight of the neighbors, however it's difficult at this point to remedy the situation, since none is available. On two different properties that we own or once owned my wife and I have experienced the same frustration over the loss of a view after something similar was done. Unfortunately for us, there was no redress available either. Very truly yours. John W. Barton 2406 NW Summerhill Drive Bend, OR 97701 Rex A. Auker 62575 Stenkamp Road Bend, Oregon 97701 December 10, 2007 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED BY.- ' DEC 1 0 2007 DEY!!E ~ Y: /CO-x 1 ~c--- The purpose of this letter is to respond to Community Development Department memorandum of November 29, 2001 (December 5, 20U I), Subject: Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10 Record (Enclosure 1). That memorandum addresses three important issues. 1. First Issue: Does the wireless telecommunications code apply to amateur radio? a. We must be careful to use words accurately, precisely and in the appropriate context. The definition of a wireless telecommunications facility that appears in DCC 18.04.030 does not attempt to address the general field of wireless telecommunications or wireless telecommunications services. Its aim is limited to the regulation of the physical structures and equipment that are used in wireless telecommunications. b. The CDD memo addresses the topic "(46) Telecommunications service" and makes reference to "amateur radio services", "personal wireless services facilities", "commercial radio mobile services", etc. We must be careful to observe the distinction between a "service" and a "facility". DCC 18.04.030 and the related codes concerning wireless telecommunications facilities make no attempt to regulate telecommunications "services", rather their aim is to regulate telecommunications "facilities". c. The CDD memo refers to the DCC 18.04.030 definition of wireless telecommunications facility and declares, the federal definition of "telecommunications services' is not applicable for interpreting the County code for all telecommunications facilities." I concur. d. The CDD memo addresses the term "unstaffed" as it appears in the DCC 18.04.030 definition of wireless telecommunications facility. I also addressed that issue in my letter to the Board of Commissioners dated December 3, 2007. Allow me to review and amplify: 1) 47 CFR Section 97.5(a) states that an amateur station apparatus must be under the physical control of a licensed operator before the station may transmit on any amateur service frequency from any place that is within 50 km of the surface of the earth and under the jurisdiction of the United States and the FCC. (Enclosure 2) This federal regulation can be used to shed light on the meaning of the word "unstaffed" in the Deschutes County Code, but it does not determine the county code definition of "unstaffed". 2) If the Board of Commissioners determines that the concept of a "staffed" facility in the county code is equivalent to the phrase "under the physical control of' in the federal code, then an amateur radio station in Deschutes County may be regarded as "staffed" only when it is energized and transmitting. At all other times, the amateur radio station should be regarded as "unstaffed". 3) The CDD memo states "Another interpretation of the definition [of a wireless telecommunications facility] might be that it does not include amateur radio facilities because the towers are not `unstaffed' in that the towers are located on the same property as the users." Such an interpretation is possible but problematic. What does `on the same property as the users' mean? Mr. Swaney's 120-foot tower is located on a piece of rental property that is a separate tax lot from his residence. It is my understanding that his receiver, transmitter, and microphone, etc. are located in his residence. In Mr. Swaney's case, the rental property is adjacent to his residence property, but what if an amateur operator decides to erect an antenna structure on a rental property far removed from his/her residence and operate it remotely from the residence? The provisions of 47 CFR Section 97.5(a) regarding the location of an amateur radio station are not relevant to Deschutes County Code except to affirm that amateur radio stations in Deschutes County are subject to regulation by the FCC. With regard to the county code, the location of a particular radio antenna structure is only relevant in determining whether it is to be classified as a Tier I, H or III wireless telecommunications facility. 4) It is important to make a distinction between the amateur radio station as a whole and the various components of the amateur radio station. A complete amateur radio station will normally consist of a microphone or telegraph key, a set of speakers or headphones, a transmitter, a receiver, a tuner, a power source/transformer, an antenna, and a variety of enclosures and support structures. These components can all be housed in one small enclosure - even as small as the plastic case of a hand-held "walkie-talkie"- or they can be housed in large separate enclosures - even separate buildings far distant from one another. 5) The language of the DCC 18.04.030 definition of a wireless telecommunications facility does not correlate to the definition of a complete amateur radio station. Rather, it aims primarily at regulating the radio frequency transmission and reception equipment that is located externally to structures that are regulated by other portions of the county code. For instance, the county code that addresses Tier I facilities, regulates an antenna structure on the roof of a private residence or a free-standing antenna structure in the backyard of a private residence, but it does not regulate the microphone, transmitter, receiver, etc. that may be located in a room inside the private residence. Neither does it regulate the private residence itself. The county code sections that address Tier III wireless telecommunications facilities regulate free-standing radio frequency transmission/reception structures and their associated cabinets or sheds, but only if the radio apparatus is external to other structures, such as barns and workshops, that are regulated by some other part of the county code. 6) The county code sections concerning wireless telecommunications facilities regulate associated equipment cabinets and sheds, but not the equipment within the cabinets and sheds. However, if the equipment shed is large enough to require its own building permit, it will be regulated as a separate structure apart from the other components of the wireless telecommunications facility. 2. Second Issue: Aesthetic Findings a. The CDD memo cites numerous references in the Deschutes County - Comprehensive Plan that identify the preservation of the scenic value and rural character of county lands as legitimate county government purposes. Do those references constitute "clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective(s)" as defined in state and federal statutes? Perhaps not in themselves, but when combined with the specific language of the code sections that address wireless telecommunications facilities, I would judge the county's aesthetic objectives to be clearly defined. 3. Third Issue: State Statute Compliance. a. The minutes of the meetings of the Deschutes County Planning Board during 2000 and 2001 provide substantial evidence that the matter of amateur radio stations was considered and decided at that time. It was the intention of the Planning Commission at that time to include amateur radio equipment under the definition of wireless telecommunications facilities. There is also evidence that the federal and state statutes regarding amateur radio were considered when the language of the current code was adopted. Conclusion: The language of the current code is not perfect, but taken as a whole, I believe that the county's existing regulations regarding wireless telecommunications facilities are well conceived and well written. When properly interpreted and judiciously enforced, I believe they will achieve the legitimate purposes of county government and also make reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operations. There is no need for new text amendments. Sincerely, Rex A. Auker ri t l~~ r. 0 L C e, CA- f Z~ ommunity Development Department Paanning Division. Building safety. Division Ertvironrnental :Health Division 117 OW Lafayette Avenue Bent( Pregon 97701-11926 {041')385-764 (54)308 6575. FAX http-.//-w►ww.co.deschutes:or-us/tddj Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Deschutes County Board of County Commission Kristen Maze, Laurie Craghead Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10 Record Purpose The following issues were identified at the November 26, 2007 public hearing before the Board of County Commissioner's ("Board"). Staff would like to address these issues for the Board's review and include them into the amateur radio text amendment record. Issues 1. Does the wireless telecommunications code apply to amateur radio facilities Does the definition of Wireless Telecommunications include amateur radio as a personal wireless communication service? The FCC determined in 1999 that amateur radio facilities are not regulated by Section 704 of the Federal Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996. That FCC order is included in the record. Section 704 is the section of that act that limits local governments' ability to regulation personal wireless services." That 1999 FCC ruling, which interpreted 1985 FCC ruling (PRB-1), found that section of the Act to not apply to use of amateur radio facilities because that use does not fit the definition of "personal wireless services" because that amateur use is not for a fee. The definition of "Telecommunications Service" found in 47 USC §153(46) is: (46) Telecommunications service The term "telecommunications service" means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used." (Emphasis added). Therefore, amateur radio services are not telecommunication services and not covered by the Federal Telecommunications Act. 11:,n1ifi. Cva-74n0c P0rfnsvssnd 714+4 1344.40 p fJ The federal telecommunications law does not define general "telecommunications facility" and only defines a "personal wireless services facility", which is a facility that provides "commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services." Nonetheless, one can apply the definition of telecommunications service" to the term telecommunications facility and determine that the term does not apply to amateur radio towers under the federal law. The County Code definition of "wireless telecommunications facility," however, could be interpreted as including amateur radio facilities. That definition is as follows: "Wireless telecommunications facility" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure such as a self-supporting monopole or lattice tower, antennas, microwave dishes or other transmission and reception devices. This definition includes "personal wireless services facilities" as defined under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That definition includes "personal wireless services facilities" as merely a subset of what is a wireless telecommunications facility. Thus, the federal definition of "telecommunications services" is not applicable for interpreting the County Code for all telecommunications facilities. "Another interpretation of the definition might be that it does not include amateur radio facilities because the towers are not "unstaffed" in that the towers are located on the same property as the users. If the Board chooses not to adopt any new amateur radio tower regulations and to interpret the current County Code, contrary to staff's interpretation, to include amateur radio facilities as a "wireless telecommunications facilities", then those facilities would be regulated by the, provisions in Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 18.116.250. The Tier 3 facility, which would be the type of facility that would be most likely requested by the many amateur radio tower owners that testified at the hearing, requires the application of