Loading...
2008-156-Minutes for Meeting November 26,2007 Recorded 3/20/2008COUNTY OFFICIAL r NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS lid 200Y-156 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 111111111 loll II III 03/20/2008 10:27:10 AM 2008-156 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp, MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Catherine Morrow and Kristen Maze of Community Development; Connie Thomas and Bonnie Baker, Commissioners' Office; and approximately 80 citizens, including several representatives of the media. The purpose of the meeting was to take testimony on a proposed amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 18 relating to amateur radio facilities in the building height exception and definition sections. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 5: 00 p.m. The Commissioners introduced themselves to the audience. Chair Daly then read the preliminary statement. In regard to bias, personal interest and prejudgment, none of the Commissioner had any to disclose. No challenges were received from the public. William Sawders, American Radio Relay League, representing approximately 10,000 members. He had concern that on page 2 of the Planning Commission recommendation and vote, regarding the term "unsightly". Laurie Craghead stated that this needs to be addressed during the public input portion of the meeting. Kristen Maze then gave her staff report on the item. She said the three a-mails submitted are already entered into the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 1 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke asked for clarification regarding Measure 56 notifications. Ms. Maze said that the Measure was passed in 2000 and requires any land use action that could affect land use values to be noticed to residents. It was sent out with the recent tax bills. Commissioner Daly asked that testimony be limited to about ten minutes, and if the meeting starts to go too late, that could be limited to less time. Phil Kane, a communications attorney and engineer, and a resident of Beaverton, testified. His professional specialty is in the area of drafting and evaluating wireless communications facilities, including specifications and restrictions placed on amateur radio facilities and supporting structures, and others things having to do with installation. He said that this is an incidental use of a residence, and goes along with the residence. He went on to say that serious questions are being raised as to whether that is a reasonable accommodation by the least restrictive means. Requiring extensive plot plan and fees, along with the permit process, is not least restrictive. He was on the committee that drafted this rule for the City of Beaverton. It is now a countywide ordinance, and the question came up as to what kind of permits should be required. A decision was made that if it is under seventy feet there should be no permit except for a building and structure permit, which they always support because of safety and insurance reasons. Above seventy feet it was decided that an administrative permit at little or no fee should be allowed. It also requires that a building permit shall be secured, and is mandatory for over seventy feet tall. A question came up about screening and notification of neighbors, and was decided with the concurrence of the Beaverton City Council that this was not the least restrictive means. As a result, there is no municipality, county, or city during the past twelve years that does require these things. The question came up in Clatsop County, and it was decided that the language of the ordinance had been mistyped, that amateur stations were exempted, transmitted are exempted, but towers weren't. The Planning Department was directed to put that language back into it. There is a strong public service aspect and it is part of homeland security. There is federal and state support and local support through County emergency services. He feels that the Commissioners should support the efforts of the amateurs and craft a simple ordinance that has the least restrictive means. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 10 Pages Rex Auker, 62575 Stenkamp Road, Bend, had two specific questions. The first one was regarding wireless telecommunications facilities and whether an amateur radio station tower is wireless. As used in both in the legislation and industrial practice, in the wireless communications field, amateur is not a wireless telecommunications facility. Think of a cell phone tower, used for commercial purposes; amateur may not be used for commercial purposes. In regard to the distinction between telecommunications and communications facility, it was called a communications facility and now it is called a telecommunications facility. Radio used to be radio but is now wireless. There is no distinction. Regarding if there is a difference between towers and antennas, the antenna radiates the signal. The tower supports the antenna. RONELLE DIETSCH: I live in an area with two-acre homesites, with no light poles to obstruct views. Within last two years a neighbor built and took away the view of mountaintops. I could regain this if I took down a couple of junipers, so I did that. I came home from work one day and there was a ham radio tower there. It is on the side of the neighbors' home where they can't see it, but I have to look at it every time I look out my windows. I asked if it could be moved, and they said I could go sit on my back porch if I didn't want to look at it. I not only lost my view, my property value went down because of the location of the pole. It will take longer to sell it because of it. I have no recourse except to look at it or plant trees. Since it is their hobby, they should place it where they could enjoy looking at it themselves. Since they refused, they must feel the tower is as ugly as I do since they didn't put it where they can see it. I have asked that a conditional use permit be required, with neighbor input. It should be located where the owners have to look at it if the neighbors do. I am concerned about height restrictions. I asked for an immediate moratorium, since the neighbors are planning to install a second tower that will require concrete footings. They seem to have no concern regarding the neighbors' feelings. I understand the use of towers and they can be a good thing, but the people need to be cognizant of what the neighbors want is important. The owners of the towers just need to be good neighbors. I am asking that the Commissioners work to have this happen. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 3 of 10 Pages Philip Kane asked whether there is any deed restriction or ordinance that would guarantee an unobstructed view. Ms. Deitsch stated that once the tower went in, they went to the Planning Department and found out there is no restrictions, and was advised of this meeting. Ms. Craghead stated that there is a precedence being set regarding having people ask questions; it is better to have each testify in order to allow time for everyone. Commissioner Daly agreed that he does not want the back and forth comments as it causes problems, and some are nervous about being questioned in this manner. Jerry Thye testified as a dual service person. He has been a ham radio operator since 1954, and is also involved in civil air patrol. Communications is one of the main things they do. They utilize their skills to save lives and property. Sometimes this requires communications across the country or internationally. That's why towers have to be high. At 100 feet there are good frequency engineering reasons. That is better than 70 feet. Commissioner Luke said that they have had work sessions and discussions regarding what ham operators do. The Board understands the value of what they do. Commissioner Daly asked if the tower could be lower if it is on a hill. Mr. Thye said that the soil needs to be considered. If it is near the sea, the signal may be better than in the desert. (He went on to explain how the sun's energy, the seasons and the atmosphere affect the signal.) David Neys testified. He is a Deschutes County Search & Rescue volunteer who regularly uses ham radios for search missions. It is so valuable that around 80% of the volunteers have their amateur radio license. These groups use money out of their own pockets to build and maintain their use in search missions. He asked that the Board take seriously what burden might be caused by this. Changes could result in fewer amateur facilities able to help with future missions. (He then discussed various types of towers.) Gladys Biglor of Cody Road, Bend, asked if in emergency situations there is an opportunity to put in temporary radios where communications are difficult. She spent 35 years with the Forest Service as a timber person and firefighter in the back country, and knows that if there is poor radio communications during emergencies they use temporary radios. She asked is this is the same thing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 4 of 10 Pages Mr. Neys replied that during an emergency they may put someone in a vehicle and send it to the highest place they can get. This can be challenging. Larger agencies bring in a helicopter to set them up. Ms. Biglor said that most any respectable American as well as Deschutes County citizens have a keen respect for ham radio operators and what they do. Having said that, there is a motto her dad taught her a long time ago; that is, in order to have a good neighbor you need to be a good neighbor. A value she embraced all my life. She added that it appears that the Planning Commission looked at this matter seriously. They probably weighed all the issues and tried to recommend a proposal for good neighbors as well as providing needed services. She urged the Commissioners to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations. It is reasonable to ask the neighbors and let them know what is going on. Through collaboration, everyone's needs can be met. Ken Brinich, representing Bob Sweeney, sad that the approach on this problem is to look at the facts and then apply the law. What does the law say about the legislative body's ability to regulate amateur radio towers. They are licensed by FCC, who decides the wavelength. Also, an effective antenna is necessary. This isn't just something that the US government looked at. Nations all across the world have found this to be useful and is promoted.. He submitted letters of support from the Red Cross, the Sheriff and others that were not specifically written in response to the proposal. This is a worldwide need, and widely recognized. He said there is a need to recognize the importance of the height of the antennas. Another fact, to put this into perspective, there are about 700 licensed amateur operators. About 10% of those require the higher antenna structures. One letter in the record says there are 40 or 50. This is a miniscule population. They are good neighbors to the community. There is also a need to understand that in densely populated areas of town, there are not a lot of high towers; there is too much static from other sources. They move what may be to some people offensive to a less densely populated area. Some may feel these are blight on the landscape, but it is subjective. In fact, if the towers are higher there is less interference with phones and television reception. They are legally authorized and this is a proper use of private property. It becomes emotional when someone loses their view, but do they own that view? No, it isn't theirs unless they have a view deed restriction or CCR's that create that right. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 5 of 10 Pages State and Federal recommendations talk about a legitimate purpose. EFU has a specific purpose. This does not infringe on farm use; cows can still move around. MUA zones are to conserve scenic and natural resources and perhaps some level of regulation would be appropriate. The same applies to a forest zone. Surface mining areas have no scenic values. In rural residential, nothing is said about scenic values. Only landscape management combining zones are meant to maintain and enhance scenic vistas. In an agricultural zone, there is no purpose to preserve scenic values. Commissioner Luke stated that the ordinance does not ban heights, it just asks for an additional site plan review. Mr. Brinich replied that state and federal jurisdictions rely on articulated purposes to establish regulations and siting of antennas. The proposal from the Planning Commission results in not an outright ban so much as an inverse condemnation of a certain antenna. Common sense says that you would want antennas out in the country, away from the population. What the County proposes is expensive and unnecessary. Debrah Curl, 703 NW Stonepine, requested that the record remain open for seven days so she can submit additional testimony that is technical in nature. She wants to point out that there could be unintended consequences if the tower is built. If it is abandoned for some reason, it could end up being used as a broadcast or wireless facility. There needs to be language to prevent that. Once a tower is up and the height is achieved, it could flip into an unintended use. There also needs to be some provision regarding radio frequency radiation. Also, the amendment does not address the width of the facilities and the type, just the height. LUBA remanded a decision to the City of Bend regarding towers in this regard. Jim Williams said that he is an amateur radio operator, an electrical worker for utilities and spent five years as an inspector with Deschutes County. (He testified in detail the importance of the group in search and rescue situations, and during other emergencies, and the reasons for antennas such as the one being discussed.) Commissioner Baney asked how many 100 foot towers are in the local area. Mr. Williams said there are perhaps ten in the county. Repeaters are expense and they cost a lot to install. They can cost $2,000 to $7,000 or more. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 6 of 10 Pages Richard Klyce of 12500 NW Chinook testified. He said he takes issue with requirements for a site plan, notifications, hearings, and a conditional use. The purpose of the process is allow anyone who lives nearby to object if they feel something could affect their property values. There was a similar issue in Tumalo where someone built a horse arena and blocked the neighbors' view. The Court ruled that no one has a right to a view absent a deed restriction. You are not automatically protected. The injured party has no recourse. Requiring a building permit and engineering is not a bad idea, though. Government agencies often complain that they are overworked and don't have funding for all they need to do. This is a waste of resources. Commissioner Luke stated that the State has rules and counties have to justify the fees they charge. The fee schedule is subject to a public hearing. The County operates as an agent of the State. The County tries to be fair but has to cover its costs. He asked staff about a site plan review or a Hearings Officer's review. Ms. Maze said that the Planning Commission recommends a site plan review. If there is any kind of opposition, it then goes to a Hearings Officer. Ms. Morrow added that depending upon what the Board decides, a special fee could be set up proportional to the amount of work, different from the standard fees. A decision needs to be clear and objective, in case an appeal is anticipated. William Sawders explained the work that the local operators do and how the height of the tower is dependent on the frequency. He gave examples of how his own radio towers have enhanced communications during various events. Rex Auker said that the federal government licenses and establishes requirements and local governments should not get involved. The State licenses cars and drivers but the city can tell you where to park. The issue here is, where to park them. He is the person who filed a complaint against Mr. Sweeney. He then sketched a drawing of the area and explained that Mr. Sweeney has built towers previously but they were low or not located to affect the view. One about 80 feet tall went in and he asked the County about permits; they said none were taken out but should have been. Then finally last year he saw holes being dug. They were substantial, about six feet deep, for guy wires. The antenna went up to 120 feet and at that point he had had enough. Construction was halted for a few days and it was suggested the law be rewritten. He was told the Sweeneys planned to take down the other two but would leave up the big one. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Pages The amateur radio text amendment was then citizen initiated. In 1996 the Federal Communications Act was revised due to the issue of the booming cellular phone industry. There was an anticipated need for cell sites but resistance to having them in peoples' back yards. The Act was written in such a way that it guarantees a level playing field among cell phone providers, not necessarily by restricting them but allowing counties to regulate and put certain limits on placement, etc. Since then .there have been a couple of rulings that say they won't tell the counties they cannot regulate amateur radios if it is reasonable. After that the State set a 708 foot limit. It does not say the counties cannot regulate towers under 70 feet; it says the County has to have a good reason to - health, safety or aesthetic reasons. The Planning Commission was presented with a proposal from the ham radio community that would exempt them, but the Commission specifically did not allow the exemption. Also at that meeting, the former CDD Director said that ham radios are by definition wireless telecommunications facilities. This is written very broadly. The support structure and antennas and other transmission devices is similar to what is found on cell towers. The law is already there; it may not be well written but can be tightened up. He added that he is not absolutely opposed to what they want to do, but it should fall under current regulations. Called an amateur radio text amendment, citizen imitated. They could have done the polite thing and talked with the neighbors about placement. The tower could have been built among trees in the non-irrigated portion of the land and would still have been high enough over the trees. Bill Pfeiffer of Bend said he is an interested observer attending to learn something. He is confused whether the hearing is to gather information for a decision between two alternatives, one more lenient than the other, or to decide on Mr. Auker's complaint. Commissioner Daly said that this affects everyone. Commissioner Baney added that they don't have to go to the two options; other ideas might come up. They want the one that makes the most sense. Commissioner Luke stated that nothing says they have to do one or the other. The Planning Commission recommendation is good, but the Board can tweak it or not do anything at all. Mr. Auker's complaint won't be decided now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 8 of 10 Pages Mr. Auker said that the Board could instruct staff to treat amateur operations as wireless, with decisions made administratively. Both recommendations could be dismissed and the current wireless telecommunications procedures enforced. In appreciation of the service provided by the operators, the fees could be waived. Mike Skeels explained his thirty years dealing with public fire service and other groups. He said that he is strongly opposed to additional regulations. These operators are not a commercial profit-making group; they are there for public safety reasons. Barry Landson, a radio amateur operator, detailed his experience in the U.S. Army and how the various frequencies and tower heights come into play. He went into detail about how radio waves work. They use lower towers but those are only for military and federal security use at this time. There are just a handful in the country. James Fenton said that there should be no fees but some kind of monitoring for bigger towers. Engineering and safety need to be considered. FCC regulations say that towers would need to be built to fall on the person's own property, with a buffer zone, and be compatible with the neighbors. Ms. Craghead explained that this is a legislative matter, and after the record is closed the Board can't consider ex parte communications or information. If something comes in after December 10, the Board is not supposed to consider it. Catherine Morrow provided Ms. Maze's e-mail address for contact purposes. All information received to date and received through December 10 will be posted on the County's CDD web page. Chair Daly closed the hearing, but left the record open for written communications until December 10, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 9 of 10 Pages DATED this 26th Day of November 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke; Vii6e Chair Tammy , Commi Toner ATTEST: Recording Secretary Attachments Exhibit A: Sign-in Cards Exhibit B: Agenda request and staff report Exhibit C: Written testimony Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding Amateur Radio Facilities Monday, November 26, 2007 Page 10 of 10 Pages ~~~Es c w°jU `Za Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp, AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of November 26, 2007 Use "tab" to move between fields, and use as much space as necessary within each field. Do not leave any fields incomplete. Agenda requests & backup must be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to the meeting to be included on the agenda. DATE: November 12, 2007 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kristen Maze, Community Development Department TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: A public hearing to discuss an amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 18 including Amateur Radio Facilities in the Building Height Exception section and Definitions section. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? YES BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On December 29, 2006; the Central Oregon DX Club filed an application for a text amendment to add provisions, to regulate amateur radio facilities, that was subsequently withdrawn then became Deschutes County staff initiated. On May 10, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board for the Amateur Radio text amendment with a modification to include Site Plan Review criteria from the DCC 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, for amateur radio facilites over 75 feet in height. Staff presented to the Board of County Commissioners two alternative sets of text amendments adding definitions to DCC 18.04.030 for Amateur Radio Facilities and Amateur Radio Services and amending DCC 18.120.40 Building Height Exceptions to include amateur radio facility regulations. The Board will conduct a public hearing on the two alternatives. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: $3,500 for Measure 56 notification. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt one set of the proposed amateur radio text amendments. ATTENDANCE: Kristen Maze, CDD DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Kristen Maze tit Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commission FROM: Kristen Maze, Associate Planner DATE: November 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10 PURPOSE The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing for the Amateur Radio Facilities text amendment that has been withdrawn by the applicant. Staff has presented this proposed text amendment in a work session with the Board to be considered as a county initiated amendment that modifies Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Section 18.040.030, Definitions to include Amateur Radio Facilities and Amateur (Ham) Radio Services and Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions, adding limitations for Amateur Radio Facilities. BACKGROUND The initial text amendment application originated as a result of a code enforcement action in which the owner of the amateur radio tower was issued a Notice of Violation for exceeding the 30 foot height limitation in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. The Planning Commission held four work sessions and two public hearings on the proposed text amendment (See Attachment 1, PC Minutes). The Planning Commission listened to considerable public testimony both for and against proposed regulations for placement of amateur radio facilities. Following is a summary of the background for the current Deschutes County amateur radio facilities regulations. • In 2000-2001 Deschutes County considered adopting regulations for amateur radio antennas. The issue was considered with revisions to regulations of wireless telecommunications facilities. However, no ordinance specifically mentioning amateur radio was adopted, in the interim, the county has not regulated amateur radio antennas except as a structure over 30 feet. Quality Services Perfortned with Pride Additionally, specific exemption to height limitations for radio and other similar projections that was in the DCC, section 18.120.040, was removed at that time (May, 2001). Currently, the Deschutes County Community Development Department applies the general restrictions of building height to the County Code for amateur radio facilities. This would require an amateur radio facility applicant to meet the height exception requirement, generally 30 feet, or fall under the specific zone area height requirements However, state law requires the county to not restrict amateur radio facilities 70 feet or lower unless the county can achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective (See ORS 221.295 Page 3). APPLICANT PROPOSAL The proposed text amendment initiated by the Central Oregon DX Club (Club) was based originally on the City of Beaverton's amateur radio ordinance. The amendment would: 1. add definitions for "Amateur Radio Facilities" and "Amateur (Ham) Radio Services" to DCC 18.04.030. 2. modify the Building Height Exceptions to allow for all amateur radio facilities in zones other than the Landscape Management Combing zone with a valid building permit if required by the Deschutes County Building Safety Director, including compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA), and with proof of a valid FCC Amateur Radio License at the time of building permit application (DCC 18.120.040). Through the Planning Commission work sessions and public hearings the applicant's original proposal was modified with approval by the applicant to the "streamline version", which is Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by reference, then subsequently withdrawn. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND VOTE The Planning Commission identified aesthetic concerns regarding amateur radio facilities over 75 feet in height. These concerns became evident as a result of opposition to the proposed text amendment and site visits by some Planning Commissioners. The Commissioner's voiced their concerns over the unsightly appearance of the amateur radio facilities next door to other residence and the fact that these facilities could interfere with neighbor's views. The Planning Commission voted four to two on the following motion; "Amateur radio facilities greater than 75 feet in height including retractable facilities to less than 75 feet shall be harmonious to the natural environment and existing development, minimize visual impacts and preserve natural features including view and topographical features of the surrounding lands associated with the amateur radio facility and shall include site plan language from DCC 18.128.340 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities". This motion also included aesthetic findings required by state statute. There was some confusion with the proposed motion regarding the inclusion of retractable amateur radio facilities. The Planning Commission's intent was to exclude amateur radio facilities that can be retracted to less than 75 feet in height from the more restrictive site plan 2 requirements of DCC 18.128.340 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The recommended language is intended to address neighborhood meetings, site plan review and acknowledgement by the neighbors adjacent to the amateur radio facilities. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board include language that would address amateur radio facilities over 75 feet in height with the incorporation of the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities language in DCC 18.128.340 (A) (1) (3) (d-i) and (B) (3,4,5,10). ANALYSIS The law Deschutes County must follow for setting amateur radio facility standards is established by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 221.295. 221.295 Ordinances regulating placement or height of radio antennas. Notwithstanding ORS chapters 215 and 227, a city or county ordinance based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations that regulate the placement, screening or height of the antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators must reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications and must represent the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the purpose of the city or county. However, a city or county may not restrict antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators to heights of 70 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective of the city or county. [1999 c.507 §1 ] This ORS is based on state and federal law, and case law from other states and federal courts since 1985 which restrict regulation of amateur radio towers and antennas by local government authorities. Any limits or restriction placed on amateur radio facilities must be linked to a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective. The applicant's proposal as modified in the "streamline version" provides minimum requirements to the amateur radio operator. • The proposal permits outright amateur radio facilities at any height provided the applicant obtains a building permit, an FCC amateur radio license, and satisfies the yard setbacks and design criteria. The Planning Commission's recommendation is more restrictive than state statute. • This recommendation would add a new Amateur Radio section 18.124 with additional site plan review criteria for amateur radio facilities over 75 feet in height. It is essential that in setting regulations for amateur radio facilities, the Board adhere to the State Statute. ORS 221.295 clearly maintains that regulation of the placement, screening or height of the antennas or antenna support structures of amateur radio operators must reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications and must represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the County's' purpose. REVIEW CRITERIA The proposed amendment revises the DCC Title 18 to permit amateur radio facilities consistent with ORS 221.295. The proposed amendment is a public policy issue. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. However, Deschutes County is required to comply with State and Federal law regarding amateur radio facilities. The parameters for evaluating this text amendment are based on whether there are adequate factual findings that demonstrate consistency with state and federal law, the statewide Planning Goals, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Code. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND FINDINGS Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Finding: Goal 1 is satisfied through our County text amendment process that includes a Planning Commission work session, followed by a Planning Commission public hearing, completed with County Board of Commissioners work session and public hearing. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Finding: Deschutes County has established a process and policy framework to assure that decisions rendered by the county on land use applications have an adequate factual basis. No exceptions to the Statewide Planning Goals are requested with this text amendment. The Staff report and accompanying materials contain the necessary facts for adoption of the proposed text amendments. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable since the zones have all been granted exceptions to Goal 3. Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable since the zones have all been granted exceptions to Goal 4. Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Finding: There are no Goal 5 Resources identified as part of this text amendment. Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Finding: The proposed text amendments will have no effect upon the air, water and land resources quality in Deschutes County. Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards. 4 Finding: The proposed text amendments will have no effect on areas subject to natural hazards. Goal 8: Recreation Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 9: Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Finding: This text amendment does not include future development therefore, this Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 10: Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Finding: As the affected properties are outside of Urban Growth Boundaries and will not be served through extensions of urban services unless they already exist, this Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 12: Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. Finding: The proposed text amendments will have no effect on the transportation system. This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 13: Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Goal 14: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Finding: This Statewide Planning Goal is not applicable to this text amendment. Statewide Planning Goals 15 -19 are goals that do not apply to Deschutes County Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed amendment would have no effect on Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. PUBLIC NOTICE A Measure 56 public hearing notice was sent to all Deschutes County residents outside the city limits and Urban Growth Boundaries. This notice was sent with the tax bill mailed out between October 15 and the 25, 2007. Based on State Statute ORS 215.503 (4) there shall be "at least 20 days but no more that 40 days before the date of the first hearing on an ordinance that proposes to rezone property". RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners; 1. Open the public hearing, 2. Identify one proposed Amateur Radio Facilities text amendment to proceed with making text changes that meet state and federal law, 3. Direct staff to make the appropriate changes and identify the findings for the chosen Amateur Radio text amendment, and 4. Follow up with a work session to address possible changes and approve the Amateur Radio text amendment. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes 2. Amateur Radio Draft Ordinance 3. Table (Streamline Version Text and Planning Commission Recommended Text) 4. Written Public Comments 6 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/ MEETING MINUTES Deschutes County Planning Commission Deschutes Services Center 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 January 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Mike Shirtcliff called the meeting to order. Members present were: Mike Shirtcliff, Susan Quatre, Bob Otteni, Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace, Kelly Smith and Todd Turner. Staff present included: Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Catherine Morrow, CDD Planning Director; Barbara Rich, Senior Environmental Health Planner; Terri Payne, Associate Planner; Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner; and Sher Buckner, Secretary. Approval of Minutes -12/14/06 Commissioner Smith requested that on page 5, "45 days" be changed to "45 weeks," and on page 3, "reports" be changed to "resorts." Minutes approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS There were none. III. WORK SESSION -File No. TA-06-10 -A Text Amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Kristen Maze summarized the contents of the Staff Report for the Commissioners. Chair Shirtcliff stated that if any technical or informational questions are to be asked of the Applicant, they should be answered in writing. Commissioner Turner asked if other counties were also addressing this issue at this time. Kristen replied that she was not sure, but that the Code that the Applicant used as a model was the Gresham Code. Commissioner Pace asked about setbacks in the Gresham Code. Commissioner Otteni asked about legislative text amendments being adopted into County Code. Catherine Morrow responded that when the legislature changes state law, we cannot be more restrictive in our Code; but if the legislature adopts something more restrictive than the County, we do not have to change our Code. Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Quatre asked about the current County height limitation, and Kristen said that our current Code is very general; this would make it more restrictive. Commissioner Smith asked further questions about height restrictions in landscape management zones, and the height of the support structures which look like they might be as high as the antenna. He wondered if there are limitations on the height of the support structures and also what the definition of "support structure," should be, i.e., what are the limitations on what one can look like? Commissioner Smith also requested clarification of requirements for telescoping structures. If they are capable of being extended over 70 feet, do they have to be retracted at the end of the day, the end of use, etc? What frequencies necessitate antennas higher than 70 feet? Commissioner Turner requested that the heights be shown on the photographs that were handed out in the packets. Commissioner Smith also asked about whether the materials needed to be anodized. Chair Shirtcliff asked about restrictions for what could be hung on the antennas, since they might be considered personal property and there could be problems with visual pollution. He felt the Commissioners all needed more information and education on this topic. Commissioner Cyrus wanted to obtain more information about the public service that the operators provide. Kristen mentioned that the responses to the Commissioners' questions will be included in the next packet. IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the La Pine Local Rule Proposal Chair Shirtcliff stated that there were two proposals under consideration: Whether to make a recommendation to the Board and, if so, what the recommendation should be. Barbara Rich provided updates regarding information provided to the community and compilation of responses since the packets were sent to the Commissioners. Commissioner Otteni asked if this is something about which the Planning Commission is qualified to make recommendations. He mentioned that the South County already has a technical groundwater advisory committee (TAC) comprised of people who have been involved with this issue for a long time. He thought that the Planning Commission should defer making a recommendation until after the TAC's next meeting on the 30th, since he feels they have much more technical expertise. Barbara Rich explained the history of the TAC's involvement and that their primary mission was not working on the Local Rule but to revise the transferable development credit program. As they worked, they came up with concepts for the Local Rule. They recommended that staff move forward with the concepts in conjunction with the pollution reduction credit program brought to the Commission's attention in April or May of 2006. The Local Rule concepts were also brought up at that time and public testimony was received on the Local Rule concepts at the May hearing. Barbara also summarized the public information meeting process that has been taking place. The TAC has not met since April of 2006, but we are keeping them updated on our progress as the two public processes have blended. 2 Commissioner Otteni asked Barbara how she felt about the TAC being able to present majority and minority views on the Local Rule and acting as an advisory board. Barbara said they are going back to the TAC at its meeting next week and will be updating them on all of the work since they last met in April of 2006. The TAC also works on a consensus basis, usually without voting. There is a roundtable discussion before a final decision. Commissioner Smith agreed that we need to wait until the TAC meets on January 30, but he sees our mission as cooperating with them as the public involvement body for the County. We've had the public hearing that the TAC has not had. We provide a different input to the County Commissioners which is still valuable, but we might want to wait until the TAC meeting on the 301h Chair Shirtcliff asked for comments as to whether a recommendation should be made to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Quatre said she agreed with waiting. Barbara mentioned that the TAC is not comprised of scientists but rather stakeholders such as realtors, property owners, developers and consultants. Commissioner Turner directed a question about the Planning Commission's role to Catherine Morrow. He felt they had listened to the public input and educated themselves, but wondered what the exact role and boundaries are if they are on the "front line," but the County Commissioners can act independently of any recommendations made by the Planning Commission. Catherine responded that she felt it would be appropriate to make a recommendation. The Local Rule evolved out of regional problem solving, which addressed other goals besides just water quality. The Planning Commission is the citizen-involvement committee to the Board. If it is able to reach, through discussion, some concepts regarding this Rule that it thinks should be adopted, it is appropriate to make such a recommendation. The Board meeting will be in La Pine, probably at the high school, and will be well attended. There will be a work session with the Board the day after the TAC meeting, and the Board may give direction based on public input. The draft of the Local Rule is not finalized and will not be until it has been made available to the public with notice. With the heightened public awareness on this issue, they seem ready to talk directly to the Board. Chair Shirtcliff wondered whether they should have a public hearing on the Local Rule in draft form. Catherine did not think that was a good idea, but it was possible. At this point, with the heightened public awareness about this issue, the public is probably ready to talk directly to the Board. The principles of the Rule include a ten-year timeline, the retrofitting of existing systems based on the model showing nitrate level reduction, and new systems should include treatment at the highest level. If the Commissioners think those are good concepts, a recommendation could be made now, or later after the text comes out online. Chair Shirtcliff stated that he would not be comfortable making a recommendation. The citizens' biggest fears appear to be their ability to pay for the systems and the unknown costs. The financing model appears vague and not like a utility bill, which the general public understands. Commissioner Pace agreed and felt that low-income families have legitimate concerns about obtaining financing, what assistance is available and what standards apply as to who would be eligible for assistance. The County saying it is "committed to locating financing... " does not answer these concerns. Where would the installation money come 3 from? How many households will be helped? What age level, what income level? How do they find out the cost for their particular lot? Some of them might have trouble dealing with and understanding contractors, especially older citizens. The Rule should not be passed without more detailed information other than that the County is just committed. Commissioner Smith commented that in the County Code, there are three main duties for the Planning Commission, one of which is to act as a citizen involvement committee to "advise the Board on involvement programs and to study and propose such measures as may be advisable for promotion of the public interest, health, safety, comfort and convenience," etc. This appears to be one of those situations and the Commission has a duty to advise the Board. Commissioner Otteni said there already was a South County water quality advisory committee and read some of the members from a list he had brought with him. He wondered why the Planning Commission should overstep these boundaries. Barbara Rich restated that the TAC's original mission was to revise the transferable development credit program. They were not formed to focus on the Local Rule specifically. The list that Commissioner Otteni read was staff support, and they did not have a say in the consensus process. It is not accurate to say that staff had representation on the TAC. Commissioner Smith again said that what he has heard was that the Commissioners are uncomfortable with this process. Commissioner Quatre asked why the TAC is still meeting if their purpose was to revise the transferable development credit program, since that program has been completed. There should be a monthly breakdown of costs for the public. Barbara said staff are updating the TAC on the progress of the Local Rule because they promised they would. There is no draft Rule to give the TAC yet. Commissioner Otteni asked if Barbara expected anything to come out of the meeting on the 30tH Barbara said there may not be much discussion-wise. Also, regarding Commissioner Quatre's question about costs, at every meeting for the public that the staff has held, homeowners have been told to contact the County Sanitarian on a site-by-site basis. The County cannot control costs and has to work with the private sector. The pollution reduction credit program is up and running, and some financial assistance is available to homeowners right now. Chair Shirtcliff said again that he was trying to consider families who would never be able to come up with the cost of a system. He's hearing from citizens that they are terrified of what possibly coming up with $18,000 means to them and how they would qualify for support. Barbara said that was the rationale for the ten-year compliance frame - to give homeowners time to deal with the costs. Commissioner Turner said he does not feel uncomfortable at all. It is premature for the Commissioners to make any sort of recommendation at this point, and until they see a draft of the Local Rule, there is nothing to respond to. To even think about making a 4 recommendation without more information is not worth the effort. Once the draft Rule has been evaluated against public testimony, that is the point at which to make a recommendation. Commissioner Pace asked about the details of the Local Rule. Barbara said the Rule itself is just a rule, without financial details. Commissioner Turner said then at that point, he would say the Local Rule did not contain enough information to make a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Pace asked about the 3750 subsidy and how that was going. Barbara said it is progressing slowly without a Local Rule. Tom Anderson responded to Commissioner Turner's question as to the appropriateness of a recommendation. Without making any presumptions about the recommendation, it should state the Planning Commission's historical role playing a significant part of RPS, the adoption of the TDC's, the PRC's and the hearing in November. The Planning Commission does have a significant stake in this, so the recommendation might start out by saying to the Board, "Based on the Planning Commission's involvement in a, b, c and d, leading up to where we are today, this is our recommendation to the Board which would lend a lot of credibility and carry more weight. Tom felt the Board of Commissioners would agree completely. There has not been a detailed conversation with them yet on what the Commissioners have been hearing. As Barbara said, they will be presented with the information from this meeting, and they will want to have as much information as possible in order to make a careful and thorough decision. This may involve three or four hearings in La Pine, and they have also been getting a lot of direct input from the public. We have not done enough to allay people's fears regarding finances. There will be a lot of money available from the new neighborhood, which is leverage to create the financial assistance. All of the undeveloped land that the County still owns will be sold at market rate, as well. But specifics have not been provided as to the forms that assistance might take. The County might pay for the retrofit and put a lien on the property, or there might be a conventional loan. Tom thought it would be inappropriate to lay out these options without more input from the community. Some people say this is a cost of home ownership, and others wonder how they will pay for it. Chair Shirtcliff suggested that this discussion be forwarded to the Board so that they can read what the Planning Commission is struggling with. Commissioner Quatre suggested that the $35-$45 cost per month for maintenance could be combined with other utility bills. Barbara explained that the installation and maintenance costs are different, and Commissioner Pace elaborated that she was thinking of amortizing installation costs. Commissioner Turner mentioned that when he first came to Bend, the majority of houses did not have water meters. The economic scale was different, but every house had to put one in within a ten-year period. One financing option was that the City could install the water meters and bill the homeowners with zero-interest loans. There are a lot of creative ways to finance this project. 