DCC 18.128.340, which lists the conditional use criteria objected to by those same tower owners. If the Board interprets DCC 18.116.250 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities as applicable to amateur radio towers, the Board will need to make findings as to why those regulations are the "minimum practicable regulation" necessary to accomplish the purpose of the county." ORS 221.295 and 47 C.F.R. 97.15 (the federal regulations adds "legitimate" to "purpose."). No findings were attached to the previous ordinances that resulted in DCC 18.116.250 that explained how the county's wireless telecommunications regulations fit within those guidelines. If the Board decides to adopt new amateur radio facility regulations, the Board will have to adopt similar findings. The Board will have to make findings that clearly articulate the county's legitimate purposes and why the new regulations are the minimum practicable regulations to achieve those purposes. ~vt~-roc ~}-~'.e 2 2. Aesthetic Findings Public testimony pointed out that the Deschutes County Code Zoning Purpose statement does not list scenic/open space value for all zoning districts. It was claimed that the County cannot make aesthetic (scenic vista) findings for amateur radio facilities for those zones in which the purpose statements do not include an aesthetic purpose. The following Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan statements clearly identify scenic value throughout the County: Chapter 23.24.020 Rural Development clearly states Goal A. "To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the County." • Chapter 23.88 Agricultural Lands states "Agriculture also provides secondary benefits such as open space and scenic appearance...." • Chapter 23.92 Forest Lands also refers to "the `beauty' in Deschutes County is directly related to the large expanse of forestland." • Chapter 23.96 Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality states in Goal 1:"To conserve open spaces and areas of historic, natural or scenic resources." The policies section identifies the Landscape Management Combining zone. Specifically, Policy 6 states "Its primary purpose is to require site plan review to maintain structures compatible with the site and existing scenic vistas, rather than establish arbitrary standards for appearance or to otherwise restrict construction of appropriate structures." Aesthetic findings for the preservation of scenic values and appearances throughout rural Deschutes County could be made by the "Board" based on these Comprehensive Plan statements. 3. State Statute Compliance Do the two proposals meet the intent of the State Statute ORS 221.295? Notwithstanding ORS chapters 295 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] Streamline Proposal meets the intent of State Statute 221.295 and PRB-1 based on the following: • This proposal does not place a limit on the height of the amateur radio facilities • At this time health issues have not been identified with amateur radio facilities and federal administrative rulings and case laws have found that federal laws preempts any potential regulations based on radio frequencies. ~Vtc(pGJ~ l r-1 Safety issues are addressed with the requirement of a building permit and provide proof of Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration and Oregon Department of Aviation licenses. Aesthetic concerns have been addressed with design criteria such as, applying galvanized non-reflective metal, the prohibition of the placement of any signs or light upon the amateur radio facility, and the requirement of yard setbacks for antenna structures. Planning Commission Recommendation is more restrictive than state statute. This proposal requires neighborhood site plan review for facilities over 75 feet. • The "Board" must make aesthetic or safety findings based on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code which clearly identify the preservation of scenic views and open space identified in the Chapters listed above. • The "Board" must also clearly identify the aesthetic or safety objectives of Deschutes County that represent the minimum practicable regulation. 4 F.q § 97.5 (11) W. Watts. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to § 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emis- sion, modulation and transmission char- acteristics, for information on emission type designators. (1) CW. International Morse code te- legraphy emissions having designators with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol; and emissions J2A and J2B. (2) Data. Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emis- sions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; D as the third sym- bol; and emission J2D. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted. (3) Image. Facsimile and television emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; C or F as the third symbol; and emissions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; W as the third symbol. (4) MCW. Tone-modulated inter- national Morse code telegraphy emis- sions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H or R as the first symbol; 2 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol. (5) Phone. Speech and other sound emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. Also speech emis- sions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. MCW for the purpose of performing the station identification procedure, or for providing telegraphy practice interspersed with speech. Inci- dental tones for the purpose of selec- tive calling or alerting or to control the level of a demodulated signal may also be considered phone. (6) Pulse. Emissions having designa- tors with K, L, M, P, Q, V or W as the first symbol; 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 or X as the second symbol; A, B, C, D, E, F, N, W or X as the third symbol. (7) RTTY. Narrow-band direct-print- ing telegraphy emissions having des- ignators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second 47 CFR Ch. 1 (10-1-06 Edition) symbol; B as the third symbol; and emission J2B. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. (9) Test. Emissions containing no in- formation having the designators with N as the third symbol. Test does not include pulse emissions with no infor- mation or modulation unless pulse emissions are also authorized in the frequency band. [54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 29, Jan. 2,1991; 56 FR 56171, Nov. 1, 1991; 59 FR 18975, Apr. 21, 1994; 60 FR 7460, Feb. 8, 1995; 62 FR 17567, Apr. 10, 1997; 63 FR 68977, Dec. 14,1998; 64 FR 51471, Sept. 23,1999; 66 FR 20752, Apr. 25, 2001; 69 FR 24997, May 5, 2004; 71 FR 25982, May 3, 2006] § 97.5 Station license required. a (a) The station apparatus must be under the physical control of a person named in an amateur station license grant on the ULS consolidated license database or a person authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part, before the station may trans- mit on any amateur service frequency from any place that is: (1) Within 50 km of the Earth's sur- face and at a place where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC; (2) Within 50 km of the Earth's sur- face and aboard any vessel or craft that is documented or registered in the United States; or (3) More than 50 km above thlb Earth's surface aboard any craft that is documented or registered in the United States. (b) The types of station license grants are: (1) An operator/primary station li- cense grant. One, but only one, oper- ator/primary station license grant may be held by any one person. The primary station license is granted together with the amateur operator license. Except for a representative of a foreign gov- ernment, any person who qualifies by examination is eligible to apply for an operator/primary station license grant. 572 z, , 0s#r- (Z) Federal Communications Commission (2) A club station license grant. A club station license grant may be held only by the person who is the license trustee designated by an officer of the club. The trustee must be a person who holds an Amateur Extra, Advanced, General, Technician Plus, or Techni- cian operator license grant. The club must be composed of at least four per- sons and must have a name, a docu- ment of organization, management, and a primary purpose devoted to ama- teur service activities consistent with this part. (3) A military recreation station li- cense grant. A military recreation sta- tion license grant may be held only by the person who is the license custodian designated by the official in charge of the United States military recreational premises where the station is situated. The person must not be a representa- tive of a foreign government. The per- son need not hold an amateur operator license grant. (4) A RACES station license grant. A RACES station license grant may be held only by the person who is the li- cense custodian designated by the offi- cial responsible for the governmental agency served by that civil defense or- ganization. The custodian must be the civil defense official responsible for co- ordination of all civil defense activities in the area concerned. The custodian must not be a representative of a for- eign government. The custodian need not hold an amateur operator license grant. (c) The person named in the station license grant or who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part may use, in accordance with the applicable rules of this part, the transmitting apparatus under the physical control of the person at places where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC. (d) A CEPT radio-amateur license is issued to the person by the country of which the person is a citizen. The per- son must not: (1) Be a resident alien or citizen of the United States, regardless of any other citizenship also held; (2) Hold an FCC-issued amateur oper- ator license nor reciprocal permit for alien amateur licensee; § 97.9 (3) Be a prior amateur service li- censee whose FCC-issued license was revoked, suspended for less than the balance of the license term and the sus- pension is still in effect, suspended for the balance of the license term and re- licensing has not taken place, or sur- rendered for cancellation following no- tice of revocation, suspension or mone- tary forfeiture proceedings; or (4) Be the subject of a cease and de- sist order that relates to amateur serv- ice operation and which is still in ef- fect. (e) An TARP is issued to the person by the country of which the person is a citizen. The person must not: (1) Be a resident alien or citizen of the United States, regardless of any other citizenship also held; (2) Hold an FCC-issued amateur oper- ator license nor reciprocal permit for alien amateur licensee; (3) Be a prior amateur service li- censee whose FCC-issued license was revoked, suspended for less than the balance of the license term and the sus- pension is still in effect, suspended for the balance of the license term and re- licensing has not taken place, or sur- rendered for cancellation following no- tice of revocation, suspension or mone- tary forfeiture proceedings; or (4) Be the subject of a cease and de- sist order that relates to amateur serv- ice operation and which is still in ef- fect. [59 FR 54831, Nov. 2, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 17567, Apr. 10, 1997; 63 FR 68977, Dec. 14, 1998] §97.7 Control operation required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/ primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee data- base, or (b) Who is authorized for alien recip- rocal operation by § 97.107 of this part. [63 FR 68978, Dec. 14, 1998] § 97.9 Operator license grant. (a) The classes of amateur operator license grants are: Novice, Technician, Technician Plus (until such licenses 573 RTEIVED BY. ROBERT SWANEY DEC 1 0 2007 DE "IV 7F) FY- December 10, 2007 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Proposed Text Amendment TA-06-10 Dear Commissioners: Here is the last sentence of an email message from a senior staff member of the Community Development Department on May 26, 2006 to my attorney, regarding the regulation of amateur radio antennas and towers, after they had noticed me for having "several structures over 30' in height" on my property: "Is your client willing to pay you to research the matter? " I provided the necessary research and met with staff to discuss the results of my research. From the start (delivery of a violation notice to me in April 2006), I have attempted to persuade the Planning Department and the Building Safety Division that they lacked authority to regulate amateur radio antennas and towers. Yet they put CODXC and me through a hellish, expensive, frustrating process as we attempted to educate them on state and federal amateur radio tower regular pre-emption law, the history of amateur radio antenna regulation in this County, and the flaws in the rewrite of the County Code in 2000-2001. Over the past 15 months, by any standard, I've spent a vast amount of money for legal costs related to this, including putting forth the necessary legal research from competent attorneys experienced in this area of the law. This research has been submitted in good form at various points throughout the process of applying for a building permit and supporting the passage of a simple text amendment that would bring the Deschutes County Code into the same form as many large and small municipalities have done over the past few years. Staff has not rebutted CODXC's legal authorities. I question whether the submitted information has been read, let alone understood by the actual decision-makers. "Reasonable" Accommodation of Amateur Radio As you consider regulating amateur radio towers or antennas, the important conclusion from the immense volume of rational, coherent information the CODXC and our attorneys have provided to the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Commissioners is: amateur radio is a large collection of sub-hobbies, and ALL must be reasonably accommodated. The forms of regulation that are to be employed to achieve the county's objective must represent the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose of the County. 62515 Stenkamp Road 0 Bend, Oregon 97701 • (541) 330-1953 Federal Communications Commission Order DA99-2569, issued in November 1999, contains the key words that clarified how the original FCC order (commonly called "PRB-1 was intended to be interpreted. It says: "PRB-1 's guidelines brings to a local zoning board's awareness that the very least regulation necessary for the welfare of the community must be the aim of its regulations so that such regulations will not impinge on the needs of amateur operators to engage in amateur communications. " Note that the FCC Order doesn't say, "engage in emergency communications." It says, "engage in amateur communications." Your Planning Commission spent a lot of time in discussions similar to what I witnessed at your meeting on November 26th, as our opponents attempted to persuade you that you simply need to accommodate some form of minimal emergency communications capability. I explained why this line of thinking is irrelevant via a letter to the Planning Commission, dated April 29, 2007: `To accommodate' amateur radio does not mean trying to create a set of restrictions to make it possible to communicate in a way that would be useful in certain emergency scenarios. It means allowing all aspects of the hobby so that the pool of competent, active amateur radio operators is as large and diverse as possible. Most of'us are involved in emergency communications training and preparedness in some form, but that's not why we are amateur radio operators. " The Proposed Ordinance from the Planning Commission The Planning Department's staff memo dated July 2, 2007, regarding the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance states: "The Planning Commission's recommendation is more restrictive than State Statute. " What does this mean? It means the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance is not legal. As you read the memorandum submitted by my attorney prior to the November 26th hearing, note that on pages 8-11, every element of the proposed regulation that has been "borrowed" from the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations are unreasonable as they clearly represent something other than the "least restrictive" means. There is no compromise possible that includes any elements of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regulations that would not put the County in the position of defending an illegal ordinance. You should not attempt to "rewrite" the ordinance at this point. It is a very complex matter, and despite many meetings and submission of a very large volume of written material by the amateur community, most of the Planning Commissioners never fully understood the issues or the law. If you find it politically unpalatable to pass our originally proposed ordinance, the best course of action would be to do nothing. Passing an Ordinance to Solve a Neighborhood Dispute? At your November 26th meeting, I was heartened to hear Commissioner Luke state, if my memory is correct, that he felt that it was a bad idea to try to solve a code enforcement issue with a text 62515 Stenkamp Road • Bend, Oregon 97701 • (541) 330-1953 amendment. I agree. I was instrumental in getting the CODXC to originally pursue this at the suggestion of the County Planning Department on the assurances that it would be the fastest, easiest, and least expensive way to resolve the problem. I was also in favor of getting it withdrawn when it was obvious that the discussions before the County Commission wouldn't be any more fruitful than the Planning Commission discussions and probably would lead to passage of an illegal and extremely restrictive ordinance. I chose to take the issue to a venue where facts and the law matter: the Courts. I do not contest that the County can regulate these items for safety (by requiring building permits) in the zoning that I live in. My building permit applications, submitted long ago, have been reviewed and approved, and await a decision that will come from the Courts. My case is the only case that has ever come up in this county, and probably will be the last. Neighbor Involvement The positions taken by my neighbor, Rex Auker, throughout this case illustrate why the amateur community has worked so diligently at the Federal and State levels over the past 15 years to pass pre-emption laws for amateur radio. No citizen wants to sit in a public meeting (or read in the newspaper) and be pilloried in a process that encourages demagoguery, exaggeration, fact selection, and speculation. I'd be happy to explain to any government official or collection of neighbors why I placed my tower where it is placed, and I'll bet they would agree that given the numerous constraints involved, it's the best place for that tower to be placed. During the first eight months of this process, I had no idea that Mr. Auker was the source of the code complaint that inspired the CODXC text amendment proposal. The County maintained his anonymity under their normal procedures, and Mr. Auker never informed me of the concerns he had with my pursuit of amateur radio. 1 became aware of his identity when he chose to testify in opposition to the CODXC's text amendment application, as the sole opposition to a sensible amateur radio tower ordinance that he felt was the only way the tower would be "legitimized" and allowed to remain. At that point, he could not withdraw his code complaint. At that point explaining to him why the tower was placed in that location would have no effect on the County's code enforcement process. He is utterly mistaken in his belief that derailing the passage of an amateur radio tower ordinance that comports with the federal and state pre-emption laws will affect the placement or status of that tower, and we have so stated that in writing to the Planning Commission. But he apparently does not read any of the materials our side submits, nor does he understand the meaning of the Planning Department staff reports. My goal throughout the past 18 months has been to defend basic legal principles that are vital to the health of amateur radio. I will not be deterred by a neighbor apparently unwilling to confront me directly about my antennas, but willing to say just about anything to as large an audience as possible. Another quote from my April 29, 2007 letter to the Planning Commission: "And finally I paid the building permit fees and submitted all of the required engineering and site information for the offending tower nearly nine months ago [now nearly 16 months ago]. The design was reviewed and approved within a week and my building permit request has been sitting on Planning 62515 Stenkamp Road • Bend, Oregon 97701 • (541) 330-1953 Department hold ever since. The design and construction of that tower is better than 99.9% of all amateur towers, and is far safer than any of the AM radio station towers standing today in this County..... The conduit and metal boxes referred to by Mr. Auker are required for the low-voltage wiring and lightning protection equipment and simply reflect good engineering practice in conformance with the NEC [National Electrical Code]. There is no hidden, yet-to-be-revealed purpose for the tower other than to support my amateur radio antennas. " Fees And finally, it's not the fees - it's the process AND the fees. The Planning Department staff memo issued in late April 2007 said that the fees alone made the idea of site planning and conditional use permits unreasonable. In the CODXC reply dated May 10th, which is part of the record of this matter, it was pointed out that it wasn't just the fees that made it unreasonable. Both the fees and the proposed processes do not represent the "least restrictive" forms of regulation as required by the state and federal pre-emption laws. However, if you are concerned about the cost burden placed on the average amateur radio operator by any proposed regulation, I would suggest that you consider finding a way to waive the County's current requirement for engineering information that is submitted in support of a building permit application (for even the simplest, least expensive tower) to be "wet-stamped" by an Oregon engineer, when the manufacturer's engineering calculations ("dry-stamped" by a P.E. of another state) would suffice for the County's purposes. That would save about $500 in costs for the smallest, simplest installations using conventional "off-the-shelf" manufactured towers. Sincerely, 41vt Robert D. Swaney 4-w". Cc: Kristen Maze 62515 Stenkamp Road • Bend, Oregon 97701 • (541) 330-1953 RECEIVED BY: Rex A. Auker 62575 Stenkamp Road Bend, Oregon 97701 December 3, 2007 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701-1960 Dear Commissioners: DEC 0 7 2007 ®MIV ER ED BY: e I want to suggest a solution to the amateur radio antenna problem that requires no legislative action, only administrative action, on the part of the county commissioners. It is a solution that leaves current county codes intact, protects our scenic vistas, and demonstrates good will and reasonable accommodation to amateur radio operators. It encourages the use of telescoping antennas and would require those who want to construct large fixed-height antennas to consult with their neighbors before beginning construction. DESCRIPTION: I will begin by briefly describing the recommended administrative actions. Later, I will explain their benefits and rationale: 1. First Administrative Action: Establish an internal policy that clarifies the meaning of "unstaffed" in the Title 18 definition of Wireless Telecommunication Facility as it applies to amateur radio stations. An amateur radio station should be regarded as "unstaffed" whenever it is not energized and not under the physical control of a licensed operator. During those times, the amateur station must comply with the Tier I, II, or III height requirements for the zone in which it is located. An amateur radio station should be regarded as "staffed", however, when it is energized and under the physical control of a licensed operator. During those times, the amateur station may exceed the Tier I, II, or III height requirements for the zone in which it is located. 