5 Chair Shirtcliff felt that consideration should be given to the fact that there are a lot of people living off the grid in La Pine who don't want to have a water meter and don't want the County to know what they are doing. Commissioner Otteni offered further cost analysis. He said he had talked to a supplier about a new dual-flow system that would cost less and be more effective than current sand filter systems. As new systems come on the market, costs go down. He sees part of the public reluctance as a problem with the "one size fits all" approach. Chair Shirtcliff restated that the residents have ten years before they have to do anything. Commissioner Otteni wondered how to convince people of the current need if they think the area will have a sewer system eventually. Catherine Morrow commended Commissioner Otteni on his analysis of density and sewer on the issue of whether sewer is more affordable in certain areas. She summarized some of the work that was done with regional problem solving. The question was posed to the public about sewers and some analysis of the cost was done. People didn't want sewers because of the cost, and so far there is no evidence that shows sewers will be cheaper than the current proposed solution, using the neighborhood planning area. There is also the issue of the statewide planning goals, which could change. An exception could be pursued that would allow the use of sewer. But the time that it would take for this option is many years, and in the meantime, we have this loading going on. Through the financial incentive program that is not fully developed (and we recognize this), the desire is to be able to provide some incentives so that some of these systems are retrofitted. The load is going in every single day, and we if do nothing for a number of years, that load is not being addressed. Chair Shirtcliff felt that if nothing is done, the DEQ will come in and restrict building. Catherine said that the public has the opinion that "sewer will save the day," but we do not know where the money is coming from. The assumption that sewer will be cheaper is currently without documentation. Barbara Rich said that, based on the Oregon Water Wonderland II Sewer, their $8500 hookup is premised on a very large donation of land for the sewer treatment site. The price of that land was essentially $500 an acre as a result of an act of Congress in 1998 to grant it from the BLM. That sewer system received a huge financial subsidy, and the County's Goal 11 exception process for the system was also part of the subsidy. Commissioner Quatre wondered if anyone had heard the public's concerns about a potential monopoly and their suspicion about only a few contractors being authorized to install these systems. Chair Shirtcliff agreed that there was a lot of suspicion in general. Commissioner Otteni said there was also the potential for anyone to get trained, and he felt if this comes to fruition there will be a number of qualified competitive businesses. Barbara Rich related that there already are two companies that have approved systems for use, and there are three distributors for one of the companies in this County. The other company has one distributor, but there are many installers who can put in these systems. The competition is definitely there among the installers, and more is being created with the manufacturers. Commissioner Cyrus felt there are many licensed contractors in central Oregon who would be qualified and a monopoly would not be a problem. Some of the concerns he heard were related to the fact that there was already a sewer in the area which appears to offer "salvation" to the residents. There was the land grant to Water Wonderland, and Sisters got the same thing. There is a suspicion that something is being overlooked, but we are fortunate that the research has been done and there are options to improve the situation. Anyone who is going to build has already has already put their money together, which will put a cap on the expansion of this situation. The problem isn't with new construction since this would be part of the package. He felt there is more of a problem with dictating to people who already live there, who might be forced to sell and relocate. Even with financial assistance, there will be people who can't afford it. With ten years to resolve this, there will most likely be new technology, but it is a tough situation. Chair Shirtcliff asked how many lots were under consideration. Barbara estimated that there are around 10,000. Chair Shirtcliff wondered about the per-household comparison, if the cost of sewer is $150 million, for 10,000 lots. But not everyone would be required to hook up. Commissioner Smith thought there were three things that were fairly clear. There needs to be a Local Rule and he was comfortable with the work the County has done to come up with a model. The Local Rule makes sense. The financing has to be more established before the Local Rule is put into effect. We could still make a recommendation that (a) we need a Local Rule; (b) the Local Rule that has been proposed looks good; and (c) the financing needs to be in place before the Local Rule is put into effect. Commissioner Otteni felt that there needs to be more discussion before any recommendation is made regarding the Local Rule. He considered local families who are selling and buying homes in the area - one house has to be retrofitted for the sale, and the house being purchased has to be retrofitted as well. Sooner or later the homeowner is going to use $15,000 equity in the house. Catherine Morrow said there is currently no requirement at the time of sale to do anything. Commissioner Otteni wanted to hear from some type of South County organization and thought that the TAC would be a good organization to provide a recommendation, with majority and minority reports. He felt this Commission was not qualified to make a recommendation at this time. Chair Shirtcliff disagreed with Commissioner Otteni. Catherine Morrow said that the Board of County Commissioners is ultimately empowered, and the TAC does not represent the South County. They were convened to make a recommendation, as stakeholders, on an amendment to the Code for the pollution reduction credit. She would not characterize them in any way as representing the South County. There are members of that committee who have expressed in writing to the Board of County 7 Commissioners very detailed opinions about the Rule, the science, the financing, etc., as individuals. Commissioner Otteni asked if Catherine knew of a community action team that would be qualified. Catherine said that there really is not anyone else. The Board will be hearing from anyone who is interested in expressing an opinion about this, and they will make the ultimate decision. The Planning Commission is a trustworthy body to make a recommendation. Chair Shirtcliff wanted to clarify Commissioner Otteni's opinion that the Commissioners are not prepared to make a decision because they do not understand what is going on well enough. Commissioner Otteni said he is not convinced that the Planning Commission understands the issues enough to make a decision. He thinks the feeling in La Pine is that maybe anyone who uses the water table is a stakeholder. Maybe this Commission and the County should all be involved, and a bond should be floated in Deschutes County to help appropriate money. Chair Shirtcliff again disagreed with Commissioner Otteni. Commissioner Otteni again asked why everyone who has an interest in the water should not be involved. Why should only the people in South County have to pay for this? Why not make it a broader issue? Perhaps it could be state or federal. Why should someone on a fixed income have to bear the responsibility of cleaning up the Deschutes River because the people in Bend think that is a good idea? Maybe there needs to be legislation saying we all should pay for it, and he would feel better about voting on it if there were. Commissioner Turner felt that the Commissioners were very capable of making a recommendation and that the members are very conscious of the potential financial impact. The fact that some members don't live in South County removes them from making decisions based on fear or greed. Regarding support County-wide, everyone who lives in Deschutes County pays taxes. The whole County will have a financial stake and will benefit. He agreed with what Commissioner Smith said about making a recommendation to the Board. The Local Rule concepts are fine; it is the financial details that need to be worked out, but that message could be sent to the Board. Commissioner Cyrus agreed with Commissioner Turner. Everyone is paying taxes and contributing through all of these avenues to find a solution. What if the whole County voted on how to solve the problem of groundwater in the Deschutes River, and one of the ballot options was a moratorium on new development in La Pine, which would be the quickest, cheapest way to start a solution? The other option would be to dig in pockets and contribute. "We have a stake in this, but we did not create the problem." Some other options might come up and not be in the best interests of La Pine. Commissioner Pace said that one of the reasons the financial means should be evaluated more closely is that it might come down to forming a district with a bond in order to get enough money. It hasn't been evaluated sufficiently to know who needs it, who doesn't need it and how to get it to them. If it came down to more money being needed and the best way was to float a bond, maybe that should be done. But we don't have that evaluation, and what 8 we're trying to recommend to the Board is that it be finalized so that people will have confidence they are not doing everything alone. Catherine Morrow pointed out that we are operating under a grant, and one of the tasks is to come up with financial mechanisms, including a low-interest loan program. There will be a lot of work to do with financing before anything else happens. Chair Shirtcliff thought that the conversation this evening would be very valuable to people. It covers the issues being struggled with, and he would like to forward the discussion on to the Board. Commissioner Pace wondered if they would prefer to read a short recommendation rather than transcribed minutes. Chair Shirtcliff said, in this case, the Board would want a feel for what to expect when people show up. Catherine Morrow agreed that a copy of the minutes should be forwarded to the Board. It has been valuable for us as staff to hear the comments. Is the financing going to be fleshed out before the Rule is adopted or afterward? We value any ideas about financial options, in the same way we have been trying to present information to the public about the science, concepts and risks. As professional staff, we were planning to contract with some financial institutions to help in developing loan programs and other options. We need to crunch numbers - how much money do we expect to generate? Chair Shirtcliff said he felt the reason anyone was reluctant to vote on the Rule was because it was like pushing a snowball off a cliff. The Rule doesn't speak to what happens when it gathers momentum. It only requires an upgrade within ten years. It is really innocuous. MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved that the Commission sees a definite need to take action to protect the groundwater quality very soon, and they request that specific financial assistance programs be outlined for the public before any Local Rule is adopted. SECOND: Commissioner Quatre DISCUSSION: Commissioner Turner asked if the motion could be prefaced with something about the Commissioners' history of reviewing the water conditions and public hearings. Commissioner Otteni wanted to speak against the motion at this point because he wanted to make a second motion that might be precluded by this one. He felt that the Deschutes County Planning Commission should defer to the TAC until it comes up with a recommendation, with majority and minority opinions, before it does or does not support the Local Rule. Chair Shirtcliff stated that the motion on the floor was not about the Local Rule but about the groundwater condition. Catherine Morrow restated Commissioner Smith's motion: "The Planning Commission sees the need to take action to protect the groundwater very soon, and it requests specific financial programs be outlined for the public before any Local Rule is adopted." Commissioner Smith said that input from the TAC might be very good, but it might not influence how the Planning Commissioners vote on this motion. The motion does not say the Commissioners are supporting the Local Rule, only that they see a big need to do something; and before something is done, some financial assistance programs need to be outlined. Commissioner Otteni requested that the words "very soon" be dropped from the motion, because they imply a timetable. He felt these words were vague - do they mean next week or next month? Six months? Commissioner Smith felt that the words imply a sense of urgency and should be included. If no time limit is included, it might be 20 years and that would be too late. Commissioner Otteni could propose an amendment, but he would not be in favor of it. Chair Shirtcliff said that Commissioner Otteni could move to amend the words and see if there is a second to the motion. The amendment would be voted on and, depending on whether it passed or failed, the original motion would be voted on. Commissioner Otteni asked if he could make the amendment at this point. Chair Shirtcliff said yes. MOTION: Commissioner Otteni moved to amend Commissioner Smith's motion to exclude the words "very soon." SECOND: There was no second. Chair Shirtcliff said the motion failed due to lack of a second and asked if there was further discussion on the motion already open. Commissioner Turner asked for the motion to be read back again. Catherine Morrow read the motion as "The Planning Commission sees the need to take action to protect the groundwater very soon, and it requests specific financial programs be outlined for the public before any Local Rule is adopted." Commissioner Turner said he could not think of a clearer way to state the motion, other than to say "financial assistance is outlined." There is already the pollution reduction credit and other financial assistance. Commissioner Quatre asked about the possibility of inserting a "whereas" clause. Chair Shirtcliff said that this could be added. Commissioner Quatre felt that Commissioner Otteni might be concerned about the Commissioners not having heard the minority report. She thought the Commissioners could acknowledge having heard this input. Chair Shirtcliff stated that Commissioner Otteni's objections would be part of the record and reflected in the minutes. 10 Commissioner Pace asked if the financial assistance issue could be expanded to say something about the amount of funds, the number of grants, the number of loans and the assistance to individuals in determining the cost of their retrofits. She asked Commissioner Turner if that additional detail would cover his concerns. Commissioner Turner said that he did not think it was possible to determine those numbers. Commissioner Pace said that the Commissioners know something about incomes in La Pine and people do this regularly when they are discussing housing programs. They figure so many households ...this amount of money is available... at this level of income an 80% grant would be provided toward a retrofit, etc. Chair Shirtcliff thought that the Commissioners weren't recommending any Local Rule until those issues were dealt with. The specific issues weren't going to be listed at this time, but if this motion is approved, the discussion should be forwarded along with the motion. Commissioner Turner said that he felt the current motion was not mutually exclusive to the motion that Commissioner Otteni made. He thought there was an opportunity to consider Commissioner Otteni's motion after discussion on the current motion. Commissioner Otteni asked of the two motions could be combined and that the first motion was a vote of confidence in the need to clean up the water. He wondered about adding a statement about the TAC committee. Chair Shirtcliff thought that there should be a separate motion. There are a lot of unresolved issues that concern everyone. Commissioner Smith restated the motion as saying that there "is a problem that needs to be fixed, but a Rule should not be instituted until financial programs are outlined for the public." Commissioner Pace said she disagreed with using the TAC because that is not their purpose. Chair Shirtcliff asked for a vote. VOTE: All in favor except for Commissioner Otteni. Chair Shirtcliff asked for any other motions on this subject. MOTION: Commissioner Otteni recommended that the TAC be asked to make a recommendation as to acceptance of the Local Rule and how they would vote on it, with majority and minority opinions. SECOND: Commissioner Smith. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Smith thought that Commissioner Otteni's intention was to get input from some committee in the South County. He questioned whether the TAC was an appropriate committee. They addressed the TDC's and PRC's, which are South County issues, but the committee members are not just from the area. Commissioner Otteni said that his wife is a member of the TAC and has provided him with information on what has gone on over the years. He felt that the DEQ and the County, as 11 well as private citizens, realtors and developers, were represented. An opinion was expressed that the TAC had some ideas to be considered. At one meeting, Ken Schoeller of the TAC said he felt they were a group that had come to express concerns, but he was frustrated that no one heard their opinions. Commissioner Otteni felt that this was a chance to hear their views, since the TAC is an advisory committee anyway. Commissioner Pace asked whether the TAC had ever given an opinion. Commissioner Otteni said that he did not attend every meeting, and he was speaking somewhat on hearsay and that Ken Schoeller and his wife had. He further elaborated on the backgrounds of members of the TAC as providing a good cross section of the community, well versed in the issues pertaining to groundwater. His wife will also be on a medical leave and he will probably take her place. Commissioner Turner asked if there was anything to stop the TAC from coming forward with an opinion at any time. Catherine Morrow said they were not an advisory committee to the Planning Commission or the Board. Chair Shirtcliff said that the TAC could have come forward as a group and stated what they had been discussing. Catherine said that at the TAC's meetings, they did develop recommendations regarding the Local Rule. Those are the recommendations that have been acted on to date. If they have different recommendations, they will make them, and if there is not a consensus and they choose to have some of their members develop majority and minority opinions, those will be forwarded to the Board. Chair Shirtcliff stated that Commissioner Otteni's motion does not do any harm, potentially does good and there is no reason not to just make a recommendation to the Board. Catherine said that the way she understands Commissioner Otteni's motion is that this Planning Commission would be making a recommendation to them. Commissioner Otteni further stated that this Planning Commission would be giving a voice of support to their decision and asking for their decision, or a vote of confidence. Commissioner Quatre wondered if there would be a problem setting a precedent where an advisory committee to the Board gave an opinion. Should the report go to them and not to this Planning Commission? Chair Shirtcliff said he felt that Commissioner Otteni wanted this Planning Commission to lend support to whatever decision the committee makes, and he was not sure if he agreed with that. That was not what he heard in the motion. He heard Commissioner Otteni saying that he wanted this Commission to give some weight to what the TAC says. He would rather have what they said considered in the deliberations when the Planning Commission decides what to do. Catherine Morrow asked the Secretary to read the motion again. 12 Commissioner Otteni asked if the motion was duplicating things that the TAC was already doing, because the Commissioners had asked them to do the same thing. Catherine Morrow again stated that the TAC was not appointed by the Commissioners. It was convened by staff to get some stakeholder involvement in the development of the PRC program. As a courtesy and at their request, staff is going back to update them on the work done based on their initial recommendations. If they choose - based on what they have heard, what we report to them and what we provide to them - to make some other recommendation to us as staff or to the Board of County Commissioners, they are free to do that. Commissioner Turner wanted to confirm that the TAC was formed with a task that did not include evaluation of the Local Rule but had to do with the pollution tax credit program. Through their involvement, the Local Rule is coming up and we are communicating with them on the status of what is going on. Their original goal and focus has not been on this Local Rule issue, so we are asking them to give an opinion on something they weren't created to evaluate in the first place. Barbara Rich stated that the TAC was created to help amend the transferable development credit program, and she characterized their recommendation on the Local Rule as a fortuitous by-product of that discussion. The two programs ended up being inextricably linked, and so did the discussion and interests of the TAC. Chair Shirtcliff asked if some of the Local Rule ideas came out of the TAC's recommendations. Barbara said they did Commissioner Turner asked, as a follow up, if the committee was present at the educational and public input sessions held by County staff. Barbara said the TAC had been invited and some members had been present, but she could not tell if all of them had been present. Commissioner Otteni read from the September, 2005 TAC record: "Fundamental task of TAC established... 