2. Second Administrative Action: Establish an internal policy that allows the support structure for an amateur radio antenna to be a manufactured telescoping mechanism (without guy wires) rather than a wood monopole as is normally required for Tier I and II wireless telecommunications facilities. This policy should specify that the structure must be painted in flat natural-looking colors that blend with surrounding structures and vegetation. 3. Third Administrative Action: Establish an internal policy that reinforces the premise that all applicable requirements for construction and land use permits for amateur radio stations shall be enforced but the fees for those permits shall be waived or reduced in appreciation for the valuable public service that amateur radio operators provide. 4. Fourth Administrative Action: Establish an internal policy that clarifies that all language applicable to wireless telecommunications facilities that refers to leases or leased property shall be adapted and applied in a similar manner to purchase agreements or privately owned property. BENEFITS AND RATIONALE: The following describes the rationale and benefits of the recommended administrative actions. 1. First Administrative Action: Clearly Define "unstaffed" and "staffed" The county attorney has told me that amateur radio stations do not fit the definition of wireless telecommunications facilities because she regards them as "staffed" facilities, rather than "unstaffed" facilities, as specified in the Title 18 definition. She has apparently been influenced by Robert Swaney's line of reasoning which appeared in the first version of the Proposed Text Amendment to Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. Mr. Swaney argued that an amateur radio station does not meet the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility because: "As defined by the FCC, an amateur station is `staffed' (the station must be under the physical control of a licensed amateur radio operator, and the amateur station is generally located in the operator's home.)" (Enclosure 1) Mr. Swaney's comment sounds reasonable until we read the text of the regulation to which he refers. 47 CFR 97.5 (a) reads: "The station apparatus must be under the physical control of a person named in an amateur station license grant before the station may transmit on any amateur service frequency (Enclosure 2). Upon close examination we see that the regulation to which Mr. Swaney refers declares that a station must be under the control of a licensed operator only when it is transmitting. Thus, an amateur radio station is "staffed" only when it is energized and transmitting. When it is turned off and the licensed operator is away from the radio console, the station is "unstaffed". How does this affect amateur radio antenna structure in Deschutes County? Some structures such as Mr. Swaney's 120 foot antenna structure clearly meet the definition of a wireless telecommunication facility when they are not energized and not under the control of a licensed operator - during those times they are "unstaffed". Since amateur radio is a hobby and not an occupation, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of amateur radio stations in Deschutes County are "unstaffed" for the vast majority of the time. Therefore it is reasonable to regulate them as "unstaffed" facilities for the vast majority of the time. 2. Second Administrative Action: Allow amateur radio station antenna structures to be manufactured telescoping structures rather than wood monopoles. Currently, county code requires Tier I and II free-standing antenna support structures to be wood monopoles. The county can make reasonable accommodation for amateur radio by establishing an administrative policy that allows licensed amateur operators to use manufactured telescoping antenna support structures instead of wood monopoles. For permit and land use purposes, the telescoping antennae should be measured at their retracted height, when, presumably they will be "unstaffed" (i.e. not energized and not under the physical control of a licensed operator). But when the licensed operator wants to actually energize and transmit/receive from the amateur station, it will then be regarded as a "staffed" station and the antenna may be extended to its full height which may exceed the established Tier I and II height limits, The retractable antennae with which I am familiar are capable of reaching a fully extended height which is nearly three times their retracted height. Thus, the policy I am suggesting would allow for a 45-foot telescoping antenna to be classified as a Tier I structure at its retracted height, yet it would be allowed to actually operate at heights in excess of 100 feet. The currently proposed text amendments have not adequately accounted for the effect of telescoping antennae. The amendment that county staff has recommended, which is patterned after the Beaverton ordinance, allows for a retracted height up to 75 feet and requires antenna structures to be retracted when not in use. Conceivably this would allow for antenna heights of 150 feet or more when the antenna is actually in use. The local ordinance from Gresham restricts antenna height to 100 feet and makes no allowance for telescoping antenna to exceed that height, whether retracted or extended. My proposal would make it possible for an amateur radio operator to erect a telescoping antenna in any zone as long as the retracted height did not exceed 45 feet, but when actually in use, that same antenna could be extended as high as its design characteri sties allowed. ORS 221.295 declares that a county may not regulate antenna below 70 feet in height except to meet a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective. The statute appears to focus on the operational height of the antenna and makes no specific mention of telescoping antennae. The administrative action I am proposing places no specific restrictions on the operational height of the antenna, only the retracted height; therefore it is not likely to be judged to be in conflict with the state statute. 3. Third Administrative Action: Require permits but waive or reduce the fees. Building, electrical and land use permits are designed to ensure that county residents and visitors enjoy an environment that is healthy, safe, aesthetically pleasing, and economically viable. All individuals, businesses and government agencies are held accountable to these requirements because they provide protection and benefit to the community at large. I can see no rationale for exempting amateur radio operators from these reasonable responsibilities of citizenship! However, as an act of good will and an expression of appreciation for the valuable community service that amateur radio provides, I believe it is reasonable to reduce or waive the fees that are exclusively attributable to the construction of an amateur radio station. County staff must be careful, however, that this privilege is not abused. It would be reasonable, for example, to waive the fees for the construction of a ham radio antenna on the top of a personal residence and the fees for the electrical branch which is devoted to the operation of the station. But it would not be reasonable to waive the building and electrical permit fees associated with the construction of the residence in general. Another benefit of reducing or waiving the fees is that if an amateur radio operator ever challenged other aspects of the code, the county could point to the waiver of fees as evidence of its genuine effort to make reasonable accommodation for amateur radio. 4. Fourth Administrative Action: Treating purchase agreements and previously owned land similarly to leases and leased land. The language of DCC Title 18.128.340 makes reference to leases and leased land but makes no specific reference to purchase agreements or land that is already owned by the permit applicant. (See enclosure 3). Some amateur radio enthusiasts might try to argue that the requirements of that section cannot be applied to an amateur radio operator because the land in question is privately owned rather than leased. This potential snag can be avoided if an internal administrative instruction clarifies that the requirements applied to leases and leased land should also be applied in a similar manner to purchase agreements and land that is already owned by the applicant. A Real-Life Example If the Board of Commissioners takes the administrative actions that I have suggested, this is how they would be applied to the antennae that were the object of the complaint that gave rise to the proposed county code text amendments: Mr. Swaney's 120 foot lattice work antennae, with nine guy wires and a gray metal cabinet at its base, clearly fits the Title 18 definition of a Tier III wireless telecommunications facility at all times that it is not actually energized and under the physical control of a licensed amateur operator. Since Mr. Swaney's work takes him away from his home for days at a time, and since he operates his radio as a hobby, rather than a full-time occupation, I would estimate that his station is "staffed" on average, no more than three hours a day, at best. During the other twenty-one hours of each day, on average, the antenna structure is in clear violation of DCC 18.128.340 because it was constructed on irrigated land, without appropriate permits, without consultation with the neighbors, without appropriate screening, without consideration of its impact on neighbors' scenic views, etc. Therefore, the county Code Enforcement Officer should be instructed to proceed with prosecution of the code violation complaints I submitted. Hopefully, this would result in the antenna's disassembly and removal. Mr. Swaney has also constructed two telescoping antenna on his property. They too probably meet the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility when not energized and in use. When retracted, these antennae reach heights of approximately 30 and 45 feet. (See enclosure 4) They are located on non-irrigable rock outcroppings in the midst of numerous mature juniper trees. While I would never regard them as aesthetically attractive, when retracted they are not excessively obtrusive and they present no impediment to the scenic views of his neighbors. Except for the fact that they are constructed of metal tubing and latticework, rather than being a wood monopole, in the retracted position these antennae would probably meet the criteria of a Tier I wireless telecommunication facility, which is permitted outright in any zone. When extended they reach heights of approximately 60 and 80 feet, which likely provide for excellent radio transmission and reception (See enclosure 5). These antennae were built without the required building permits, but beyond that, they do not appear to be in violation of any other county code. Therefore, if the changes I have suggested were implemented, no enforcement action would need to be taken against these antenna structures except to inspect the construction for compliance with building and electrical codes and to collect the appropriate fees and penalties. CONCLUSION: I believe the administrative actions I have presented will resolve the amateur radio issue and satisfy the vast majority of Deschutes County residents. There will no doubt be one segment of the population who will regard them as too permissive and another segment who will challenge them as too restrictive. I believe, however, they make reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operations and also protect the natural beauty of Deschutes County. Beyond that, I think my proposals are legally defensible, and since they are administrative interpretations of code requirements that have been in place since 2001, it will be difficult for the owners of recently erected structures to argue that those structures should be "grandfathered". Sincerely, - t Rex A. Auker Enclosures: (1) Page 16 of 19, Proposed Amendment to Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (2) Excerpt from 47 CFR 97.5 (3) Excerpt from DCC 18.128.340 (4) Photos showing Robert Swaney's larger telescoping antenna in retracted position. (5) Photo showing Robert Swaney's 120-foot fixed-height antenna and larger telescoping antenna in extended position. (6) Amplifying information It would appear, from reviewing the current City of Portland fee schedule, that the review fees and building permit fees would be under $300 for even the most complex amateur radio tower/antenna installation. The City of Gresham's regulation on amateur radio antennas was adopted in 1988 and revised in 1999. If the antennas are to be located in a residential area, and the support structures themselves could not be considered a "structure" under the definition of Oregon's Uniform Building Code, no development permit is required. Gresham's regulations are more specific and detailed than any other in Oregon, but are not onerous, and are simple to interpret since they were obviously developed with amateur radio installations in mind. Some of the details include: maximum height of newly constructed antenna support structures of 100 feet; non-reflective finish or paint on existing towers between 55 and 200 feet in height (for aesthetic reasons) - this does not appear to apply to the antennas themselves. Current Deschutes County Code . Nothing in the Deschutes County Code (DCC) speaks specifically to amateur radio towers or antennas, or provides directly applicable definitions6 or guidance. There have been attempts to modify the DCC to define amateur radio, and how it would, or would not, be regulated. A proposed ordinance was apparently passed by the Planning Commission in late 2000, but was never passed by the County Commission. The only applicable exemption that might apply to amateur radio was apparently repealed in 2001 (it was in DCC Chapter 18.120.040 and stated that "radio and other similar projections" ! were exempt from height limitations elsewhere in the Code). Amateur radio towers have been discussed at County Commission meetings rarely, and only in reference to the potential effect from proposed regulation of radio towers used for commercial applications. These discussions reveal that (in the past) Community Development Department staff has been aware of the difference between amateur radio and other telecommunications services, and the need to take into account federal and state laws when crafting regulations over amateur radio towers. Recently, as some amateurs have found in dealing with CDD, Planning has interpreted amateur radio antennas and towers as subject to the height limitations of structures. Regulation of tower/antenna height at general structure height limits is, per se, 'r. `J, `e r 6 The code definition of Wireless telecommunications facility does not include amateur radio facilities. DCC 18.04.030 provides: "Wireless telecommunications facility" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals usually consisting of an equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support structure such as a self- supporting monopole or lattice tower, antennas, microwave dishes or other transmission and reception devices. This definition includes "personal wireless services facilities" as defined under the Telecommunications Act of 1996." As defined by the FCC, an amateur station is "staffed" (the station must be under the control of a licensed amateur radio operator, and the amateur station is generally located in the operator's home). Page 16 of 19, Proposed Amendment to Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (Relating to Amateur Radio Antennas and Support Structures) G u'L 5,/ / _ C, § 97.5 (11) W. Watts. (c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to §2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emis- sion, modulation and transmission char- acteristics, for information on emission type designators. (1) CW. International Morse code te- legraphy emissions having designators with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol; and emissions J2A and J2B. (2) Data. Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emis- sions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; D as the third sym- bol; and emission J21). Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted. (3) Image. Facsimile and television emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; C or F as the third symbol; and emissions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; W as the third symbol. (4) MCW. Tone-modulated inter- national Morse code telegraphy emis- sions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H or R as the first symbol; 2 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol. (5) Phone. Speech and other sound emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. Also speech emis- sions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. MCW for the purpose of performing the station identification procedure, or for providing telegraphy practice interspersed with speech. Inci- dental tones for the purpose of selec- tive calling or alerting or to control the level of a demodulated signal may also be considered phone. (6) Pulse. Emissions having designa- tors with K, L, M, P, Q, V or W as the first symbol; 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 or X as the second symbol; A, B, C, D, E, F, N, W or X as the third symbol. (7) RTTY. Narrow-band direct-print- ing telegraphy emissions having des- ignators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second 47 CFR Ch. I (10-1-06 Edition) symbol; B as the third symbol; and emission J213. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted. (8) SS. Spread spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first sym- bol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol. (9) Test. Emissions containing no in- formation having the designators with N as the third symbol. Test does not include pulse emissions with no infor- mation or modulation unless pulse emissions are also authorized in the frequency band. [54 FR 25857, June 20, 1e9, as amended at 56 FR 29, Jan. 2,1991; 56 FR 56171, Nov. 1, 1991; 59 FR 18975, Apr. 21, 1994; 60 FR 7460, Feb. 8, 1995; 62 FR 17567, Apr. 10, 1997; 63 FR 68977, Dec. 14, 1998; 64 FR 51471, Sept. 23, 1999; 66 FR 20752, Apr. 25, 2001; 69 FR 24997, May 5, 2004; 71 FR 25982. May 3, 20061 § 97.5 Station license required. (a) The station apparatus must be under the physical control of a person named in an amateur station license grant on the ULS consolidated license database or a person authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.1(Y7 of this part, before the station may trans- mit on any amateur service frequency from any place that is: (1) Within 50 km of the Earth's - face and at a place where the amateur service is regulated by the FCC; (2) Within 50 km of the Earth's sur- face and aboard any vessel or craft that is documented or registered in the United States; or (3) More than 50 km above the Earth's surface aboard any craft that is documented or registered in the United States. (b) The types of station license grants are: (1) An operator/primary station li- cense grant. One, but only one, oper- ator/primary station license grant may be held by any one person. The primary station license is granted together with the amateur operator license. Except for a representative of a foreign gov- ernment, any person who qualifies by examination is eligible to apply for an operator/primary station license grant. 572 44:000,* 18.128.330. Microwave and radio communication towers in the SM zone. A conditional use permit for siting of a microwave or radio communication tower and accessory equipment structures in the SM Zone shall be subject to the criteria of DCC 18.128340 and the following criteria: A. Towers shall be limited to monopole towers of under 150 feet and lighted only as prescribed by aviation safety regulations. B. Towers and accessory equipment structures shall be located only on portions of an SM-Zoned site that do not overlay economically viable mineral or aggregate deposits and that minimize conflicts with mining operations at the site. C. Such facilities proposed in an SM Zone where the underlying or surrounding comprehensive plan designation is for forest use must demonstrate compliance with the criteria set forth in DCC 18.36.040. D. No new parcels or lots shall be created for siting of the proposed tower. E. Such facilities must not conflict with any site plan which has been previously approved by the County. (Ord. 97-017 § 8, 1997; Ord 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 95-046 § 3, 1995) 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 Miming 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 blankkm 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 18.128340(Axl e. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the meeting, the time, J Y_! *Ww~ date and location of the meeting and 3_ The facility is sited using trees, a list of meeting attendees. vegetation, and topography to the £ A site plan showing the location of maximum extent practicable to screen the the proposed facility and its facility from view of nearby residences. components. The site plan shall also 4- A tower or monopole located in an LM identify the location of existing and Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or proposed landscaping, any monopoles shall not be sited in locations equipment shelters, utility where there is no vegetative, structural or connections, and any fencing topographic screening available. proposed to enclose the facility. 5. In all uses, the applicant shall site the g. A copy of the design specifications, facility in a manner to minimize its including proposed colors, and/or impact on scenic views and shall site the elevation of an antenna array facility using trees, vegetation, and proposed with the facility. topography in order to screen it to the h. An elevation drawing of the facility maximum extent practicable from view and a photographic simulation of the from protected roadways. Towers or facility showing how it would fit into monopoles shall not be sited in locations the landscape. where there is no vegetative, structural or i. A copy of a letter of determination topographic screening available. from the Federal Aviation 5. Any tower or monopole is finished with Administration or the Oregon natural wood colors or colors selected Department of Transportation - from amongst colors approved by Aeronautics Division as to whether Ordinance 97-017. or not aviation lighting would be 7. Any required aviation lighting is shielded required for the proposed facility. to the maximum extent allowed by FAA B. Approval Criteria: An application for a and/or ODOT-Aeronautics regulations. wireless telecommunication facility will be 8. The form of lease for the site does not prevent the possibility of co-location of approved upon findings that: additional wireless telecommunication 1. The facility will not be located on facilities at the site. irrigated land, as defined by DCC 9- Any tower or monopole shall be designed 18.04.030. 2. The applicant has considered other sites in a manner that it can carry the antennas in its search area that would have less of at least one additional wireless carrier. visual impact as viewed from nearby This criterion may be satisfied by residences than the site proposed and has submitting the statement of a licensed determined that any less intrusive sites structural engineer licensed in Oregon are either unavailable or do not provide that the monopole or tower has been the communications coverage necessary. designed with sufficient strength to carry To meet this criterion, the applicant must such an additional antenna array and by demonstrate that it has made a good faith elevation drawings of the proposed tower effort to co-locate its antennas on existing or monopole that identifies an area monopoles in the area to be served. The designed to provide the required spacing applicant can demonstrate this by between antenna arrays of different submitting a statement from a qualified carriers. engineer that indicates whether the 10- Any approval of a wireless necessary service can or cannot be telecommunication facility shall include a provided by co-location within the area to condition that if the facility is left unused be served. or is abandoned by all wireless providers located on the facility for more than one . 