'determine how the new neighborhood and its funding mechanisms can be utilized to solve the nitrate problem stemming from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the South County.' " He also said he asked his wife at what point it went from that statement to focus on the Local Rule as a general concept. He did notice initially that it was all discussions about the PRC's, but as time went on, the focus moved into the broader issues and the committee became more well versed. As it got up to April 2006, staff provided updates for the Local Rule which included nitrate loading management models, minimum reduction required, future development of treatments They evolved after that. Chair Shirtcliff thought what was needed was a recommendation that the Board talk to the TAC before it makes any decisions. Commissioner Smith said he understood that the motion was asking the TAC to make a recommendation. 13 Chair Shirtcliff said that the Planning Commission does not recommend to the TAC - it reports to the Board. There would be more impact if a recommendation was made to the Board to hear recommendations of the TAC. Commissioner Turner asked again for the motion to be read aloud. Chair Shirtcliff said he felt the motion had more power if the Board listens to the TAC before it makes any decisions. He would vote against the motion because it does not accomplish anything in an effective way. Commissioner Smith asked Chair Shirtcliff if he wanted to come up with another motion. Chair Shirtcliff said he would make a motion that this Commission recommend to the County Commissioners that they visit the discussion of the TAC before making a decision. Commissioner Pace asked if Commissioner Otteni's motion could be amended. Chair Shirtcliff said it would be easier to either vote the motion down or withdraw it. Commissioner Otteni withdrew the motion, and Commissioner Smith withdrew the second. Chair Shirtcliff stated that the motion had been withdrawn. MOTION: Chair Shirtcliff motioned the Planning Commission recommend to the County Commissioners that they listen to the TAC before making any decision about the Local Rule, including majority and minority reports. SECOND: Commissioner Smith. DISCUSSION: Chair Shirtcliff asked Catherine Morrow for her input. She said that the motion probably would not have any effect and that the County did not have the staff to produce majority and minority reports. If the Commissioners want to have those reports they would probably have to produce them, or if the committee members could produce reports if they want. Commissioner Turner asked what the motion accomplishes. The TAC could do anything it wants with regard to attending Planning Commission or Board meetings. Chair Shirtcliff said it addresses a concern that one of the members has. He (Commissioner Otteni) thinks that the TAC has important information that the Commissioners ought to consider, and he would like someone to say this needs to be done. The Planning Commission is addressing a concern of one of its members. Commissioner Turner thought that this direction needs to go to the TAC. There will come a time when the Planning Commission discusses the Local Rule, and that would be the time to obtain input from the TAC. Chair Shirtcliff said he understood that. Commissioner Pace added that maybe TAC staff could be informed that the Commission is very concerned about their opinions and that they would like a majority/minority report. This 14 would get the request directly to them without having to go through the Board, and it would help in showing that the Commissioners have a real interest in what the TAC says. Chair Shirtcliff said it was possible to do both with a motion. Commissioner Smith agreed. Commissioner Otteni asked for clarification. Chair Shirtcliff said it had been suggested that staff tell the TAC that they would like them to give an opinion to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Otteni felt that it had been discussed among the Commissioners and he wanted to have them make the recommendation, not defer to staff. Commissioner Quatre asked for clarification. Chair Shirtcliff stated he understood that Commissioner Otteni wanted a formal vote that a recommendation be made that the Board should hear from the TAC, and that was what this motion would do. Commissioner Smith felt that this was a concern of the only member from the South County, who did not want to be the lone voice here. He wants to make sure that the Board of County Commissioners hears from some other body, as well. Chair Shirtcliff agreed that Commissioner Otteni had done a good job representing his position. Since he is from the area, he wants to make sure all viewpoints are heard. Chair Shirtcliff requested that the motion be read aloud. The motion was read again. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Chair Shirtcliff said that someone should alert the TAC. Catherine Morrow said they would be notified and the minutes would be forwarded. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Commissioner Smith wanted to discuss his recent statements as quoted in The Bulletin. Chair Shirtcliff asked Commissioner Quatre how she felt when she read the article with her comments, as well. Commissioner Quatre said she did not feel betrayed but she was upset about the slant that the Commissioners did not have enough experience to make a decision. Commissioner Smith said that most of the reporting was accurate but incomplete. The Planning Commission should be proactive and not just reactive to issues. Regarding the wildlife area combining zone, he had gotten input from a number of people from different groups. On issues 15 like that, it might be good to do research individually and then bring it up a meeting to see if the public would like to discuss it. That comment did not get into the article. Commissioner Smith thought items of interest to the general public could be brought up, rather than waiting for something to happen. Commissioner Quatre said she had been asked if she had an agenda, but she did not comment. Chair Shirtcliff said his comment was that the Commissioners did have an agenda, which is to have a diverse body that considers all opinions and all sides as well as possible. Commissioner Otteni said he had laid the ground rules at the start of the interview. He said that when a decision was made as a body, the Commissioners could not talk about it outside of the group. Specifically, if Commissioner Otteni was asked why he made a decision a certain way, he could discuss it, but he still questioned whether that was appropriate. Commissioner Smith asked what that meant. Commissioner Otteni said if he was on a board with a majority vote and a minority vote, he could not discuss those - only why he, personally, voted the way he did. Commissioner Smith said it was not a legal requirement, as the meetings were public, but he understood Commissioner Otteni's reluctance to discuss someone else's point of view. Commissioner Turner said his comments were reported accurately. His comment about an agenda was that he did not come in with one. This quote was put between Commissioner Smith's and Commissioner Otteni's quotes, as if there was some issue. The interesting comment was Commissioner Turner's being asked about his lone vote on the destination resort topic. His comment was, having served on boards, when a board makes a vote and you are in the minority, you still support the board action. The destination resort was too much of a hot topic to discuss. He gave the reporter credit for not putting anything about destination resorts into the article. Commissioners Pace and Cyrus discussed their opinions about the reporter's comments being positive and accurate, for the most part. Commissioner Quatre said she had told the reporter about the volume of materials the Commissioners read before a meeting, and her comment was never added. Chair Smith and Commissioner Cyrus agreed. Terri Payne requested that the Commissioners consider a meeting (work session) with the Bend Planning Commission on the Urban Growth Boundary on February 26. There was discussion as to the fact that this was Spring Break and some Commissioners might be unable to attend, and whether this would replace the Planning Commission's regular meeting. The Commissioners will let staff know if they cannot attend. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 N.W. Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701. 16 Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Planning Secretary 17 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 8, 2007- 5:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Shirtcliff. Members present were Brenda Pace, Susan Quatre, Kelly Smith, Mike Shirtcliff, Keith Cyrus, Todd Turner, and Robert Otteni. Staff present were Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner, Catherine Morrow, Planning Director, Tom Anderson, CDD Director, Terri Payne, Associate Planner, and Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary. (Approval of Minutes -1/25/07) It was noted that there was a correction on Page 5 - Commissioner Quatre's comments not Commissioner Pace at bottom of page. Page 7 - Should read Commissioner Smith not Chair Smith. Commissioner Pace made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections noted. Commissioner Quatre seconded the motion. All members were in favor. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None III. PUBLIC HEARING - File No. TA-06-10 - Public Hearing regarding a text amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Chair Shirtcliff read the preliminary statement. QUESTIONS: Commissioner Smith inquired about new changes - Building permits only required on 70 ft. or higher tower. Chair Shirtcliff opened the Hearing for Public Testimony Bob Sweeney, Central Oregon GVC, 62515 Stenkamp Road, Bend, OR 97701 - noted that radio towers do not conduct electricity. Quality Services Perfortned with Pride Mr. Sweeney then played a video about Ham Radio Operators David Neys, 20541 Ambrosia Lane, Bend, OR 97702 - discussed how Ham Radios are used. He noted how different agencies were unable to communicate after 9-11, because they all had different radio systems. Ham Radio was helpful after Hurrican Katrina as well. Oregon recently hosted a 5-state Tsunami Drill. Ham Radio is located in the State Emergency Center. 90% of the volunteers on the State Emergency Services are Ham Operators. ODOT is working with the Ham Radio Operators to have a backup system in Bend. Ham radio is one of the few solutions that can be deployed at any time. Commissioner Cyrus asked if the proposed amendments are sufficient for the needs of the Ham Radio Operators? Mr. Neys stated that he thought it was. Commissioner Pace asked about how Ham radios work? Mr. Neys explained that you can give messages to an operator, or they will just have you talk. Commissioner Smith asked about why they have the capabilities of not being overloaded? Mr. Neys noted that it is because of the relationship of having a fixed antenna location, versus a mobile operation. Neys noted that they rely on fixed sites that Ham has built at residences, in addition to being at a local emergency site, Dick Frye - President of the DX Club, 61255 Ferguson Road, Bend, OR 97702 - has been a Ham Operator for 47 years. They can talk to any place at any time of day, season or weather. They have home stations and portable stations. There is one station here in Deschutes County that runs a net which connects all kinds of people. After Katrina, he was personally involved with talking to a helicopter to pick up a person on the rooftop of a flooded house. Mr. Frye also noted that the Radio Club is concerned that the rules in Deschutes County will be disincentive to becoming a Ham Operator. It was also noted that the higher intensity you go, the smaller your antenna gets. Bigger antennas while operating at lower frequencies, allows them to fill in wherever needed. They actively work at being prepared for anything. They sponsor contests to exercise their equipment, etc. and to keep them in practice. When he moved here, he looked at the Deschutes County Code. Commissioner Shirtcliff - clarified the proposed text. Commissioner Smith asked if there are cases where antennas go up in subdivisions and the neighbors don't like it. Mr. Frye said yes. Antennas can be put in trees and are essentially invisible. Bob Sweeney discussed points of conflict with neighbors. Television interference is the biggest irritation for neighbors. Mr. Sweeney also expressed some concern about the 20 ft setback, building permit requirement, and electrical permit requirement regardless of the height of the tower. He recommended that this should pertain to towers higher than 70 feet. John Ogden, 22920 Superior Court, Bend, OR 97702 noted that Ham Radio is more than emergency service. It is a technical hobby. It is not a bunch of kids playing around in the attic. He felt that the new rules put a crimp in people's ability to help others. 85% of the patents in the electronic field were filed by Ham Raiod Operators. Bob Sweeney asked for clarification of when building and electrical permits might be required and the 20 ft setback. The easier we can have the language in the Code, the better it will be because people will understand it. Kristen Maze noted that the residential setback is 20 ft. The Ham Operators' properties are more than a residential lot, so the setback would probably not be an issue. Commissioner Smith asked a question on front setbacks. It was noted that the antenna should be outside of the required side and rear setbacks, and behind the front line. Tom Anderson - CDD Director, noted that the question of building permits or electrical permits is a call of the Building Official. We could put it in the Code as required, or ask the Building Official to come to the next meeting and discuss particulars with the Planning Commission. If a building permit is required, it could be something that is issued over the counter, inexpensively. The drawings that come with the kits could very well be sufficient to approve the tower. Electrical permits most likely would only be required where there was a need for an electrical fixture. Commissioner Quatre asked if we would he have some kind of an idea of where the ledge would be? Commissioner Turner noted that this Commission cannot recommend anything that wiould be in conflict with Building Codes. Commissioner Smith asked if the applicant must obtain a building permit if required. Tom Anderson noted that even if the Planning Commission decides to not take the discussion any further, we could have the Building Official attend the next meeting. Bob Sweeney stated that his experience is that the electrical box portion of the building permit is not checked and it is fairly simple to get the permit. Commissioner Pace would like to see the definition not include the "galvanized finish". Put that in another place and not have it in definitions. Commissioner Pace also noted that she would like to see the public hearing continued so that they can work with the Building Official. MOTION: Commissioner Quatre made a motion to continue hearing to next meeting. Commissioner Cyrus seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Turner asked about allowing 70 ft and then 100 ft towers, and then requiring the setback equal to the height of the antenna. Dick Frye then noted that Guide Towers' failures are from the fact that they corkscrew. Tubular towers fold over half way. He has a 75 ft tower and it is located 30 feet from the property line. He does not anticipate that it will ever fall onto his neighbor's property. VOTE: All in favor of the motion. It was then decided to ask the Building Official to come and address this issue for us at the next meeting. IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Planning Division 2006 Accomplishments and FY 2007-2008 Work Plan Catherine Morrow reviewed The Work Plan. Commissioner Turner noted that he is interested in the Home Occupation Text Amendments. Commissioner Pace asked about the list of conservation easements and other deed restrictions on Work Plan Commissioner Smith noted that his concern was with transportation and gathering transportation information in Destination Resorts. Regarding Code Amendments - make highest priority those that are required to meet State law. There was discussion regarding increased fees for Code Enforcement. Tom Anderson replied that we cannot increase fees for Code Enforcement because we are not a Home Rule County. Commissioner Smith noted that we have a list of accomplishments and a Work Plan for the next year, but is there a way to see what was accomplished last year versus what was on the work plan? Catherine said that we can do that. Commissioners Quatre and Smith would like to have a presentation on Code Enferocement to find out how it works - unanimous request Commissioner Pace asked about having a Noxious Weed Presentation from Dan Sherman Commissioner Otteni - asked about Code Amendments to F1 and F2 zones - are we going to need to do that sooner rather than later? V. REVIEW AND COMMENT regarding Community Involvement Report - Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Terri Payne gave an overview of her staff report. Commissioner Pace - sometimes when we have large hearings, the people are accused of being one-sided. Perhaps the TV and/or radio stations could run some polls. Catherine Morrow noted that perhaps we can add that to Work Plan and explore opportunities for polls, etc. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN It was noted that the meeting for 3/22/07 may be cancelled March 8, 2007 - The Big Look Committee is going to be in Bend doing a panel discussion from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Shirtcliff asked for an update on the Destination Resort Hearing. It was noted that the Board of County Commissioners asked that a table be put together telling them exactly what issues they will have to make decisions on. It's on the calendar on 2/20/07. Then, there will be a meeting at 10;00 a.m. on 2/26/07. Commissioner Smith noted that he will be gone for the next meeting. Commissioner Pace asked about the transferability issue on Measure 37 Claims. Tom Anderson noted that it says in order to get a building permit you have to be the same owner that filed the Measure 37 Claim. Final language says that if someone comes to us for any kind of CDD related service, and that person is not the person on the Measure 37 Claim, then the building is subject to current planning rules. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to meeting again on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Barnes-Sawyer Room of the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary /SLR E S C`9 Community Development Department w~ 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 22, 2007- 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Cyrus called the meeting to order. Members present were: Susan Quatre, Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace and Todd Turner. Absent: Mike Shirtcliff, Bob Otteni, Kelly Smith. Stafff present included: Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Catherine Morrow, CDD Planning Director; Terri Payne, Associate Planner; Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner; Dennis Perkins, Building Safety Director; and Sher Buckner, Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None were raised. 111. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - File No. TA-06-10 - Public Hearing regarding a text amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Kristin Maze summarized the current status of the text amendment and several additional items not included in the original proposal, and also provided copies of a citizen memorandum in opposition to the proposed amendment. Commissioner Quatre asked for further clarification of the setback issues. Commissioner Turner asked Tom Anderson about complaints received on a previous application. This was a code enforcement case where the owner proposed a legislative change to the Code which would remove a violation at that time. There were no rules governing amateur radio towers. The County allowed the property owner time to get the Code revised. Commissioner Pace asked if there were other complaints. Tom said there were perhaps one each year over a few years. Commissioner Turner asked if the complaints concerned the visual aspects of the tower, and Tom said the majority did concern that issue. Bob Swaney of the Central Oregon DX Club, the proposal applicant, offered testimony. He felt that if there are no rules governing radio towers, violations cannot be enforced. He offered to look at County Commission minutes in 2001 when this was discussed but not finalized. He said his group, which part of a national organization, has no problems with the proposed text amendment. He felt that most towers would not be over 150 feet and that the 70-foot-limit in 1999 Oregon law was written from an urban-area perspective, not to make it an absolute limit. There are probably no amateur towers over 120 feet in the County. There are commercial Quality Services Performed with Pride towers well over 150 feet, and 70 are located within 40 miles of downtown Bend. There are also thousands of utility poles in the 100-150 foot range all over the County. Economics would limit the construction of amateur towers this high. Commissioner Quatre was concerned about the 50-foot setback and whether neighbors would object if someone put an antenna in their front yard if they only had a half-acre yard. Catherine Morrow reminded the Commissioners that there were more people who wanted to testify and that the applicant had already stated he was in agreement with the proposal, so deliberations might be better postponed until after additional testimony was received. Steve Young offered opposing testimony as a homeowner who has to look at two towers and one antenna on three acres of land next to his property. He has limited construction on his own property to 30 feet as per Deschutes County Code and feels that others should have to do the same thing. Rex Auker offered opposing testimony and said he lives next door to the applicant. He was the person who submitted the complaint about a 120-foot tower next to his property, one of three which have all been built without permits. The parcels in his area are all zoned for farm use and he has animals on his property, along with an electric fence. Mr. Auker stated that during one of several discussions he has had with Mr. Swaney, Mr. Swaney was worried about the potential of Mr. Auker's electric fence interfering with his communications towers. Mr. Auker feels Mr. Swaney has put an "antenna farm" in a farm use area. He had asked the Building Division about the necessity of a permit and was told that one was necessary but had not been obtained by Mr. Swaney. He did not complain further at that time. Later, Mr. Swaney constructed a much larger antenna so Mr. Auker again went to the Building Division and asked if a permit had been obtained. Since one had not been obtained, he filed a complaint. He regards his neighbor Mr. Swaney as being technically knowledgeable and feels the antenna and foundations are probably safe. He asked Mr. Swaney about exemptions from Code for his antennas. Mr. Swaney told him amateur antennas were exempt from Code. At one time there were 13 antennas on Mr. Swaney's property, and it is reducing the value of Mr. Auker's property. He feels that Mr. Swaney is trying to take advantage of the limited restrictions, although he is in EFU zoning which restricts building height to 35 feet and flagpoles to 40 feet. Mr. Auker is building a carport on his property, and had to get a site plan for setbacks, engineering analysis for high-wind tolerance and earthquake tolerance; yet there are 120-foot antennas on the property next to him without permits. Mr. Swaney could add more towers without consulting the neighbors because amateur towers are exempt from regulation. Although Mr. Swaney's towers are probably safe due to his technical knowledge, other property owners might potentially construct unsafe towers without some type of oversight. Mr. Auker is retired from the navy and feels that ham radio operators are necessary, but most of the technology is outdated due to advancements in email, the Internet, etc. The current regulations are giving maximum flexibility to the ham radio operators and no options for neighbors who have to look at numerous towers which can be erected without limitation. Mr. Swaney should not be allowed to continue to keep his towers because they are in violation of County building code restrictions. Dennis Perkins then answered questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner asked for clarification of instances when permits are required. County structural Code contains a section on "unusual construction," but it is questionable whether these antennas fall under this category, since they are already "manufactured." Site visits are made to check on proper installation, and plans must be submitted prior to concrete foundations being poured, etc. Also, lightning protection is not stipulated in the current Code. Randy Tomer offered testimony as a proponent and licensed amateur radio operator. He does not have a tower at this time due to living in a neighborhood which restricts television and other types of antennas. He feels the County Code needs to be rewritten to make it fair for everyone. Amateur operators are a valued asset to the country, and there will always be someone in the neighborhood who does not want any antennas at all, at any height. Mr. Auker clarified that he did not want to totally restrict antennas on other owners' properties but felt it was unfair for Mr. Swaney to leave his own view unencumbered while ruining the view of Mr. Auker and his family. Mr. Swaney stated that he did not hear any of these complaints directly from his neighbors - only after complaints were filed. He described his reasons for constructing the towers and choosing their locations. He has no intention of putting up numerous towers but has located the largest one close to his house for ease of construction and proximity of feed lines. He would not have a problem with regulations pertaining to the number of towers permitted and feels that most ham operators would not want hundreds of towers on their property. Kristen Maze said that the issue of the number of towers allowed on sites has not been brought up as an issue until the present discussion. MOTION: Commissioner Pace moved to close the hearing and deliberate. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion passed unopposed. Discussion ensued about whether this issue was bigger than this single complaint. Commissioner Pace suggested that the recommendation to require setbacks equal to tower heights was a good idea, and that the total amount of power usage should also be considered. A cumulative height restriction might also be put into place and could include telescoping heights. Commissioner Turner said he was struggling with this issue and that it was difficult to find a middle ground. He agreed with Commissioner Pace about minimum setbacks and tower height restrictions, but questioned how to write a fair text amendment. Perhaps the 70-foot height requirement would be a good minimum, with higher structures requiring site plan review which would require a land use application and notification of neighboring property owners. MOTION: Susan Quatre moved to continue the discussion at a future time. Seconded by Todd Turner. Motion passed. IV. CODE ENFORCEMENT PRESENTATION - Presentation on Code Enforcement Procedures - Tom Anderson, CDD Director Tom Anderson offered an overview of the code enforcement process and what the most common complaints are. He also mentioned that the County does not accept anonymous complaints to avoid going back and forth without any accountability. Neighbors are encouraged to work out differences before the County gets involved. Complaints are prioritized rather than taken on a first-come, first-served basis. They are ranked in importance - health and safety violations such as failing septic systems are first on the list. Last year the County handled 256 cases, some of which included violations within City limits. There are more complaints during the summer than the winter due to snow coverage and a higher population during the summer. Average turnaround for non-heath and safety violations is 85 days because of the opportunity given for voluntary compliance. Most problems are solved before the Sheriff needs to get involved. Commissioner Quatre asked why no one went out to inspect Mr. Swaney's area after Mr. Auker complained. Tom Anderson said that Mr. Auker never filed an official complaint, just asked questions. Now that an official complaint has been filed, there is a pending code enforcement violation, and Mr. Swaney has the option of either removing everything or proposing a Code amendment such as the one currently before the Commissioners. Commissioner Pace asked why Mr. Auker was not notified of Mr. Swaney's proposal until two days before this meeting. Tom Anderson explained the notification process for land use applications, which is more formal than the process for legislative amendments. There is no requirement other than posting in the newspaper. Often, the person filing the complaint calls to check the status, which did not happen in this case. Tom asked our code enforcement techs, as a courtesy, to contact Mr. Auker and to inform him of the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Pace asked about the truth in application process, in which an applicant's proposals are met but the applicant does not tell the truth about what really happens on the property. Tom said that since the County process is complaint driven, we have worked very hard to "catch up" pending complaints. We looked at "pro active" code enforcement and worked with the legal department on a fair way to do this. It was decided to do it on a Code specific basis, starting with medical hardships under the temporary land use permitting program. An example is placing a second residence on a property for another occupant who needs more care. It was suspected that many violations of this occur when the second home is no longer necessary or permitted. The code enforcement techs started going through each of these occurrences in the County and checking the current status; for example, if the property had been sold to new owners. This proactive code enforcement worked well, continued with agricultural violations and may in the future involve potential homeowners who have constructed second residences in violation of County Code. Commissioner Cyrus asked Tom to clarify the fee structure for violations. There is no fee for filing a complaint. Infraction fees are controlled by State law. Tom continued with providing information about the code violation process. For the 25% who don't comply, the Sheriff's office gets involved and that usually works once they show up and issue a warning. After that, a cititation is issued and the offending party can be fined, usually $600. Two judges handle all of the code violation cases and the parties can offer a plea of guity or not guilty. They may then be given 60 more days to comply and, if they do not, they are found guilty. Of these cases, there are still a few who do not show up in court and are cited again for another $600. A third citation must be issued (other than for health or safety violations, which only require one citation). In the last 1% of noncompliant cases, a judge can impose a daily fine in the amount of $600 per day. After 3-4 months without compliance, the County's lawyers can go back to court and request a lien be placed on the property for the amount of fines owed. Foreclosure can result after this, and the Sheriff can remove the owners from the property. They are still given another chance to pay off the total lien. Case files are confidential until they are resolved; after that they become public record. Discussion continued about Pronghorn's non-compliance with their overnight units. They have received three extensions through bonding so far. V. TRAINING - State Planning Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services - Terri Payne, Associate Planner, assisted by Doug White of the Department of Land Conservation and Development 4 Terri summarized the history and features of the Goal. Doug White discussed a summary he handed out, which was originally presented at Oregon's 2007 Onsite Wastewater Management Conference in February. Doug discussed how Goal 11 relates to the current problem in the South County/La Pine area. Commissioner Quatre asked if destination resorts are exempt from Goal 11. Doug said that they were, if they meet Goal 8 requirements. Commissioner Quatre asked for clarification as to what would happen if South County residents reject changing their current setup. Catherine Morrow elaborated that if the Local Rule is adopted and everyone does not comply within the 10-year requirement, and the water does become polluted, the DEQ would require local government to take action to protect that local groundwater area. At that point, sewers would probably be the solution because the State would declare a public health hazard. That is what we are trying to avoid right now by retrofitting the septic systems, which would be cheaper than adding sewer. Commissioner Quatre asked about Measure 37 claimants and developments relative to Goal 11, and Doug said that they might be exempt (if the property was owned before 1975 when the Goal was adopted). They (or developers) might be able to build "cluster" systems, but the neighboring municipalities would not be exempt and could not hook into those systems. VI. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN The City of Bend/Deschutes County joint Planning Commission meeting will be on April 12 and will include the public kickoff of the UGB project and the urban reserve project. The City cancelled the planned joint meeting on March 26. The Planning Commission decided to have their regular meeting on March 22, which had been cancelled. Commissioner Pace asked whether it was allowable in a Measure 37 claim for the applicant to be a developer, rather than the property owner. Tom Anderson said that the applicant can be a representative of the owner, but the claimant has to be the property owner. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 N.W. Wall Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Planning Secretary --Ir tv C-~ 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/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OR 97701 MARCH 8, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Pace called the meeting to order. Members present were Brenda Pace, Kelly Smith, Todd Turner, and Susan Quatre. Staff present were Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner, Terri Payne, Associate Planner, Tom Anderson, CDD Director, and Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary (Approval of Minutes - 2/22107) Commissioner Smith noted that he was not here for the meeting. Commissioner Turner noted that the last paragraph on the second page was incorrect - thought he heard Dennis Perkins say that a building permit was required by the Building Code, Section 3108. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None Ill. WORK SESSION -File No. TA-06-10 - a text amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner stated that the applicant has requested that this matter be postponed because the applicant will be out of town for quite some time. Commissioner Turner noted that he was almost at the point of denying the request for postponement. He recommended that the Planning Commission and staff proceed with work sessions and that staff come back with a proposal. Commissioner Quatre agreed with Commissioner Turner. Kristen Maze noted that she will bring back some ideas and answers to questions that the Planning Commission asked at the previous meeting. Tom Anderson - noted that a home occupation is something that is done inside a home, and just because someone owns a business and parks his/her business vehicle in the driveway and goes somewhere else to work everyday, doesn't mean he/she can't park the vehicle on the property. Mr. Anderson also noted that regardless of what took place three years ago regarding home occupations; this is a new opportunity to craft the ordinance in a way that you think might be more clear and objective. Commissioner Smith asked about a home occupation being an occupation that is done inside and not outside. 2. Determine a reasonable limit for the number of parked work vehicles allowed in Type 2 and 3 home occupations. Type 2(f) currently defines the number of additional parking spaces allowed for employees and customers to (4) and requires the parking space to be off-street and not within the required front yard setback. Commissioner Smith suggested that there be some screening requirements for work vehicles parked on the property in Type 2. There should be required screening for more than one vehicle in Type 2. Commissioners Turner and Quatre suggested that business-related vehicles should be defined or clarified in (13)(2)(m). Smith-recommended--that if there were more than one vehicle-in-Type 2-home - occupations, screening would be required. He also felt that a Type 2 home occupation should require a lot of at least one-half acre in size. Commissioner Turner noted that he could not get hung up on whether or not a truck had a sign on it. 3. Clarify that outside storage of vehicles and equipment in Type 3 home occupations is not included in the 35 percent space limitation. There was then discussion among the Planning Commissioners regarding clarification and definition of what is considered a business vehicle. It was noted that a business vehicle would be considered one that has a sign on it. The discussion then moved to size of vehicles. It was also noted at that time, that you could have three 5,000 lbs. vehicles as opposed to one 15,000 lbs. vehicle. Kristen Maze noted that the intent of the Code is to have one 15,000 lbs. vehicle. Tom Anderson noted that this is part of the reason we are having these discussions, as staff has had some of these issues to discuss and attempt to solve. 4. Determine whether outside storage should be allowed in Type 3 home occupations on a separate adjoining parcel owned by the home occupation applicant. It was then noted by Commissioner Smith that a Type 3 home occupation should only be allowed on ten-acre or larger parcels. Commissioner Pace noted that the original intention was that if all of the Type 3 criteria could be met, then you didn't have to have a ten-acre parcel. Kristen Maze noted for clarification that if you have five employees you have to have a Type 3 home occupation, and it cannot be a Type 2. Commissioner Quatre asked if these regulations will cause current home occupations to be out of compliance. Tom Anderson stated that it would not cause current home occupations to be out of compliance. It was also noted that, in order for them to be included in the next packet, staff must receive letters from the public by March 14, 2007. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Commissioner Pace asked about the Groundwater Protection Project Overview that had come in the packet. Tom Anderson noted that it was included in the packet as information, so that the Planning Commission would be aware of what is going on with that project. It was part of some information that is also being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Turner asked about the $35 million cost deferral program. Commissioner Otteni - expressed concerns about the statements that these funds are public funds. These funds are from private funds and not from public funds such as taxes, etc. He felt it important that the public understand this. It is a,collaborative effort between the private enterprise and a public entity. ---------------Commissioner-Pace--noted-that-sh"ut together-a-study-regarding-the-Groundwater-P-rotecbon Plan - in terms of trying to evaluate the incomes and household sizes to see what various situations there are in South County. She would like staff to go further with it and explore tax rebates, and incentives and how far these would reach to assist people in the area. Commissioner Pace also asked about a Maintenance District for these areas. Tom noted that #4 in this overview explains some financial assistance, and logistical issues. Commissioner Turner suggested that perhaps they could have an actual Maintenance District with local board members. Tom Anderson noted that Local Improvement Districts are no longer allowed. There was a lengthy discussion regarding funding for ATT Systems and retrofitting of existing systems in South Deschutes County. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to meet again on March 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the Barnes/Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes Services Center, located at 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary /SLR T . Community Development Department -A 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/ MEETING MINUTES FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 APRIL 26, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER (Approval of Minutes - 3/22/07) Chair Shirtcliff called th emeeting to order. Members present were Mike Shirtcliff, Chair, Robert Otteni, Todd Turner, Brenda Pace, and Susan Quatre. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director, Catherine Morrow, Planning Director, Terri Payne, Associate Planner, Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner, and Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary. Minutes - correction - Commissioner Quatre had driven through Deschutes River Woods to looke at the Home Occupation isues and drove by the Stenkamp Road. Brenda - moved, Todd seconded, approved unanimously. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS William Kuhn, why is there not a definition for a building that is not lawfully built? What is that called? Can the PC give a definition for such a structure? Answers he has gotten from staff that have said it is an illegal structure. Catherine Morrow, Planning Director, staff would be happy to come to the PC and respond to Mr. Kuhn's question at a future meeting. Mr. Kuhn also handed out some other information to Sandy Ringer for the PC members. 111. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - File No. TA-07-1 - a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code, Title 18, Section 18.116.280, Home Occupation - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Chair Shirtcliff asked for the public to be polite and not clap and speak out of turn. Kristen Maze then gave a staff report. Turner - Where is the definition of Home Occupation? Kristen - It is in the definitions section of Title 18. Quality Services Performed with Pride Otteni - He has a tree trimming business, and does not do any of his business on his property. He only parks his truck on his property at night. Kristen - that would be considered a Type 1 Home Occupation where you do computer work for your business, but the business is operated off site. Quatre - suggestion Pace - Concerned about vehicle parking for all three types of home occupations. Commissioner Shirtcliff continued the public hearing Bradley Thomas, 19660 Baker Road, Bend, OR 97701 - questions on Type II` and Type III - huge gap with the size of parcel required. 2"d question - size of parked vehicles. Doesn't feel it is right for County to regulate his vehicles when he parks them inside one of his accessory buildings and they are unseen. Quatre - what would Mr. Thomas like to have as the gvw (gross vehicle weight) for Type II and Type Ill. Willis Owen, 2741 NW Laramie, Bend, OR 97701 - native Oregonian lived in in this state for 62 years. He was disgusted with the tact that staff is trying to tell people what they can park on their property. He felt these rules are rediculous. Hank Polevarin, concerned with people who have made junkyards out of their places. They have junk cars, parts, etc. all over the place. He wanted more regulations to prevent this sort of thing in the future. Otteni - close the public hearing Pace - close the public hearing Quatre - close the publci hearing Much discussion - about closing the public hearing and leaving the written record open until May 26, 2007. Turner made the motion - Quatre 2nd the motion all were in favor. A man from the crowd asked about cleaning up the garbage on people's property. Much more discussion on how to ask the people that were at the last hearing to send in mre written testimony. Catherine - have PC` direct us to do a press release or d6 a display advertisement. Shirtcliff - should at least notify the people from the last meeting. Motion -quatre - prepare individual notices that let people who were at last meeting know that we are asking for proposed language for home occupations - written testimony until 5/26/07. 2nd by Otteni. All in favor. Turner - This issues has been brought to us from the County Commissioners. Ask the BOCC what their concerns were. We need to know those reasons. Turner - Motion to ask BOCC the concerns that sent the home occupation issue back to DCPC. Payne - worked with the BOCC to come up with the issues. We can get it to DCPC again. Staff can include another copy of that. BOCC we have had issues with home occupations, Turner withdrew his motion. Pace - wants to see staff's version of the table and that it be consistent all the way across. Quatre - asks that staff write a summary of the comments from the public up until may 26th IV. WORK SESSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - File No. TA-06-10 - a text amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Kristen Maze gave her staff report Commissioner Quatre - Ham radio operators do perform special services. Other part of radio is strictly hobby. Commissioner Turner - why not do site plan review on radio towers. Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Legal Counsel, replied that we cannot do so because we do not have in our Code aesthetic values for towers clearly articulated. Commissioner Turner - If we put a height restriction on it for 75 feet, what happens if the person wants a 125 foot tower? Then the person could go to court after being denied. Laurie Craghead - You can regulate above 70 feet, but must be practicable to cumulative. It is scenic view instead of aesthetics. Commissioner Turner - It seems that what we would like to see happen cannot happen. Commissioner Pace - prefers to see site plan approval, %hort of that would like to see cumulative effect that is justified on safety reasons. To allow no limitation seems to allow antenna farming. It seems that a tower over a certain height is no longer amateur. Commissioner Quatre - asked about fixed structure support. She felt we should stick with what the State has said we can regulate but go to 75 feet. We should also state that a telescoping antenna can be extended for no more than a certain number of hours. Should we consider the number of towers on a parcel so we don't have a farm? Commissioner Turner would like a height limit - Beaverton and Gresham put height limits. He is fine with a 75 ft height limit. Commissioner Pace asked staff to find out how Gresham justified their height limits. Whether it was aesthetic, absolute, etc. Commissioner Quatre suggested going to 80 feet. Eighty feet would at least give operators the ability to maximize what they need to be able to maximize to get their signal out there. Laurie Craghead stated that if the Planning Commission wants to put the height limitation on towers, we must articulate the specific reasons, aesthetics, safety, etc. Commissioner Turner noted that he would like to bring this to head and make a decision at the next next Planning Commission meeting. Catherine Morrow stated that it would be on agenda for next meeting and that staff would come back with findings about other jurisdictionsand how they established their height limitations. MOTION: Commissioner Turner made a motion to continue written record until May 1, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Otteni seconded the motion. Four Planning Commissioners were in favor of the motion with Commissioner Quatre abstaining. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Catherine - came from Open House from City of Bend on UGB Amendment. City is working toward having their first evidentiary hearing on June 28, 2007. Working diligently with City to get the elements of the proposal so they can provide 45 day notice to DLCD. Docs must be sent by 5/15/07. Turner -After joint meeting - status of transportation system plan - didn't get Staff has made it very clear to the City of Bend that one of the elements to the proposal must include arterials and collectors for the UGB expansion. We have not seen any proposal from the City. We will have to have that prior to may 15tH Turner - Has the number of residential acreage in the portion of Juniper Ridge, been identified. We did receive a copy of the final residential lands study this afternoon. City's asked for our comments by next Thursday. Catherine noted that staff is still encouraging Tom Anderson - question about home occupation and junk. There is a specific chapter in the Code that deals with solid waste. Abandoned or junk vehicles. Staff could give you the pertinent sections of what that entails. Turner - concerns about tractor sales as a home occupation Shirtcliff - David Andrews - Central ORegon Transportation Consortium. - suggested having him come to PC meeting and talk. Pace - given all of the discussion in Salem about Measure 37, has Deschutes County or our lobbyist weighed in? Planning Directors as a whole are not weighing in, and Deschutes County has not weighed in as far as staff knows. Morrow - as Planning Director, she is not going to write or testify. Otteni -Where are we at with the Local Rule? Tom - meeting last week with DEQ and nothing was decided and DEQ was not prepared to offer a position either in support or a modification. Their take was that since the USGS Study has not been finaled, they want to review it once it is published. Staff has prepared to offer short term and long term options for the BOCC to review. Quatre - Can we get cpies of all of the docs referred to in staff reports (copies of chapters of DCC). Rex Auker - discussed the portions of the Code that were cited. Terri Payne- Big LOok - have hired a consultant - he has given them (4) scenarios. They are going to define these scenarios further and then these will be distributed to the public. Morrow - Terri represented the county in front of the Big Look Commission to speak about Destination Resort Issues. Inslued a copy of Power Point Presentation with next packet. VI. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING - May 10, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 all 4kEi.r 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/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 87701 MAY 10, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Shirtcliff opened the meeting. Members present were Shirtcliff, Keith Cyrus, Kelly Smith, Robert Otteni, Susan Quatre, and Todd Turner. Staff present were Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner, Terri Payne, Associate Planner, Tom Anderson, CDD Director, and Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary, and Will Groves, Associate Planner. Il. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None III. WORK SESSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - File No. TA-06-10 - a text amendment to define amateur radio and regulate antennas and towers for amateur radio use in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Kristen Maze gave a summary of the staff report. Commissioner Smith asked for a clarification of Section 128.340. Kristen noted that staff has not applied the wireless communication tower language to ham radio towers. Kristen then gave the Planning Commission the options for recommendation to the Board of Commissioners: Option 1 - Recommend approval of applicant's proposal to the Board of County Commissioners. Option 2 - Recommend that the current building height exceptions of 35 feet be adhered to, and that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the proposed text amendment in Section 18.120.040. Option 3 - Recommend adoption of text which includes standards for design, setbacks, and building permits: Quality Services Performed with Pride Option 3A - Add language to the streamline version requiring a maximum height of 120 feet for all amateur radio facilities or a cumulative maximum height limit of 150 feet for all amateur radio facilities. Option 3B - Recommend approval of the proposed streamline amateur radio text amendment and include a conditional use permit, site plan review or an exception process for all amateur radio facilities over 70 feet in height. Commissioner Quatre noted that the proposal doesn't say anything about a 70 foot tower. Is that not possible? Kristen replied that it is possible. Commissioner Quatre asked if there is such a thing as a limited site plan review? Kristen was not aware of any limited site plan regulations. MOTION: Commissioner Cyrus made a motion to adopt Option 3. Chair Shirtcliff seconded the motion for discussion. VOTE: In favor - Commissioner Cyrus and Chair Shirtcliff; Opposed - Commissioners Otteni, Smith, Turner, and Quatre SECOND MOTION - Commissioner Quatre made a motion to adopt Option 3B and include the following wording regarding the defined aesthetic objectives in the findings: Any mast supporting an amateur radio antenna of greater than 750 ft in height shall relate harmoniously to the natural environmental and existing development, minimizing visual impacts, and preserving natural features including views, and topographical features, and Requests for towers supporting amateur radio antennae higher than 70 ft shall conform to DCC 128.128.340 wireless telecommunication facilities. Smith 2nd Discussion - Smith - would apply to 128.140 as well? If it only applies in Section 340, what about the rest of the code that addresses wireless telecommunication towers? Kristen - Susan would want to follow the conditional use criteria. Turner - 18.116.250 - Tier 1 and Tier 11 - wireless communications facilities at 75 feet from Recommended changing it from 70 ft to 75 feet. Kristen - make an exception that we following the criteria 18.128.340 - follow that criteria for towers higher than 75 feet. Quatre - that includes retractable and fixed heights. Kirsten -APPROVE OPTION 3B - including criteria 18.128.340 for conditional use permit 75 ft and above and towers that can be retracted to 75 ft. "d Smith - retracted his 2 Quatre - question - Adopt 3B - following exception language including fixed towers ofgreater than 75 feet and including retractable towers and including the following language: Defined aesthetic objectives - any masts shall Any Mast supporting an amateur radio antenna of greater than 750 ft in height shall relate harmoneously to the natural environmental and existing development, minimizing visual impacts, and preserving natural features including views, and topographical features and that wording is included for wireless communications facilities. VOTE: Shirtcliff/Cyrus - no Smith/Otteni/Turner/Quatre - yes IV. WORK SESSION - File No. TA-07-3 - a text amendment; to consider various changes and edits to Deschutes County Code, Title 18 - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Various changes to 18.36.030 and 18.40.030 18.84.090;1 and 18.04.030 V. WORK SESSION - File No. TA-07-2 - a text amendment to consider changes in the Deschutes County Code, Title 18, Section 18.04.030, Definitions, and to modify Chapter 18.96, Flood Plain Zone - Kristen Maze, Assistant Planner Required by FEMA. Minor changes. Must be made by 9/28/07 in order to be eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. Questions - Turner - Item I - 18.96.080(G)(2) Smith -1101 - We don't have problems with that? We would need to check with the Building Division. Other items Have seen a marked increase in land use applications as a result6 of Measure 37 claims. Smith - Wondering about denying any Mesure 37 claims. Should the PC be thinking about regarding clarification of fire standards. Tom - Regulation in terms of fire protection are not necessarialy in DCC, but is enforced by State Statute. There was an amendment regarding roofing. Orders clearly point out that health and safety regulations are not averted when Measure 37 claims are waived. Cyrus - standard with the fire department - building applications are submitted and the Chief makes recommendations. Pretty much mandate road surfaces, bridges, culverts, cleanup, fire safety standards, required certain reservoir of water for fire safety, Otteni - County Fire Plan - When SB360 was passed, it really only covered lots with structures on them. A group of people pushed for a county ordinance. Terri Payne - we have regulations in the Forest Zone, but outside the forest zone, we don't have any regulations. Turner - asked about Mr. Kuhn's information. Smith - What is coming up. 5/24 - presentation from ODOT. 6/28/07 - joint public hearing with Bend - ugb expansion. 6/14/07 - Home Occupation - work session. Otteni - proposed vacant lots for fire proofing - look into it? Tom - This coming Monday - City and County will release final proposal for UGB expansion. VI. ADJOURN REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, of the Deschutes County Code to Regulate Amateur Radio Facilities. ORDINANCE NO. 2007-010 WHEREAS, on December 29, 2006; the Central amendment to add provisions, to regulate amateur radio became Deschutes County staff initiated; and Oregon DX Club filed an application for a text facilities, which was subsequently withdrawn then WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered this matter after a public hearings on February 8, 2007 and February 22, 2007 and forward changes to the zoning regulations for amateur radios to the Board of County Commissioners (Board); and WHEREAS the Board considered this matter after a public hearing on November 26, 2007 concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations for amateur radio facilities and services; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04.030, Definitions is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in yst, ikethrough. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in strikethrough PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-010 (11/26/07) Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as it findings in support of this amendment as in Exhibit "C" to Ordinance 2007-010 and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of , 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON MICHAEL M. DALY, CHAIR DENNIS R. LUKE, VICE CHAIR ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER Date of 1" Reading: day of )2007. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2007. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Michael M. Daly Dennis R. Luke Tammy Baney Effective date: day of , 2007. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-010 (11/26/07) I) ,moo C> C1 ° o b O w tI y O O O o ~ n, o O O N y U C ~ F+~ r- b ~ 0 O t2 O X U O Q N O U ^^~3 F~ c o o a b CJ i + v O ca; C PC ~ w O. E N y w C C . U C E y ~ i cCd cd O O L n L 3 W O O R! C + ' S y~+ by C7 0 C C> .L L b O e~ C 6~ O C C L O i• to a i v C ° r C P C c > o ~ a o a .n ~ PC 6 c w ° o r , o i C o° a > C W. 3 o L U in -0 t U d O d L ^ C rn C > to V ' C y •C O v~ ~ , C e> ev c" O ~ y o a~ L O v, ~ A a C O "d S L W C a~ i y tw r" + ' 7 C O , .o O V d v al U w i s O ~ A h 3 c a c : O C j0 y Q v 6j V y y C ' u 0 O .C C A O U E C 00 - L. 4) a -0 (m C4 . C, rA Lr Q N -a CL ~ C o v, 6) 4~ rA y Cd y C G~ C d> L C > o y o t a~ u h Q Q 9z PC V ?U ~~cU~ °v ~L p a Q a Q C s C 4~ v, n ' o L O o ~ ^ 4.i O 6> h V1 .C U 4, i~ N. c O L C~ + + C p b C C O ` C O cd O O N L ~ C C~ C ° ° U b p G~ r 4) U ' C C C . 1, ' ~ p ~ -b d c~ :n ~ ~d ~ v E-~ s,AF+ e~f~A EGT,AOa A.. A 3 ~ ~ > ~ y c ~ .a ~ ~ v b ~ c o o • ~ 3 ~ ~ C ~ c a O ~ ~bA U ~ y . c? .b L C C I 00 Q bq C ~ C y ~ C Op N O ~ ~ C .C C~ y p v ~ ~ ~ ' O , t. p C~ C~ ~ C~ L .C U C C D • ~ ~ d ¢ ~ C ~ . y C y L Cr y W C c~ y G O O > C C O O ~ ~ C I I y cdc0 T' o u o L L p o ° ' ~ ~ a~ y ~ u C c° c° • 00 c~ m i i 8 E e~ C L~ cn V ~ • C ~ C O G U C • i U C v; N ~J 7 O U C O U Cl ~ V L co N' cCd Q O N N O O O C~ •L• U U 4r C N V 4r C r " C o C O> L 4r C~ C C L C o- a v c -0 ~ „ > C U a. C y b O ' p .C f w _ C C b ' O L C 0 L •C V C . d C C C Q ~ O c cM D iC. C y ,C 40, .Q C .G w 4.0 2 > o o a~ o 0 0 or. A C U ^o L L o w o o c a 6) Vi u c ~i C C C L > i. . Lo. 3 u 3 PC o d G~ N H C 0 C w C O L C's a~ a Cci L L O O ° A° i 4r C co rt i V C O C C c U c o 3 on ° 3 n c L i. L o o ai w y d • CA am ~ C . O . 6) ° .r Z" L Q V. L L . .0 cl bb X a~ C. f-iU o d e~ Ed yH LAF+ 0 8 O ° w ~ gal ~I vl bl . bA ~ Q ~ w C~ C G1. C b o y o 0 a , o ~ a, o a~ N •O ~ U w C ~ O ~r n o CIS y •o :o U 0 ~ C 0 ~ U O ~ O 3 a ~ ~ • O ~ C L C S^ V~ V L C~ ~ ~ ~ Vii ~ ~ w w CC q ~ cd G> O W U C ai C Q mw .a D Q i Q = L Q -0 E v O C y rA NN O i .0 • C y w C d x v C v p = on Itt o L C cl v Q • O O O ~ V L b , C O w v V ° ' r + E N y ' ' y c i 3 c~ w ° s ti q A o y y o v o C z: C U y 'p O > U o .ti •C C C w C ° y cl L L L ° O 'ti C . C C O L p L L C p C w s b v, _ O C - > C O C C O L C C tn F C 6) O " C y L I~ C O r ~r ^ "C y L L O ai O y,, O y C y y y 'y C rp c r .r C O Ca y y p r ,p 3 C 'y v w C/1 v 'ti ~i..~ aoi b w ~ o v aj = w ^L o A. a~ cam. Z y 'C .s C~ C L Q 40 y L C> p O. C ej m V C C C M w C p b r y 40., • w C C ,p y et co p r°+ •v .o G a~ C ,C O ~ L .yC w .C 44 o w v, c 0 a Y! ^ C a~ L ,C O r.+ C Oa y D C ~ ' p " U V Q 0N 'O L C ^ , C ~ 10 C v~ O O C ^d ~ a~ ^o ' ~ O y y, ~ C 8 d ~ A bA c c Q ~ .r ~ ~ .0 ~ O .C A v w ~ v =p ~ 4 C 0 .C ee H GY 3 0 .r ^o o V A C .r o a. E i E °v C~ c L C o o ^ ° . ° o C a ' b p 4i U x + r o f v ea w 3 ^o Z Oa .°C ° O cd .o ~ W C~ U N C ~ o •a C .r eo co O i cC ~ L °r ~ E C C/) ~ C L O y c«Q. ~ M .M y O C) A C o Q ~ U C O v C V ~ " C L E ~ ti A~ C y w v 00 o y Q Q + + d C i Rt w v O u L C A c~ o y y~ ~ V U L s U~ ~ C~ . b ~ A y ~ y L ° ~ 3 ow y o > ° ^ o ~ v C ~ ~ rh b a , A ~ U ~ •o = +r +21 Qi GTy y cn •c w o -ate w o y a W AS a oUA o w N ~ x p C~ co O ~ 'd o ~,I y O ►yV ~ o a. , o ~ p O O U O ~ ~ O c~ ,`nom X y,r O N N O O U ~I O 3 p CC v s .C p ' p a .UO O M L C: a L y- ai C w C p a 6> O .7 Cd O U U L r•+ w S i; 'C C O b y~ p p C ~ ~ y p CAS . y _ ~ y 72 L , . • v a o ~ a ~ •0 3 v a ~ ~ 'u ~ w C ~ ~ ~ O y ~ 'd O C R ~ C a C w C . ~ ~ . p O y .pC C 2 O 'O O y L r O L t C ci O y q) 4 L Rf p N p C • + ~ 47 L S ~y N ~ O . O "a .r 6~ p a O L co y U 4" C p + A O a C h R i L C OC . C a a O . w O C a O w U V C c~ a a a a y p ~ C m O i'' -0 eC ~ • ~ d C p y ~ ~ ~ rU,, O a~ L p a p ~ ay ~ V] V a "C3 h A ' O n a O C p 3 1.0 ~ ~ 3~ya ~s~ ~ a ~ ~o~~ a o•~ ea ~a ~ " ~ ~ •p U L U v U ~~r ~ 0 'rp, ~ ~ ~ , , y a ; A C v~ ^p cd oar V L , ~ ~ CC 6~ y~ G 4r C~ 'O ~j ,y 'N C" Q O O Q C y y y ~ ~ C C 0 C 4. a O 0 C C c«, y a yj w i G 4 O C C 6i C y "d Cl p p a L y V "C O y p O a d ~ E e`~t d ~ Ed c°~ ~ Fw d ~d'v'~ ~ ddd 3 y ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ L Vl W A .6 CV •o G~ 4r L L F~ + 8 a Q P1 d RI N C 0 v e a~ c~ E O M r••.M S C Cd a> C Q, c~ n•1 _ O O OA b o h O O O GL r O C> o ~o 0 c~ aNi ~y U N~ ~ C O -d O ~ •G .a X N 0 0 U O O 3 C Q y .r4 C D C y r.+ G; C C~ y ci r t+ ~ C•r L p y 3 ~ 'd A r Q A .r ' C yy y ' C v, y ea L C D L C O > C Q v, 6a w 6> L CC L w~ .r , r+ ry C C V .O O y L 6 O y y U (jy G "C7 C~ C Ri h h • G L Q C y y U ~ -r y . p p 3 b O C C •G v C C C O V O y V b k • 6> •b .Sy v, C 'cu b C~ C C t~. RS d > d V 3 > V L Ly 0 C C y r.+ yy+ y D b C d o v 'C O O 4 45 4z ,may. y ~ y C w ° C .r O Cd L; O 6> L> J~ C C 'Q O v " W .C G . L 04 O PC 10 .r C a C O > C L C U C C ° U O O . i o b y 'c o ~ M ° L o E o > ' o o ~ V.ti °'V ~s ~ ~ i C V O CAS y p w L a~ .C L O C 'C C C " C V 0 C U U r + O fl / ~ y f .r ' O L O r y+ U r 'b L y L V .r .O C ,ti' .r .~i v, O> . h CAS w O V r , , L L ~ C w L O 61 V C C C .C 2 O I , 0 w ° O O ' C 0. O U O O V w c c L 3 • C ` Q L ' r n' c u 0 C r+.' L o 0 O O a R A ~ ea .ti C C U L o o u > CC C Q t j w w' ~ G .G L ° D C O a~ i ~ C L r , V 'C ~ ° ~ G y p ~ G~ ~ G .2 .2 6 L' r C~ w ~ a~ C~ C C .C O C a~ " 'v L O .G 'r r° D w Ct1 .L'. b O S O O f7 d A L' O d d .r Q v, v, , Q n Er E..i r L v Q o O c C O i. W C P ~s a~ s, 0 c~ s. a~ 8 c~ c Q It C!1 c N U N ~ x a 2 o it 'd o `o ~ O n. , o ~ ao ~ O O N ' y U C) O 0 cl a+ y b X O O ~ O U O 3 ~r a p L ~ L G b C O V~~ ~ 40. cd V C V 0 p O w+ C L L O L D . ~ (9 v i V L O 0 . V. C C: C+ + + C V C V ' ~ CSC O~ ~ O v, C N E~ C i b a a °v E 8 y v p; Q 4-1 Cd Q 7 b ~ y a' L C V YE L C p~+ C A L. 'O 45 y w (u 4w C •V ~'+'C~+=~ ' C 4-a O 4 y V C 3 6a C .ti y 3 a~ o a, h c o L h +r •2 y w O a~ O "O C E y y ~ r3 4w L O L cr, O V ~ 40. CV O 4. V ~A V O Q 4.4 ° C °+r' v L G' c v o i o 8 L g a V a~ b v O Fi L cl C r.+ L b C u WO v~ r C c*i c cd y b r a 0 Si r.+ L V U L .0 L+ L [ D i L C .d AQ p O w ~ U ~ . ~ ~ cl u y rA t 5 V Q M • E o p 0 L ~ .C y ~ C . . ~ V1 ~ A ri.[ Q ~yy N V1 4r y 'b O C vi L 4w v O V "O h a3 a> •14 C C C i L C L Cd 0 D V ~ C V N V .C y ~ cc3 O C cl C y ;L E ' N o c p o D 'Z7 L V C Y! V V v i O D V C CL O 10 L2. C ~ C L~ y~ C D ~ cCd Yr.+E E" ~ C ~ pD p 6> C Z7 3 LY ~ y O 12 v wl G 3 ~ .u o v a ~ ~ i~ ~ ai Z cl ~ ^O y ~ 05 ~ L , ~ L" O eC O i ~ O V C v. 0O ' y L L + 6~ i V p O b O rn L r V -C V ai ~ L p CL f r n 0 w " " b W V . O ~ O p O . ~ + C V A ~ " i, 6> ' cd L b A F~1 C" U 000 a 'C 3 cu V te V ~ ~ Cd E v°i i 'r + O CAS L + O v CD N F. _zp 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/ NOTICE OF A PROPOSED LAND USE REGULATION PROPOSAL: Amend Deschutes County Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions, and Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions to include Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities and Services. THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT DESCHUTES COUNTY HAS PROPOSED A LAND USE REGULATION THAT MAY AFFECT THE PERMISSIBLE USE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND MAY CHANGE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY. Ballot Measure 56, adopted by Oregon voters on November 3, 1998, requires the above statement be included in this notice. Despite the above cautionary language, not all property owners in Deschutes County will be affected by the proposal in this notice. HEARING DATE: The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing for file number TA-06-10 on Monday, November 26, 2007, at 6:00 P.M. The hearing will take place in the Deschutes County Service Center, in the Board of Commissioners Hearing Room (first floor) at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend. Testimony will be heard on the following item: APPLICANT: Deschutes County Community Development Department PROPOSAL: To amend Deschutes County Code Section 18.04.030, Definitions, and Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions. Proposed changes are: 1) Add definitions for Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities and Services; 2) Permit limited height exemptions for Amateur (Ham) Radio Facilities; and 3) Add design and building permit standards for these facilities. ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY APPEAR, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SUBMIT WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR BE SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. Seven (7) days prior to the public hearing, copies of the proposed documents and attachments will be available for inspection at no cost at the Deschutes County Community Development Department at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Copies of the documents and attachments can be purchased at the office for twenty-five (25) cents a page Information is available at the Deschutes County web-site www.deschutes.org/cdd STAFF CONTACT: Kristen Maze with the County Planning Division at (541) 383-6701 or send e-mail to: kristenma-co.deschutes.or.us Quality Services Performed zvith Pride Page 1 of 1 Kristen Maze From: Kate Terrel [terrelk@clearwire.net] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:26 AM To: Kristen Maze Subject: radio tower Hi Kristen, I spoke to you on the phone a couple of weeks ago about a proposed ham radio tower zoning change. I worry is interference with cell phone reception. I use my cell as my home phone--it's the only phone I have and I use it for work as well as personal calls, all day long. I contacted my cell phone company. They said if the radio tower were put between their cell tower and my house, it could cause interference. They told me where there tower is. I think you said the original request to build a tower was withdrawn but the zoning change was going to proceed for future towers. I would like to know where any possible towers now in the works would be placed, and I don't see a form or address where to send letters to comment on this so I'm writing you. I did look at the minutes of the Planning meeting from July and the letter from May from John E. Ogden. If possible please use this email as a formal letter to the planning deptartment/members as an office concern over cell phone reception if the zoning is changed. Thank you, Katie Terrel 641 SE Roosevelt Ave. Bend, OR 97702 788-1415 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 1 Kristen Maze From: Byrnes Family [dtmcb@sterling.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:04 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: Short comments on Ham Radio and Thank You Kristen, thank you for directing me to the application file pending before the County regarding Ham Radio. As I noted in my phone message, we own a house in the La Pine area of south county. While not a resident of the county, I want to lend my support to the code applicaiton that asks for incorporation and recognization of antenna facilities for amature radio operators in the County. I enjoy the use of ham radio while we are staying in La Pine and fully support the FCC guidelines outlined in the application. Daivd Byrnes KC7MBJ 2546 NE 18 th Ave Portland, OR 97212 10/18/2007 LEE KEARNEY 7611 SE EVERGREEN HWY VANCOUVER, WA 98664 SISTERS, OREGON 360-696-3340 541 -549-1 630 FAX 696-3399 FAX 549-0174 Lee Kearney - ~~u c I ( c~ w O +ill6ew_. M I t vas er S~r..r `T yr t.~f' ~ 1e~-~ ~ tit--M►~ +~e-~ C7~. ~ ~+A~to we,. -V3% is h o..sa- cz.. b a~-r ut.. a- sr-~ o lc~ s e~.ro~~ a ~ow ei►r October, 24 0227 Kristen Maze Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend, OR 97701 Dear Ms Maze, I am writing to express my concern over proposed amendments to county code sections 18.04.030 and 18.120.040 relating to ham radio antenna height. Many residences in Deschutes County have views that enhance property values and provide enjoyment to the occupants. Not all of these view properties are within Landscape Combing Zones. In our case we chose to live in an area with underground utilities and mountain views. If this amendment passes it would potentially subject our neighborhood to a landscape of gently rolling hills, beautiful old growth juniper, Cascade mountain views and a 70' tall steel antenna: the antenna being for the sole entertainment of just one individual or family. I am all for people's right to do what they like on their property unless it interferes with their neighbor's property values. A 70' antenna would certainly be an intrusion in our neighborhood. I would therefore ask the commissioners to vote no on this amendment. Thank you and the commissioners for considering this matter. Sincerely, Frank Palermo 61050 Bacchus Ct Bend, OR 97702 383-1552 OC i 2 g 2007 inn b~I "'A .o /r/zee' lo- 7 QM ea~ -/0 &Oe,V S ,-ea r^l *-,I y s 11 CIO p wl I-) I I Q Ka k o~elle - 7-;-?