7-- year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. (Ord. 2000-019 § 2, 2000; Ord. 97-063 § 2,1997; Ord. 97-017 § 8, 1997) 18.128350. Guest lodge. A. The exterior of the building shall maintain a residential appearance. B. One off-street parking space shall be provided for each guest room in addition to parking to serve the residents. C. The lodge shall be operated in a way that will protect neighbors from unreasonable disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass. D. Occupancies for individuals shall be limited to not more than 30 consecutive days. E. Meals shall be served to registered overnight lodge guests only and shall not be provided to the public at large. (Ord. 97-029 § 3, 1997) 18.128.360. Guest ranch. A guest ranch established under DCC 18.128.360 shall meet the following conditions: A. Except as provided in DCC 18.1283600, the lodge, bunkhouses or cottages cumulatively shall: 1. Include not less than four nor more than 10 overnight guest rooms exclusive of kitchen areas, rest rooms, storage and other shared indoor facilities, and, 2. Not exceed a total of 12,000 square feet in floor area B. The guest ranch shall be located on a lawfully created parcel that is: 1. At least 160 acres in size; 2. The majority of the lot or parcel is not within 10 air miles of an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 50,000; 3. The parcel containing the dwelling of the person conducting the livestock opera- tion; and 4. Not classified as high value,faririland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. C. For each doubling of the initial 160 acres required under DCC 18.128360(B), up to five additional overnight guest rooms and 3,000 square feet of floor area may be added to the guest ranch for a total of not more than 25 guest rooms and 21,000 square feet of floor area. D. A guest ranch may provide recreational activities in conjunction with the livestock operation's natural setting, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding or swimming. Intensively developed recreational facilities such as a golf course or campground as defined in DCC Title 18, shall not be allowed in conjunction with a guest ranch, and a guest ranch shall not be allowed in conjunction with an existing golf course or with an existing campground. E. Food services shall be incidental to the operation of the guest ranch and shall be provided only for the guests of the guest ranch. The cost of meals provided to the guests shall be included as part of the fee to visit or stay at the guest ranch. The sale of individual meals to persons who are not guests ofthe guest ranch shall not be allowed. F. The exterior of the buildings shall maintain a residential appearance. G. To promote privacy and preserve the integrity of the natural setting, guest ranches shall retain existing vegetation around the guest lodging structure. H. All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward in accordance with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. I. Signage shall be restricted to one sign no greater than 20 square feet, nonilluminated and posted at the entrance to the property. J. Occupancies shall be limited to not more than 30 days. K. The guest ranch shall be operated in a way that will protect neighbors from unreasonable disturbance from noise, dust, traffic or trespass. C3~ ~a Tc k VA V\ V I ej Amplifying Information: As a group, amateur radio operators are responsible citizens who are considerate of their neighbors and quick to volunteer their communications experience and equipment in service to their community. However, it appears that there is also a small segment of the amateur radio community whose aim is to practice their avocation without regard for its impact on their neighbors and to challenge any restriction that local authorities may place on their equipment and activities. PRB-1 and later regulations established that the federal government had an interest in encouraging amateur radio as an important national asset. It established a policy of limited federal preemption of local government authority. The FCC declined to specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate. Instead it directed that state or local regulation must "reasonably accommodate" amateur radio communications so as to constitute "minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose." 47 CFR 97.15(b) Since 1985, when PRB-1 was instituted, amateur radio organizations have repeatedly attempted to expand its scope. In particular they have petitioned the FCC to apply-federal preemption to the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions that are commonly established in housing developments and communities. The FCC has repeatedly refused to preempt CC&R's, arguing that they are private contracts which are voluntarily accepted by home buyers at the time of purchase. In 2000, the FCC gave amplifying information concerning what it considered to be reasonable accommodation of amateur radio in local land use. and zoning regulations. (See attached document) The text reviewed a variety of antenna types, sizes and uses and took particular note of the fact that some amateur radio antenna can be large and out of character with the surrounding community. Then the FCC suggested a policy that might be called "consistency" concerning various types and uses of antennae. Referring specifically to a residential community, it opined that if a community allowed television antenna of a particular size and type, then it should also allow amateur radio antenna of similar size and type. On the other hand, the FCC suggested that it would go beyond reasonable accommodation to allow a particular amateur radio antenna in a residential zone if other antenna of that size and type were normally allowed only in an industrial zone. Thus, according to the FCC, it is reasonably accommodating to allow amateur radio antenna in a particular zone if those antenna are "consistent" in type and size with other antennae that are allowed in the zone. But it goes beyond reasonable accommodation if amateur radio antennae are allowed to be larger, higher or more visually imposing than any other antennae in a given zone. ORS 221.295 restates the principles of "reasonable accommodation" and "minimum practicable regulation", but adds specific language concerning antennae lower than 70 feet in height. It says that "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 C ~c LCv Sll rVc is necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective of the city or county." It is important to note that the state statute does not prohibit regulation of antenna of heights below 70 feet. It merely requires that the local government have a clearly defined reason to do so. What constitutes "clearly defined"? That question is not answered. With regard to the code violation complaint that gave rise to the current proposed amendments to the county code, Mr. Robert Swaney appears to be among that segment of the amateur radio community that is intent on challenging any restriction that local authorities might attempt to place on his hobby. County policies require that those who build large free-standing antenna structures must obtain building and, in many cases, electrical permits. Mr. Swaney repeatedly ignored county authority, by erecting three large permanently installed antennae without once apply in ts. When subjected to a complaint and code enforcement Mr. Swaney declare a county code Q s unreasonable and contrary to federal and state policies. In an attempt to resolve the code violation complaint, Mr. Swaney proposed revisions to the code that place virtually no restraints on amateur radio antenna construction. Now, if a new code is instituted, I suspect he will claim that his illegally-constructed antenna should be grandfathered. At one of the public hearings before the planning commission, he actually verbalized that he would consider filing a Measure 37 claim if code revisions did not suit him. As I have stated previously, I believe the existing code concerning wireless telecommunications facilities was intended to apply to a wide variety of radio antenna structures, including amateur radio antenna, thereby treating all applicants in a consistent and even-handed way. Because of this consistent and equitable approach, I believe the current code meets the federal and state requirements to make reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operations. The language of the code needs clarification, however, but that could easily be accomplished by administrative, rather than legislative, action. Attached: PRB-1 (2000 - Reconsideration). Paragraph 8 provides FCC amplification of the meaning of "reasonable accommodation". r i-c- wireless services: AmaLeur icauiu Service: tceieases: rich-1 rage 1 01 FCC Home Search Updates E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers Find People Amateur Radio Service FCC > WTB > Services > Amateur Home > Releases > PRB-1 Search: PRB-1 (2000 - Reconsideration) G0 Help - Advanced 1 Introduction and Executive Summary Background Amateur Home / Discussion ► Conclusion About Amateur / Ordering Clause Communications & Operations International Adopted 11/13/2000 Arrangements Released 11/15/2D00 Operator Class ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION (RM 8763) Reciprocal In the Matter of Modification and Clarification of Arrangements Policies and Procedures Governing Siting and Call Sian Maintenance of Amateur Radio Antennas and Systems Support Structures, and Amendment of Section Sequential 97.15 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Amateur Radio Service Special Event Before the Federal Communications Commission Vance Washington, D.C. 20554 36149 Amateur By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Licensina Bureau. Club Stations Common Filino Return To Top Tasks Examinations MiGta yr Introduction and Executive Summary Recreation - Volunteer 1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we address Petitions Examiners for Reconsideration (ARRL Petition) filed by the American VECs Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL), and by Barry N. Releases Gorodetzer and Kathy Conard-Gorodetzer (Gorodetzer PRB-1 Petition) (collectively "Petitioners"). The Petitions seek reconsideration of a Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Amateur Site (Bureau) Order, released November 19, 1999, denying Map the petition for rule making filed by ARRL on February 7, 1996. For the reasons given herein, we deny the subject petitions for reconsideration. Related Sites Return To Top Forms & Fees Rules Wireless Rules & Back9round_ Regulations (Title 47) 2. In its 1985 PRB-1 decision, the Commission established a policy of limited preemption of state and local ULS regulations governing amateur station facilities, including Universal antennas and support structures. However, the Licensing Commission expressly decided not to extend its limited System preemption policy to covenants, conditions and FCC Site Ma PRB-1 (1985) PRB-1(1999) PRB-1 (2000 - Reconsideration) PRB-1 (2001) http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?j ob=prb-1 &id=amateur&page=3 12/3/2007 1,UU: wireless services: Amateur tcaoto service: xeieases: rats-i rage z. ut WTB Wireless restrictions (CC&Rs) in deeds and in condominium by- Telecom municatit laws. Bureau 3. On February 7, 1996, ARRL filed a petition for rule making seeking a review of the Commission's limited preemption policy. ARRL requested, inter alia, that limited preemption be extended to CC&Rs. In an Order, released November 19, 1999, we denied the petition for rule making. We concluded that specific rule provisions bringing private restrictive covenants within the ambit of PRB-1 were not necessary or appropriate. On reconsideration, the petitioners reiterate the request that the Commission's limited preemption policy be extended to CC&Rs. ARRL also seeks a declaratory ruling that the imposition of unreasonable or excessive costs in obtaining a land use permit for an amateur antenna, or fulfilling a condition in such a permit, would be contrary to the Commission's limited preemption policy enunciated in PRB-1. Return To Top Discussion 4. In PRB-1, the Commission stated that CC&Rs restricting amateur operations were not a matter of concern to it, because "[s]uch agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed," and "[p]urchasers or lessees are free to choose whether they wish to reside where such restrictions on amateur antennas are in effect or settle elsewhere." ARRL directed much of its rulemaking petition, and the bulk of its petition for Reconsideration, to arguing that the Commission has authority to preempt CC&Rs that restrict amateur operations. In the Order, we declined to address this argument because we were not persuaded that such action, even if authorized, is "necessary or appropriate at this time." 5. The Petitioners contend, however, that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided the Commission with the authority to address CC&Rs, and, further, that the Commission has acknowledged this authority. ARRL further argues that restrictive covenants in deeds "have never been the equivalent of private contracts." Moreover, ARRL states that the purchaser of land, in modern transactions, "never actually agrees, and very seldom even understands when he or she buys property subject to deed restrictions that amateur antennas are not permitted." 6. Assuming, without deciding, that the Commission has authority to address CC&Rs in the context of amateur radio facilities, this alone does not necessarily warrant revisiting the exclusion of CC&Rs from the Commission's limited preemption policy in this context. Unlike over-the- air reception devices (OTARDs), which are very limited in size in residential areas, amateur station antennas may vary widely in size and shape. Amateur station antenna configurations depend on a variety of parameters, http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=prb-1 &id=amateur&page=3 12/3/2007 rt-u: wireless aervlces: gniawur t,-aulu JcrvicC: rCelcases: rl"D-1 ragu J ut J including the types of communications that the amateur operator desires to engage in, the intended distance of the communications, and the frequency band. Amateur station antennas, in order to achieve the particular objectives of the amateur radio operator, can be a whip attached to an automobile, mounted on a structure hundreds of feet in height, or a wire hundreds (or even more than a thousand) of feet in length. They can be constructed of various materials occupying completely an area the size of a typical backyard. In addition, there can be an array of different types of antennas. Regardless of the extent of our discretion with respect to CC&Rs generally, we are not persuaded by ARRL's arguments that it is appropriate at this time to consider exercising such discretion with respect to amateur station antenna preemption. Moreover, we do not believe that ARRL has demonstrated that there has been a significant change in the underlying rationale of the PRB-1 decision, or that the facts and circumstances in support thereof, that would necessitate revisiting the issue. In the absence of such showing, we believe that the PRB-1 ruling correctly reflects the Commission's preemption policy in the amateur radio context. 7. In PRB-1, the Commission held that "local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose." The ARRL's second request in its Petition concerns imposition of excessive costs for, or the inclusion of burdensome conditions in, permits or variances needed prior to installation of an outdoor antenna. As it did in its petition for rule making, ARRL requests a ruling from the Commission that imposition of unreasonable or excessive costs levied by a municipality for a land use permit, or unreasonable costs to fulfill conditions appended to such permit, violates PRB-1. In our Order, we concluded that the current standards in PRB-1 of reasonable accommodation and minimum practicable regulation are sufficiently specific to cover any concerns related to unreasonable fees or onerous conditions. With these guidelines in place, an amateur operator may apprise a zoning authority that a permit fee is too high, and therefore unreasonable, or that a condition is more than minimum regulation, and, therefore, impracticable to comply with. 8. We take this opportunity to amplify upon the meaning of 'reasonable accommodation' of amateur communications in the context of local land use and zoning regulations. The Commission adopted a limited preemption policy for amateur communications because there is a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. We do not believe that a zoning regulation that provides extreme or excessive prohibition of amateur communications could be deemed to be a reasonable accommodation. For example, we believe that a regulation that would restrict amateur communications using small dish antennas, antennas that do not present any safety or health hazard, or antennas that are similar http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=prb-1 &id=amateur&page=3 12/3/2007 vuL,: wireless cervices: rimateur tcauio service: tceieases: rich-i ragc -r ui Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues to those normally permitted for viewing television, either locally or by satellite, is not a reasonable accommodation or the minimum practicable regulation. On the other hand, we recognize that a local community that wants to preserve residential areas as livable neighborhoods may adopt zoning regulations that forbid the construction and installation in a residential neighborhood of the type of antenna that is commonly and universally associated with those that one finds in a factory area or an industrialized complex. Although such a regulation could constrain amateur communications, we do not view it as failing to provide reasonable accommodation to amateur communications. 9. In his comments supporting the ARRL Petition, Duane Mantick states that the Commission's rules regarding radio frequency (RF) safety and the actions of local authorities are inconsistent because to comply with the RF safety requirements an antenna must be a certain height in order to keep 2 meter and 10 meter radio signals away from the general public. According to Mr. Mantick, this is in direct conflict with the local zoning regulations and covenant provisions which are designed to keep the height of the antenna structure as low as possible. Mr. Mantick argues that the amateur operator must, in order to comply with safety requirements, reduce output power to 50 watts or less and thus sacrifice transmission effectiveness, and due to a low antenna, sacrifice reception effectiveness as well. It appears that Mr. Mantick's comments overstate the situation that an amateur operator faces. An environmental evaluation needs to be made only if the power on 10 meters exceeds 50 watts. Further, if more power is employed at the station and measures are required to prevent human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields, then adjustments can be made at the amateur station regarding the amount of power used, the duty cycle employed, and the antenna configuration. Thus, it is feasible for an amateur operator to comply with the Commission's safety requirements relating to human exposure to RF radiation, and at the same time to comply with local zoning regulations that govern antenna height. In sum, while we appreciate that the two considerations discussed above, that is, safety requirements vis-...-vis zoning regulations, might present a challenge to the amateur operator, we do not believe that the safety of individuals should be compromised to address such challenge. Moreover, we continue to believe that we should not specify precise height limitations below which a community may not regulate, given the varying circumstances that may occur, as a response to this challenge. _Return To Top Conclusion 10. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the ARRL and Barry and Kathy Conard-Gorodetzer should be partially granted insofar as we have provided clarification herein, but in all other http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=prb-1 &id=amateur&page=3 12/3/2007 rLL: wireless cervices: Amateur xaaio service: xeieases: r"-i respects should be denied. Return To Top Ordering Clause 11. IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections (4)(i) and 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. - 154(i), 405(a), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. - 1.106, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the American Radio Relay League, Inc., filed on December 20, 1999, and Barry and Kathy Conard-Gorodetzer, filed on December 17, 1999, ARE PARTIALLY GRANTED to the extent clarification has been provided herein, but in all other respects ARE DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority contained in Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. - 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kathleen O'Brien Ham Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Return To Top Last reviewed/updated on 21192002 rage or Licensing, Technical Support and Website Issues - Forgot Your Password? - Submit euupport request Phone: 1-877-480-3201 TTY: 1-717-338-2824 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888- 225-5322) TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888- 835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232 E-Mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov - Privacy Policy - Website Policies & Notices - Required Browser Plug-ins - Freedom of Information Act http://wireless.fec.gov/services/index.htm?job=prb-1 &id=amateur&page=3 12/3/2007 1932 SE Arborwood Ave. Bend, Or. 97702 December 10, 2007 RE: Proposed Amateur Radio Tower Ordinance TA-06-10 Kristen Maze, Tammy Baney, Dennis Luke, Mike Daly Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Or. Dear Kristen Maze, Tammy Baney, Dennis Luke, Mike Daly, On behalf of the High Desert Amateur Radio Group, its 60 members, and myself I would like to make a few brief comments on the proposed ordinance referenced above. The subject of radio communication is far to complicated for most ham radio operators, let alone the Deschutes County Commissioners, to fully understand. In order to come up with a comprehensive plan that meets the needs of everyone, the county would need to consult a technical advisor and spend many hours and days learning about what makes for effective radio communication. Only then could you possibly have a chance to make a fully informed decision about how tall a radio tower should be. This would be a tremendous waste of taxpayer's money. Simply stated, antennas for radio communication are most effective, least intrusive to other electronic devices, and least harmful to living things, when they are as high above the ground as possible. As others have mentioned, most amateur radio operators will take the cc&rs, city, and county codes into consideration prior to purchasing property. This assures them of being able to pursue their hobby to the extent that they choose. Likewise, when a non-radio operator purchases property, they also have the opportunity to do their homework and purchase property that restricts things they do not wish to see in their neighborhood. Personally, I would like to restrict offensive paint schemes in my neighborhood. would like my neighbors to control their dandelions and mow their yards regularly. I don't like looking at these things, but my subdivisions cc&rs do not address those issues. I will have to learn to live with my neighbors, or move somewhere else. I will not attempt to restrict the freedom of others simply because I have not done my homework. Unless a person lives in a special land use zone specifying such, "scenic vista" is not protected. The idea that ham radio towers should be regulated by the same restrictions as cellular phone towers is preposterous. The FCC is very specific about the differences between the commercial service and the amateur service, just read the information. We don't do this for money. The benefits of ham radio operators to the community in the event of an emergency are well documented, and I think, understood