- v- Y- -T1-\• a-a____~ J t k l~ va►,v~s l X-A k-C( . ~ _ _.._C0. lrv Le.. CS 7"e-v-6q\v-e-s on -,-or r\A(. Autkc~o o PA VL OL O c o 0 v L L F- O Cy a ct~ - - N O , , - v t v . N r a a ..c eo t Q) • C n, 4- t v v to O 'KC .F..► 0 E Z~ a w ~ v L ~ r U -a L1 V O „~O ? ^M~ u O ~ t "L3 O LL Q) Q) CS.. u a to t L. E v~i 4- - 0 q~ "J U.J 0 ♦ Os w Q =U 5... . ~ ca c0 a V3 0 64 o • W n 414 CV- ce N cu o Q 4 z P-go c 0 go L3,. W Q to ■ 1 ~ C Q UJ '0 Z c r" C Q U I Q c < LL U ~ Q) ' a C . ~ - cQ co 1 r v C _ O- L ~ O 4-1 v~ W Q~ a N 1 al ~ a v L acs o ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) • UO Q) v cD r L ~ ~ tin Zo ~ v L CU .0 '*11 m N tY v N Q) E ca a ~ ~ L N v c 44t ao ~ Q) ca Q :*1 c~ z~ awo t VVV C C N :3 V1 L EL :3 W J T3 C-4 co N 0 4-0 CSC N r• .1. C i.. s.. N L L m o Q~ m o CU -b , , . o ~ ~ o ~ ' O o Q H G 00 Q ,z C ~ lu Q) CU Q) Q) Z "a t~ C~ ~n` Z n LL 0 i w sr v, -VI ~ 0 Clq 0 co w a s, , " %A N s.. s.. V L cti 1.1,E C6 Q) ~s co 't3 Q1 as 't3 tU Q v QZ v Q co cu Z~ -wpcn w a. w 1--- CO v L o 4-1 c N Q) 4-4 U0 1, :3 .{1 N `L d.U ktA tp ILL Q) C r-~i-u.JQ~ z awn O v N '0 ca C' OWN O L • R fl > V O H C O -N (10 v m v z a ~ VI t r. dill t4 itsc, eFile No. Hearing Date: Z l Subject: 4a w~ t2 0- ~ C~ L- ee f.S Hearings Body: ---2) O C- C- I tc_~ avv1S kc-c D E S C H U T E S COUNTY February 7, 2007 SHERIFF'S OFFICE To The Members of the Deschutes County Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97701 LES STILES Sheriff Dear Commissioners: 63333 W. Hwy. 20 Bend, OR 97701 I have read the memorandum submitted by the Central Oregon DX Club and the proposed amendment to the Deschutes County Code and Bend Station I support passage of the amendment as quickly as possible. 541.388-6655 Fax 541-389-6835 We know that in emergency communications it is vital have trained Administration personnel with the equipment and antennas already. in place. 541-388.6659 Amateur Radio operators ("hams") represent a large and useful pool of Fax 541.389-4454 talent and ii.nfi7astruchtare that have played a very important role in _.1 a.Pine.station many emergency: incidents in Central Oregon in the past few years. 51530 Huntington Rd. _ We are grateful for `the coIltinued commitment to pubic service La Pine, OR 97739 provided by many hams, pn. a voluntary basis. As a Policy, the County 541.536.1758 should do whatever possible to encourage Amateur Radio in Deschutes Fax 541.536.5766 County. Sisters Station 703 N Larch St., Suite.C I believe that regulation regarding amateur radio antennas and the 541.549-2302 lack of any specific applicable rules is an oversight. If the amateur Fax 541-549-1762 radio community feels that the current regulatory environment Terrebonne Station threatens the. health of the hobby here, we should -give-great weight to 8222 N Hwy 97 their .input in developing whatever antenna regulations that would Terrebonne, OR 97760 apply to them. The proposed rules change from the Amateur 541-923.8270 community, which has been. passed elsewhere in Oregon and proven to Fax 541-548.7589 be quite acceptable, represent the best way to quickly correct this Special Services/SAR oversight without cost to the County. 541-388-6502 Fax 541.388-0793 Emergency Services Sincerely, 541.617-3303 Fax 541-388.0793 , K Adult Jail 541-388-6661 Don Webber Fax 541.330-9162 Deschutes County Emergency Services Mgr. Attachment 5' 6 DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF' S OFFICE LES STILES Sheriff 63333 W. Hwy. 20 Bend, OR 97701 Bend Station 541-388.6655 Fax 541-389.6835 Administration . 541.388.6659 . Fax 541,389.4454 La Pine Station 51530 Huntington 'Rd. La Pine, OR 97739 541.536.1758 Fax 541-536.5766 Sisters Station 703 N Larch St., Suite C 541.549-2302 Fax 541.549.1762 Terrebonne Station 8222 N Hwy 97 Terrebonne, OR 97760 541.923.8270 Fax 541-548-7589 Special Services/SAR 541-388-66502 Fax 541.388-0793 Emergency Services 541-617-3303 Fax 541.388-0793 Adult Jail 541.388.6661 Fax 541.330-9162 February 6, 2007 The Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 To The Members of the Commission: I write to offer my support of the text amendment to the Deschutes County . Code relating to amateur radio. antennas proposed by the Central Oregon DX Club. Amateur radio operators have generously provided their expertise and eglupmeYlt (cumlrletely-on a volun-tuy-basis) ri'st ppurtf of our opera~.lous .in- T sea> ch and rescue, emergency, and public events in Deschutes County. several recent search and rescue incidents, their support has been absolutely essential. We should not discourage any aspect of the amateur radio hobby here in Deschutes County by.either a lack of reasonable zoning rules, or overly festrictivemrules. Ibelieve this issue has been dealt with satisfactorily elsewhere in Oregon by passing ordinances that recognize amateur radio and allow homeowners to pursue their hobby while maintaining the local government's role in regulating safe design and construction. If this ordinance accomplishes that, we should adopt it. Les Stiles Sheriff N rEB 1 2 7007 Attachment 3 ~1tYR ~ . BMCY Amateur Radio Emergency Services Deschutes County - Oregon POB 2003 Sisters, Oregon 97759 Office 541-549- 6321 Pager 541-617-3014 The Deschutes County Planning Commission 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 January 25, 2007 To The Members of the Deschutes County Planning Commission: races On behalf of the Deschutes County Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES), I wish to express our support of the proposal by the Central Oregon DX Club (CODXC) to amend the Deschutes County Code. From our reading, the proposed changes would put amateur radio antennas and support structures under the same rules and restrictions (at the County level) as is currently in place in Beaverton, and is effectively about as restrictive as rules in Oregon that have been adopted for amateur radio antennas and towers since Oregon adopted a law to specifically limit regulation of amateur radio by cities and counties in 1999. ARES is the amateur radio organization that deals the most with government agencies and relief organizations, and is devoted to emergency communications and preparedness. We have 93 licensed amateur radio operator members, organized, trained, equipped, and ready to provide communications support for emergency events here on a voluntary basis. Deschutes County ARES provides communications for Deschutes County Emergency Services, ARC and for the last four (4) years has been part of, and worked with, Deschutes County Search and Rescue and has headed their communications. Deschutes County ARES has a simplex network in place with Jefferson County and Crook County ARES to provide emergency communications between all three counties including their respective hospitals. Communications is a vital part of any Counties Emergency Plan. During an emergency it is possible that all standard forms of communication can fail. ARES and amateur radio can now and in the past has been able to provide communications. The use of radio repeaters cannot be depended on in an emergency. One of the most important factors in communications is line of sight from one antenna to another and in this scenario, antenna height is vital. Sincerely, kt~" Drew Holmes Emergency Coordinator Deschutes County ARES National tle-idquartesa American 8! 11 Quvb(msc Rout Red Cross Fan, VA 2.!012 September 11, 2002 Mr. Jim Haynie President The American Radio Relay League 225 Main Street Newington. CT 06111-1494 I)= President Haynie: Each year, on avertrh`c, the American Red Cross provides services in over 62,004 emergencies in various places around the United States.. Whether flood, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, or man made disasters, the American Red Cross is there to respond. As our corporate Amer states 'Together, we can save a HIc When the Red Cross asks for help from America's radio hams We get it. Every time vii ask, radio hmu volunteer the use of their stations, includirg antennas, and they volunteer their time. For this, and for the results they achieve for victims oftragedies, we arc grateful. Your membership helps us at the disaster scene or froth their home running emergency communications. Even in an era of cell phonics and satellite communications, amateur radio continues to provide crucial links in disaster stricken areas. When the emergency arises, it is too late to build or transport communications systems equivalent to those available in the existing stock of amateur radio stations. We understand the in emergency conmunications the one of the key issues is to have trained cmergen,.7y communicators auxin have equipment and antennas set up for fast response. For this reason, we supported the American Radio Relay League when it sought preemption of zoning and other local regulation.-. that, either as written or as applied, tact to inhibit effective communications. We applauded when the Federal Communications Commission recognized an obvious fact of physics - that effective commanictttions is often a function of height. For thse reasons, the American Rest Cross strongly supports amateur radio, atul the construction of station antenna systems to provide effective local and lore;; distance communications. We have done w-, through Memoranda of Understanding with the American Radio Relay League dating back before World War 11, and still current today. We ettcourage municipalities and Horne Owner Associations tut employ their regulations so they will not impinge on the steeds of amateur radio operators In emergencies, time Atrmerican Red Cross, and the pat le we serve in your area treed what radio amateurs provide effective communications thin gh c wing uipment and antenna systems. Sincerely. JaYSr . I sateen ll' ' er Tel~ortmrunicatiotts Partner Disaster Services Together, we can save a life Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) 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 HF 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 co i s O a N QJ ~ s C C t CU C O: ca C a) O C C Y C c[1 7' cycflr E-E ~m O U E CL o Q)= u o E°.0000 c 'n O U cn a) E cMa ° O U) ° U E 0s 3 ' c u) ~ L 3: - E i C: 0 5 OQ o o aoo . m a co ~ (D Q LL c v, co U) vo~a,o m m G L 0 =L o E N D U c CO eEwca $ca> C a C0 0 O o CU (n ro o E a) vL- ~ W s a a~ ° a) - o. 0 a4 .4 a-) = U4~ P Ca 0 4, cu~~ o (U cd CD cz ;C; o CL -2'p - O nu 2 ~o ~~C= a cu >Cl;V - O cadc C cd UIV v G1 E cu a, 5 aP ~~ay ucz "V b4 ci u2 .~.O,^ cu O c°. c m oa)~ U) 0 .-.2 0 :3 cn GEC (~D c o a~ o .v ,a.' 44 Q Eo( `ctjEp OO c°i E„y t c L N O .C- .•O ~ y O c, :3 CU oo S $ cam'. 'c c 2-2 46 Fi] bA uz. ~ ~ xn O CS p al 0O 0 NU o °-U~. 0 co) bA t O ~ y CU ~ 0 r, 0 p y~ , 7 O .C o .o B N c~ y O + Cyr a) O 'o. iw cd a) U ~ .O . GUO O m ~ +y ~..f3,. O u c-) cd a) '3 . y ~ : ° 'y 0, • Q + a b.0- `a O 0 0 s. •ca a> o cd u cl"i u (:d ° Q o a, E x ~ •(n 1 ~O & Cdd A v V a b. ` a) d > ccs'a p o o S. o 40. M O M ~ y sue. ~ U: i cu co o a~~ TSB a o.~-~a o ° aa~da~ ~ u'v ;n4) e 0 a) s: rn rn a cd o w a) 4) a) o Lo s. O ' U id F? 0 CS ` ^C y cd . O Z cl O -0 et+ i - O E cd a) „ ° s. o i" N O (n a) U a) cd O M. o 00 c. (n 0 N O o f3 0 O ~ ~a U w. < cn c~OOOON~ 1 q. p J'' 0 -5 ~ n AU aoi .O O O Nn ~ o ~ did a~ Q, -r3 ° ~ o 09' V d ~ ~a ° co 0 O a) Y d O s. o p= a~.O O A-0 w U p y,c~d p C n g3 y C U U-U q U b~D y O A r~ 5 w a' C ,U biD o U y° C 3 y o o a~ U o'U s]. O 0 0 a '3 WE H- o - 'c~d(m - a'2., W'= oa F o C wao U ocd Oo n~ a3 ccd~~vUi G°q gL.u acv cd o ao'o000>' p~IIa>ibjD.0 a U3~UCnTe ww.0Lo Z~ Z H w J J m w H 0 O N N O Z _ ca iri U w~ N cd O U N, O o ( ~ . U 4J., o o c ~ U ._o r Ec~cn. O O N C i C cd U LL-5o m o a 8Ucu >'U o' 54 ca ° b cod o n y,o bo??c ° ~ a co o a ~ o ca bA cq z U 0 cCi ~ b 4 O bA o ° o 0 ~ w s. z ai .o o O E- bA o rn cd s 'd y e CU 0.ca~° U > ° ci3 `dC7~ C OC= 00 o C, O ° Q c t? - o ~ 0 ~ 4] a) p Q = 00 0- (v cts 0 o2f cd s cd o U) O ca C U U C ti vi 1= ca . 3 7 m (v ca cl U U p ^ s, O ii bq+ a) c0 s + , cd bA a L 0 O a) n ooa~s> ao °.~,x 4) C°pOO° c~"04 n n fYl° ti NO s• O ° y C3 q u o cd c1 y^'- cd o^ N O a' n ° m n o. p a~Eyo E b. o oo c°o orn mnm'~ca ° C7 cnd o bA~ yF o v a~~ °o t❑ o o ° .n ti.=.oOdo o w > 3 a~'~m ~ncr, rs.~ a' a cd ti c o - o bio a, 3 cd o o E- o CZ CZ ° a~ n U 3 ~ a~ a~ ° s. sg - r bD ".0 ca U U ~ y N c ad ~ ^n 1) O 'a N U a.+ W O = 6, U. ~ O. u 0 0 U.. > CL) r. a1.. U •p cd N o p N y cd cd .c5 2 •t x s..o Ld o E ~ CZ.~ ° y Uq'p .q o U o ,a U U O. ~ m U ~ a) 'Ls ~ W =Utx C>U ~m a _~~ai?Uoo~ ° ~ ^c~~O aQ3a E4' wo~a ~0c3R >~~~oa,va,~'~$ °o cts o ~ v 3 ~ w o o~ Ln m a. W ~i0 a ~ P ° Cd (h°C'n as ocn (p (1)>, al C) s.. ,i ho NO (L) r- as a>i 4 c O y bc° c 3 a C7 a° as (L) cu Z 0 a? C-A E -0 0- a~ 3 sw•~ U'cn A quo o U cn co O U O r, y w (CLn, U~ in y cd H pC's a m" .c o 0 3 o.E a ~ °(n' TWO o C ¢7 •L';. (!J U. C . OV tW 42 LC 'b !E N ,;,'t.,7 vi ca w ca a) d) ca co cnii -w 73 w P, ~bn ~o cu o cc 3an•c~ b." "Cc :a A„~ai "U~a'(U qco En no cz CIS >1 C,3 > (V ca 0 cu 'E 0- bD U 1±4 Cd ca CM "S cc$ = Z. r. 0, 0 Cup Ln ~b A-04 O 6.0 cis a~2v 41 ° a, b n «t aa~ N cd U U i+ 'C7 L. O G N r ca <U Cts .4 0 .4 0 - ~000luo r U IoW°o.x(Ecj 4)~ 41) 1 !n cd co -!n o •o s. d (n o 4. (3) 0 cu C) u as N U U U O 0. cd p .S. ,.p LL cd a) 4~4 E ~ ^ U co CD r. U °a +c3 s cd gyp, c C's X-, L13 r- O-w o CL) U ~ N a~ ~s E ~q~w cd. 040. ho- In 0 a. U o . Aooui me rut- rage i or s , FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People About the FCC Z FCC > About the FCC site map Searc : 1.1 About the FCC Help I Advanced About the FCC - Home The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The Contacting the FCC FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged Contractinq with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, Opportunities television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. Customer Service Standards Employee Survey Organization Results Employment The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President Opportunities and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to History of serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the Communications same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Fiscal Year Commission-related business. Budget Estimates As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates On-Site Resources management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. Organization Chart The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus. Phone Directory Strategic Plan Bureaus and Offices & Annual Reports The Commission staff is organized by function. There are seven,; Rules S Regulations operating Bureaus and ten Staff Offices. The Bureaus' responsibilities. include: processing applications for licenses and other filings; analyzing 1996 Telecom Act complaints; conducting investigations; developing and implementing regulatory programs; and taking part in hearings. Our Offices provide US Code support services. Even though the Bureaus and Offices have their Code of Federal individual functions, they regularly join forces and share expertise in Regulations Search addressing Commission issues. FCC Rules: CFR Title 47 Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau - educates and informs OET Rules consumers about telecommunications goods and services and engages their input to help guide the work of the Commission. CGB coordinates Federal Register telecommunications policy efforts with industry and with other Freedom of Information governmental agencies - federal, tribal, state and local - in serving the Act public interest. Spectrum Allocations Enforcement Bureau - enforces the Communications Act, as well as the Commission's rules, orders and authorizations. Washington Office International Bureau - represents the Commission in satellite and http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html 11/25/2007 .About the kUU Page 2 of 3 Photo international matters. Map Media Bureau - regulates AM, FM radio- and_television broadcast stations, Directions as well as cable television and satellite services. Floor Plan Wireless Telecommunications - oversees cellular and PCS phones, pagers and two-way radios. This Bureau also regulates the use of radio FieldOffices spectrum to fulfill the communications needs of businesses, aircraft and ship operators, and individuals. General Information Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau - addresses public safety, Northeast Region homeland security, national security, emergency management and South Central Region preparedness, disaster management, and other related issues. Western Region Wireline Competition Bureau - responsible for rules and policies concerning telephone companies that provide interstate, and under FCC Laboratory certain circumstances intrastate, telecommunications services to the public through the use of wire-based transmission facilities (i.e., 7435 Oakland Mills Rd. corded/cordless telephones). Columbia, MD 21046 Phone: 301-362-3000 Office of Administrative Law Judges - presides over hearings, and issues Fax: 301-362-3290 Initial Decisions. Additional Information... Office of Communications Business Opportunities - provides advice to the Commission on issues and policies concerning opportunities for ownership by small, minority and women-owned communications businesses. Office of Engineering And Technology - allocates spectrum for non- Government use and provides expert advice on technical issues before the Commission. Office of The General Counsel - serves as chief legal advisor to the Commission's various Bureaus and Offices. Office of Inspector General - conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to the operations of the Commission. Office of Legislative Affairs - is the Commission's main point of contact with Congress. Office of The Managing Director - functions as a chief operating official, serving under the direction and supervision of the Chairman. Office of Media Relations - informs the news media of FCC decisions and serves as the Commission's main point of contact with the media. Office of Strategic Planning Policy Anal sis - works with the Chairman, Commissioners, Bureaus and Offices to develop strategic plans identifying policy objectives for the agency. Office of Work Place Diversity - advises the Commission on all issues related to workforce diversity, affirmative recruitment and equal http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html 11/25/2007 <vnoui me v LL rage s or 3 , - 9 employment opportunity. last reviewed/updated on 4112107 FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing Initiatives For Consumers Find People Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225- - Privacy Policy 445 12th Street SW 5322) - Website Policies & Notices Washington, DC 20554 TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835- - Required Browser Plug-ins More FCC Contact Information... 5322) - Freedom of Information Act Fax: 1-866-418-0232 E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html 11/25/2007 r %A. : w ireiess i etecommumcatnons tsureau: w i is home rage 1 of z FCC Home Search updates .E-Filing Initiatives For Consum, ers Find People Wireless Telecommunications Bureau -CC > WTB Home rt.t, z)ne Map Search: The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) handles all FCC domestic wireless telecommunications Auctions programs and policies, except those involving satellite - Hela -Advanced and public safety communications or broadcasting. Auctions Home Wireless communications services include Amateur, About Auctions WTB Home Cellular, Paging, Broadband PCS, and more. Schedule About the WTB All Services I About the WTB Releases Data Accessibility Databases Wireless Headlines Licensing Releases Rules and Universal Licensing System Regulations 11/2312007 FRN Registration Licensee 8 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER (FCC 07-203) Online Filing Consumer Section 68.4 (a) of the Commission's Rules License Search Information Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones Application Search Forms & Fees pdf - Word License Audits C_o.nst/Coveraae Requirements Wireless 11 /23,'2007 Secondary Markets Initiative Services LETTER (DA 077-4697) Spectrum Leasing WTB_Site map Qualcomm Incorporated Application Weekly Status Public Notices p_df - Word Antenna Structure Registral 11/23/2007 Related Sites LETTER (DA 07-4696) ASR Home Quakomm Incorporated Application TOWAIR 3G pd - Word FRN Registration Third Generation Online Filing wireless 11/23/2007 Registration Search 911 services LETTER (DA 07-4695) Application Search Qualcomm Incorporated Application Basic and pdf - Word Wireless Services Enhanced CALEA 11/23/2007 Amateur Communications LETTER (DA 07-4694) Industrial/Business Radio Pool Assistance for Qualcomm Incorporated Lower 700 MHz Law pdf - Word Personal Radio Enforcement Act Private Land Mobile 11;19/2007 All Services... CMRS MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER (FCC 07-196) poetition Applications of AT&T, Inc. and Dobson Wireless Outreach Re Repo ° Communications Corporation for Consent to Commercial Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations Broadband Forum Mobile Radio pdf - Word Joint Rural Initiative Services Statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps: pdf -Word Rural Vision Program Environmental Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: pd - Word Tower Construction Notificatior and Historic Statement of Commissioner Robert M. McDowell: ndf -Word Preservation Geographic Data Headline Archive Extracts Nu.biic Sa#ery Homeland http://wireless.fcc.gov/ 11/25/2007 New National Wireless lower Siting Policies, April 23, 1996 Page 4 of 10 1 "Personal wireless _services" include commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C) "Commercial mobile services" are defined in Section 332 of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, and include cellular telephone services regulated under Part 22 of the FCC's rules, SMR services regulated under Part 90 of the FCC's rules, and PCS regulated under Part 24 of the FCC's rules. 47 C.F.R. §20.9. "Unlicensed wireless services" are defined as the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses; direct-to-home satellite services are excluded from this definition. 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(iii). COMPLETE TEXT OF SEC. 704 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: '(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- '(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. '(B) LIMITATIONS- ' (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- '(1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and '(lI) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. '(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. '(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/factl.html 7/11/2007 Phew National Wireless l ower Siting Policies, April 23, 1996 substantial evidence contained in a written record. '(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. '(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- '(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; '(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and '(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/factl.htmi Page 5 of 10 7/11/2007 Kristen Maze From: P. Jane Eilers [pjehome@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:01 PM To: Kristen Maze Subject: ham radio towers I am responding to the notice of a proposed land use regulation regarding ham radio towers. I oppose any change in the current regulations which I understand limit such towers to 30 ft. I believe that many land owners in Deschutes Co have wonderful views which would be negatively impacted by towers over 30 ft.