and appreciated by the commissioners. Most ham operators will never even erect a tower or mast. Fewer still will erect one that stands taller than 40 feet. It is however the ham operator with that rare tower, that will be able to render the most effective service to the public when called upon. The Federal and State laws already in place, as well as the precedence set by the City of Beaverton, have already paved the way for an easy decision by the commissioners. Please take advantage of the work that has been done for you. Either adopt the same guidelines established by the City of Beaverton, or do nothing. • Page 2 Regards, David Stucky President High Desert Amateur Radio Group (HiDARG) December 10, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Kristen Maze From: equinoxslw@aol.com Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:56 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: Proposed Changes on Building Height Execeptions Attention Kristen Maze- We are responding to the proposed changes reguarding amateur radio facilities. We live 1 mile down Stenkamp Rd from Mr. Swaney's "ham" tower that appeared this year. It came as quite a surprize to see the unsightly antenna withour screening in our rual area twice a day commuting to work. We realized that antenna could be our new neighbor or we could be the neighbor across the street or next door that faced it every daylight hour. We attended the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners meeting on November 26, 2007 and read about the proposed changes. We would like to voice support for the Planning Commission recommendations. We feel very strongly about requiring a building permit, the screening of facility using trees, vegetation and topography from neighbors, plus requiring neighbor notification and neighborhood meeting. (Although it is unclear what meeting results would determine denying the construction of antenna) We believe an unsightly antenna does lower the surounding property values. It is my hope that with the accepting of the Planning Commission's recommendation that Mr. Swaney's antenna will be under those rules. We realize the value of the community service that the amatureteur radio operators offer the greater Central Oregon area but that should not exempt them from reasonable rules. Sincerely, Steve and Linda Williams 62760 Dixon Loop Bend, Oregon 97701 More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 1 Kristen Maze From: ks6u [ks6u@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:51 AM To: Kristen Maze Subject: towers Hams do a lot of public service and should not be restricted.with hight of towers, Leonard Premselaar 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 1 Kristen Maze From: Dick Frey - K4XU [k4xu@arrl.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:08 PM To: bulletin@bendbulletin.com; Kristen Maze; codxc@codxc.org Subject: Amareur Radio Antennas At the November 26 County Board meeting, commissioner Luke said something to the effect that 'settling a dispute between two neighbors by rewriting the Deschutes County Code is not the proper solution to the problem'. He is right. This is a "tempest in a teapot" and a complete waste of the taxpayers' money. There are no more than 50 ham towers over 30 feet in the whole county, and only one or two are over 75 feet high. Nor is there a probability of that number increasing. If the Planning Commission's proposal were enacted, in terms of lines of DCC per effected parties, Amateur Radio would become the most severely regulated institution in the County. The cost of compliance alone will simply prevent effective pursuit this hobby within Deschutes County. Before 2000 it was exempt. The County has failed to read the testimony and legal research submitted or heed the advice of its own legal council. The facts and precedents are in there. Read them and stop this circus. Write a less restrictive proposal, or do nothing that's a decision too. Some day Bend, like Vernonia, will need these radio operators and their facilities. Sincerely, Dick Frey - K4XU President, Central Oregon DX Club 61255 Ferguson Rd. Bend, OR 97702 Email: k4xu@arrl.net Web page: www.codxc.or 12/10/2007 December 5, 2007 Kristen Maze Community Development Department 117 Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Dear Ms. Maze, For three reasons I support the installation of amateur radio antennas. 1. As a citizen concerned about the safety of others I support the efforts of Deschutes County Amateur Radio Operators. Please read the attached article. What if this happened in our County our local Hams would be there to help in any way possible! 2. I am of the opinion that a fee for amateur radio antennas similar to the current fee for commercial interests is unfair. It is necessary for Hams to incur out-of pocket expenses to volunteer their skills, use of their equipment and their time to help the community. They are not a business nor do they generate any income from it. 3. A rural view is not protected in an area zoned farmland. I ask for your consideration of Amateur Operators and request a decision that does not prohibit Hams from participation in emergency services. Sincerely, ( Wc /0' Karen M. Perkins 2142 NW Nickernut Ave. Redmond, OR 97756 THE BULLETIN - Wednesday, December 5, 2007 C71 State emergency officials say ham radio operators are storm's unsung heroes By Sarah Skidmore The Associated Press PORTLAND - When parts of Oregon were overwhelmed by wind and water during the recent storm, vital communi- cation often was lacking, with trees down and across phone lines and cell coverage limited. Even the state police had difficulty in reaching some of their own troops. But ham radio worked. In fact, amateur radio. op- erators were heralded by state emergency officials as heroes. Ham radio is more than just a hobby to some. It can set up networks for ggovernment and emergency officials to commu- nicate when other communica- tion services fail. "One of the problems in this is always communication," Gov. Ted Kulongoski said af- tei-4 visit Tuesday to Vernonia and a fly-over there and other affected areas. "I'm going to tell you who the heroes were from the very beginning of this the ham radio operators. These people just came in and actually provided a tremen, does communication link to us" A network of at least 60 vol- unteer amateurradio operators working along the coast and inland helped from keep av- cial systems such as 811 calls, American Red Cross and hos- pital services connected. They relayed information about pa- tient care. and relayed lists of supplies needed in areas cut off by water.. groups of operators are cleared by the federal government to work as emergency responders. "You are amateur in name only," said Steve Sanders, a spokesman for District One of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, which helped in several key counties hit by the storm. The Oregon Office of Emer- gency Management said the radio operators were tireless in their efforts to keep the systems connected. It was ham radio that kept New York City agencies in touch with each other after their command center was destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, according to the National Association for Amateur Radio. When hurricanes like Katrina hit, amateur radio helped provide life- and-death communication servic- es when everything else failed. ~ , Amateur radio works on a set of radio frequencies known as "am- ateur bands" just above the> AM broadcast band all the way up to high microwave frequencies. Op- erators use their own equipment to communicate with other op- erators, using different equipment and frequencies than emergency responders. . In addition to getting an FCC license to operate, certain Page 1 of 3 Sher Buckner From: Kristen Maze Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:02 PM To: Sher Buckner Subject: FW: Written Comment on TA-06-10 From: Dan Tucker [mailto:w7dux@bendbroadband-com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:35 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: Written Comment on TA-06-10 To: Deschutes County Commissioners Fr: Dan Tucker (69219 Harness, Sisters OR) Re: Further Comment regarding TA-06-10 Commissioners, The following article is from KATU in Portland and is arguably the best and most timely reason to avoid impacting the amateur radio service by creating any restriction that would impair its use. The education for tower heights is complex and attempting to equate it with the same things other agencies use in there operations is a mistake. At the public hearing Army MARS stated 300-1200 miles, with a vertical launch, is useful for them it is not for HAMS! Hams talk to people locally as well as all around the world and the need for height in an antenna both makes that possible while at the same time, limits the interference to neighbors. Most amateurs will not go out and put up a tower even if you did nothing with the rules. I would suspect that over the years, you would probably not see much difference in the ratio of towers per capita that there is currently and there likely could be even less. The impact they have now is absolutely minimal. This was demonstrated at the public hearing when the question of how many there currently are was asked. You see, most people pay no particular attention to it unless it causes a personal problem. Even if there is a problem, most Hams would simply help fix that problem because that's who they are. Please read the Article below and my further comment after: Oregon emergency officials say ham radio 12/5/2007 Page 2 of 3 operators were heroes A pizza store in Vernonia is surrounded by flood waters Tuesday Dec. 4, 2007. (AP Photo/The Oregonian, Brent Wojahn) Story Published: Dec 4, 2007 at 7:28 PM PST Story Updated: Dec 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM PST By Associated Press & Video PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - With communications down in much of the state smacked by the recent storm, state emergency officials are calling ham radio operators heroes. When even state police had difficulty reaching some of their own troops, ham radio worked, setting up networks so emergency officials could communicate and relaying lists of supplies needed in stricken areas. A network of at least 60 volunteer amateur radio operators working along the coast and inland helped from keep crucial systems such as 911 calls, American Red Cross and hospital services connected. Amateur radio works on a set of radio frequencies above the AM broadcast band. Operators use their own equipment to communicate with other operators, using different equipment and frequencies than emergency responders. Sometimes it takes creativity and a lot of leg work, such as setting up a new link on the top of a mountain when no other options are available. Steve Sanders, a spokesman for District One of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, said the storm was a "poster child" for what his group does. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) 12/5/2007 Page 3 of 3 As Mr. Sanders of ARES said "the storm was a "poster child" for what his group does". The above statement cannot be repeated enough for you. We have the potential for devastation to occur anywhere and anytime. While many Hams put up a wire antenna and use it to communicate to many places far away, it is those that put up a tower at a significant height and use antennas that they can point in specific directions that will pick out the call for help when no one else can hear them. It is also the local folks, like Search & Rescue, that need to use a repeater or an individual station to relay/request important information via VHF frequencies locally. They also need that repeater or individual antenna to be high enough to communicate with when they are in areas where they have no other options. In closing, I ask that if your going to place something in written regulation, do so very carefully and with the best information possible. If you are not experienced with its technical side, you could do more harm than good. Dan Tucker W7DUX Sisters Repeater 146.9oo- PL 123.0 IRLP Node 3o89147.420 12/5/2007