(possibly as high as 150-200 ft).If the current regulation is amended in any manner (either to allow case by case consideration or to allow taller towers outright) property owners lose their ability to protect property values from the monetary impacts of these unsightly towers. I feel even a thirty foot tower is objectionable. At least with the current regulation my neighbor can only erect a 30 ft tower (no higher). I feel a thirty foot tower is even objectionable. Amending the current regulation opens the possibility for my neighbors to build towers much higher than that therefore I am against any changes to the current regulations. sincerely Joe and Jane Eilers, 64110 Harris Way, Bend OR, 317-1059 1 Page 1 of 2 Kristen Maze From: KNLR [knlr@coinet.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:33 PM To: Board Cc: Kristen Maze Subject: TA-06-10 Proposed Changes to Provide for Ham Radios The Honorables Dennis Luke Tammy Baney Mike Daly and Ms. Kristen Maze Please accept this email as my comments on the proposed changes to amateur radio facilities in Deschutes County. My name is Terry Cowan, I am a resident of Deschutes County and a "ham radio" operator assigned the call of KD7QB. I am also a broadcaster and licensee of KNLR, Bend and the local chair of the Emergency Alert System Local Area Emergency Communications Committee for the Central Oregon Area which includes Deschutes, Crook, Jefferson, Wheeler and portions of Wasco, Klamath and Lake Counties. I was first licensed I believe in 1967 so I have seen a tremendous change in communications during the past 40 years. In those days we did not enjoy the tremendous ability to communicate which is available to us today. Cell phones and internet were not even dreamed of by most of us. I monitored ham radio to track hurricanes when I was in Puerto Rico. Calls home to my family were via amateur radio while today I can use my cell phone and have immediate contact or monitor hurricanes on the internet. While amateur radio may appear to some to be an "esoteric" hobby or form of communication it provides a valuable pool of operators and equipment for emergencies as is witnessed time and again in various parts of our nation. We in Central Oregon have been fortunate to avoid most of the natural disasters witnessed elsewhere in our nation. But a severe earthquake for example could sever communications links and Central Oregon could quickly become isolated from the rest of Oregon and the Nation. Although there is almost no connection between broadcast services (AM, FM, TV) and amateur radio during non-emergency situations, amateur radio can become an important "back-up" resource to convey messages between public officials and broadcasters during an infrastructure melt-down. At a station I managed in Nebraska I was often part of a local "ham" network during severe weather. There are several reasons why Deschutes County should not regulate amateur radio facilities. First, the number of amateurs is relatively small compared to the total population and an even smaller number of amateurs make the investment in antenna structures that are necessary for reliable high frequency "HE" or "long-distance" communications. Those amateurs who do will be a vital part of the communications back-bone should a natural disaster occur that disrupts normal channels of communication. No doubt the reader is aware that "HF" radio operations utilize the ionosphere which acts as a mirror to bounce signals from the antenna to other distant amateur operators who do not usually experience the "outage" caused by a local disaster and thus are able to "hand-off' messages to normal communications channels. Second, amateur operators who provide communication services to others are required by the Federal Communications Commission to do so free-of-charge. Naturally without an "income stream" most amateurs are limited by finances to the size of structure and any local regulations which would require permits and/or engineering could further limit or prohibit amateurs from investing in facilities which enable "HF" or long-distance communications. Amateur radio should not be confused with business or public transmission facilities which are very different in both service, equipment and facilities. Third, the Federal Communications Commission has certain regulations which protect aviation interests and the public against hazards and may be called upon at any time for enforcement should an amateur station be found to be operating in violation of its standards. 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2 For the benefit of the entire community Deschutes County should not negatively impact the amateur community because of the complaints of one individual by enacting any rules limiting or requiring permitting of amateur radio facilities. Please terminate this proceeding without enacting any rules requiring permitting or imposing limitations. Respectfully submitted, Terry Cowan KD7Q6 EAS LAECC Chair 11/26/2007 Kristen Maze From: Jill Elaine Uillsemail@bendbroadband.com] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:02 AM To: Board; Kristen Maze Subject: Pending Code Amendment TA-06-10, Proposed Changes to Provide for Ham Radios Hello All, As someone who understands the vital importance of Ham radios in emergency situations, I oppose any code amendment that seeks to restrict or impose fees upon this valuable communication system. The Ham radio system is a time-tested and proven emergency communication system, and, even in these days of 'high technology', it has, at times, been the ONLY reliable method of relaying information during the worst of catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina. The height of the radio tower is directly related to its ability to provide communication over long distances: certainly a necessity in this remote part of the United States. If any new Ham radio code amendments are to be passed, have them be code that make it clear that this form of communication system is NOT to be hampered or stifled with fees and excessive regulations. The county's code should be in line with the state and federal ordinances: to do otherwise opens up the county to the possibility of lawsuits and extra expenses. As our county's population grows, more folks who move into our area will want all their views to look like postcards. Let's make sure our county codes do not somehow cause them to feel 'false hope' that they can file complaints to bring down Ham radio towers. None of us should expect that we are somehow guaranteed a pristine view from all vantage points on our properties: it's unreasonable. I will not be able to attend the hearing Monday night, so chose to make my concerns on this subject via email. Thank you for listening. Sincerely Jill Elaine Jolly UAR, Bend 97701 HENDRIX, BRINICH '~Q BERTALAN, L.L.P. 716 NW Harriman St. Bend, Oregon 97701 541.382.4980 541.382.9060 fax ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.hxbri.com Greg Hendrix, P.C. Ken Brinich, P.C.* Lisa N. Bertalan, P.C. November 13, 2007 Our File: 3301.1 The Deschutes County Planning Department Kristen Maze 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, Oregon 97701 RE: Amateur Radio Text Amendment TA-06-10 Dear Kristen: *admitted Oregon & U.S. Patent Bar Enclosed for the record in the above referenced matter is an original and three copies of my client's brief to the County Commissioners for their review when considering the above referenced matter. A copy of PRB-1 is also enclosed. This is the Federal Communications Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order relating to local jurisdictions' authority to regulate amateur radio facilities. A copy of "Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness" is also enclosed. This article is instructive in the field of antenna height, and the relationship between height and interference with neighboring signals, as well as antenna height and the ability to communicate with amateur radios. Re a Ids, J ~ n nnich enclosures c: client RECEIVED NOV 13 2007 DELIVEpED Ely.. BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS In the matter of the Proposed Text Amendment ) to DCC §18.120.040 for an exception relating to ) TA-06-10 Amateur Radio Towers 1 Robert Swaney is a member of the Central Oregon DX club. He appears in this matter to support the proposed text amendment originally proposed by CODXC authorizing placement and construction of amateur radio antenna support towers. Mr. Swaney opposes the alternative text amendment written by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. In writing their alternative, the planning commission ignored state and federal law, and failed to consider the impact on the local amateur radio community. Background. Mr. Swaney is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to operate amateur radios. He lives on 20 acres of EFU land at 62515 Stenkamp Road, Bend, OR, and has maintained amateur radio towers and antennas at this location for seven years. On April 19, 2006 Deschutes County Code Enforcement mailed to Mr. Swaney a Notice of Violation alleging his radio towers were built without building permits and alleged they violate the 30 foot height limit in the EFU zone (see attached Exhibit A). Mr. Swaney admits his amateur radio towers exceed 30 feet in height. Mr. Swaney responded to the notice by pointing out to DCCD that ORS 221.295 and Federal Communication Commission--"Federal Preemption of State and Local Regulations Pertaining to Amateur Radio Facilities." Amateur Radio Preemption, 101 F.C.C.2d 952, 50 Fed.Reg. 38,813 (1985) (codified at 47 C.F.R. § 97.15(b)') ("PRB-1", a copy is enclosed) preempt the 30 foot height limit. Mr. Swaney was directed by Community Development to come into compliance by applying for building permits. Mr. Swaney applied for building permits, and was next told that structural drawings and calculations needed to be prepared and "wetstamped" by an Oregon ' ORS 221.295 "Notwithstanding ORS chapters 215 and 227, a city or county ordinance based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations that regulates 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." 2 47 CFR 97.15 Station antenna structures. (a) Owners of certain antenna structures more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) above ground level at the site or located near or at a public use airport must notify the Federal Aviation Administration and register with the Commission as required by part 17 of this chapter. (b) Except as otherwise provided herein, a station antenna structure may be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur service communications. (State and local regulation of a station antenna structure must not preclude amateur service communications. Rather, it must reasonably accommodate such communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose. [Page 569] See PRB-1, 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985) for details.) Page 1 of 19 professional engineer, rather than using the same documentation supplied by the tower manufacturer (and "dry-stamped" by an engineer of another state). Mr. Swaney promptly complied with this request too. The Building Division approved the permits in 2006. See Exhibit B. Despite approval and Mr. Swaney's demand that the permits be issued and the improvements inspected, the Building Official has refused to issue the permits. The building official has failed to inspect the towers. Height regulation of amateur radio towers, antennas and support structures is preempted by State and Federal law. Until 2001 the published version of Deschutes County Code § 18.120.040A4 contained a height exception for "radio and other similar projections..." This exception complied with state and federal law by establishing a blanket exception for amateur radio towers in Deschutes County (except for the LM zone). During 2000 and 2001 the County struggled to adopt a regulatory scheme for wireless telecommunications facilities. The code was revised to set forth standards appropriate for commercial wireless telecommunications facilities. But no new rule was proposed or adopted regarding amateur radio towers and antennas. During the legislative process the height exceptions set forth at of Deschutes County Code § 18.120.040A for radio projections was inadvertently deleted from the text of the code. That is to say the language was deleted without an amending ordinance authorizing the deletion. Since 2001 the code has been published without the radio projection exception, even though deletion was never specifically authorized. As described below, the deletion is a mistake, and does not reflect the legislative intent of the Commission. Consequently, not only is the 30 foot EFU height limit preempted by state and federal law, but the amateur radio towers continue to be excepted from the height limit throughout the county. Preemption. A 30 foot height limit in the EFU zone is preempted by state statute and federal regulation. ORS 221.295 is a statutory exemption from height regulations for amateur radio towers 70 feet or less in height. The statute prohibits height regulation below 70 feet unless "necessary to achieve clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective of the city or county." Deschutes County has not identified or adopted clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objectives sufficient to authorize any height limitation, much less a 30 foot height limit. In the absence of a clearly defined.health, safety, or aesthetic objective, the 30 foot EFU zone height limit is preempted by state law. 4 2000 version of DCC 18.120.040A. "The following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of this title: public schools, chimneys, tanks, church spires, belfries, domes, monuments, fire and hose towers, observation towers, transmission towers, smokestacks, flagpoles, radio and other similar projections, and agricultural structures as defined in this ordinance. This exception does not apply to an Airport Development Zone, Airport Height Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone." (emphasis added). Page 2 of 19 Additionally PRB-15 preempts county tower height, screening or location regulations unless the regulation is the least restrictive means necessary to meet the County's clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objectives. Before legislating, the county must first identify its purpose in each zone in which it desires to regulate. Countywide regulation of amateur radio towers above a particular height is unnecessary where the county has not established a purpose of protecting scenic corridors. The Height Exception Still Exists. Mr. Swaney is unaware of any person, other than himself, who has ever been issued a notice of violation for building and maintaining amateur radio towers in Deschutes County. Prior to 2000 the zoning code contained an express exception for radio projections. PRB-1 had been the law since 1985. ORS 221.295 was adopted by the 1999 legislature. In 2000 the zoning code's exception from height regulation was consistent with both state and federal law. Because "radio and other similar projections" were excepted, there was no basis for complaints regarding tower height. --Tvv~ With new telecommunications technology came new devices and facilities. The proliferation of cell towers was fruitful grounds for land use appeals to the County Commission. Commercial interests, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and private property interests had to be sorted out, and the respective parties' representatives argued over tower height, electromagnetic radiation and health effects. After several attempts to adopt a regulatory framework for wireless telecommunications devices the County adopted new zoning code sections to deal with competing interests of commercial telecommunications businesses and private property owners. On August 9, 2000 County assistant planner Damien Syrnak presented proposed ordinance 2000-19 to the County Commissioners for consideration. Minutes of the meeting indicate that the proposal was for regulation of wireless telecommunications. Amateur radio tower regulation was not a subject of the presentation. Mr. Syrnak suggested that "how to 5 PRB-1, paragraph 25 and 26 provides: "25. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur communications. Some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial installations than others if they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for international amateur communications will differ from an antenna used to contact other amateur operators at shorter distances. We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, 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. 26. Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all state and local laws that affect amateur operations. We are confident, however, that state and local governments will endeavor to legislate in a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts with federal policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive litigation in this area. Amateur operators who believe that local or state have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums." (emphasis added). Page 3 of 19 regulate ham radio towers" be submitted to the planning commission (Page 2, Minutes of Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, August 9, 2000). At the hearing Commissioner Luke asked: Commissioner Luke: How does this affect ham radio antennas? Syrnak: It is covered by some federal regulations and the telecommunications act. There was a bill passed recently by the legislature that gives local governments the authority to regulate these types of facilities, but we have to have clear policy, directive or intent in order to do so. The comprehensive plan does not have that now. (Page 16 of Minutes of Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, August 9, 2000). After a colloquy between the commissioners and cell company representatives regarding regulation of cell tower height Commissioner Luke inquired as to the applicability of the proposed ordinance to ham radio operators. Commissioner Luke: Are ham radio operators covered by this ordinance? George Read: I understand after reading federal law that the County cannot regulate federal towers [sic] 70 feet and under since the new state law passed last session, there is a question if these are covered by the ordinance. By federal law, we cannot regulate them. (Page 19 of Minutes of Public Hearing on Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, August 9, 2000). The County Commission considered the proposal presented by Damien Syrnak but ultimately did not adopt it. Regulation of wireless telecommunications facilitates was next considered by the Planning Commission in November of 2000. Draft ordinance 2000-028 was proposed (attached Exhibit Q. This ordinance would have deleted the § 18.120.040A exception for "radio and other similar projections..." The county clerk's office reports that this ordinance has never been recorded. Nor is it listed in the legislative history at the end of § 18.120.040. This ordinance was never adopted and so the exception for radio and other similar projections .remained part of the code. In 2001 ordinances 2001-004 and 2001-033 relating to removal of exceptions to the height limitations and reducing the height of agricultural structures were approved and presented to the County Commission for signature. The changes to existing code language is presented in the ordinance by attaching a copy of what the Commissioners apparently thought was the existing code section language. Deleted language was -.1-60k-en through; new language was underlined. Ordinance number 2001-004 struck through several of the exceptions listed in § 18.120.040A. It did not strike through "radio and other similar projections (attached Exhibit D). That language is mysteriously missing as if it had been deleted by a prior amendment to the code. But no prior amendment to the code removed "radio and other similar projections" from the exceptions to height limitations. Despite not being published in the current version of the code, the exception remains part of the code. When 2001-033 was signed on October 10, 2001 the language "radio and other similar projections" was again omitted as if it was not part of the Page 4 of 19 code. The survival of "radio and other similar projections" is consistent with what was then, and remains now state and federal law preempting local regulation of amateur radio towers unless least restrictive means are utilized to regulate. Only when specific findings are made that the regulations are the least restrictive means to accomplish the County's purpose, and that the restrictions are necessary to protect health, safety or aesthetic objectives, can the County regulate amateur radio tower placement, screening or height. An interpretation that removes the exception for radios and other similar projections subjects amateur radio operators to the height limitation in the underlying zone. The height limit in most zones is 30 feet. Not only is this inadequate for meaningful operations of amateur radios, it violates the minimum 70 foot height limit imposed by ORS 221.295. Such an interpretation is unlawful under current state and federal law. The ordinance that first failed to include the exception for "radio and other similar projections" recites no basis for the drastic change from unregulated height to only 30 feet. No findings are made that a health, safety or aesthetic objective necessitates a 30 foot height limitation; and no findings are made that less restrictive alternatives have been investigated, and that the 30 foot height limit is the least restrictive alternative available. Nor was any notice given to property owners in the EFU zone that the county was considering revising the code to eliminate an authorized use in the EFU zone. Notwithstanding publication of the code omitting the words "radio and other similar projections", there must be a legislative intent to change the code in order to remove this exception. The legislative intent must be lawful, that is, it must be consistent with state and federal law. Current law in Deschutes County preserves the right for licensed amateur radio operators to construct and maintain amateur radio towers exceeding the height limitations imposed by the zone in which the tower is located. Amendment of the Code. Whether it is appropriate to find that Mr. Swaney is in violation of the code is not really the issue before the commission. The commission must decide whether to adopt a new code section that addresses the issue of amateur radio towers. Rather than establish an adversarial posture with the Department of Community Development, and after discussions with the Department about how to present the issue, CODXC applied for a text amendment that would have brought relief to Mr. Swaney, and provide certainty for licensed i radio amateurs and their neighbors. JJ The CODXC appeared at several meetings of the planning commission to support the club's proposed ordinance. The planning commission, on their own initiative, revised the club's proposal. The planning commission believed that regulation of amateur radio towers should mirror that of towers owned and operated by the telecommunications industry. The referred proposal subjects amateur radio operators to regulation similar to those imposed on multi- national corporations operating for-profit commercial telecom companies. The club withdrew the text amendment rather than send up the oppressive proposal preferred by the planning commission. The Planning Commission's proposal is not supported by Mr. Swaney. It imposes oppressive burdens on amateur radio operators. It does not represent the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the county's health, safety or aesthetic objectives. The Page 5 of 19 planning commission's proposal treats amateur radio operators as if they were commercial wireless telecommunications service providers like AT&T and Verizon. Amateur operators are not engaged in for profit activities. Their antenna towers must be on site, not at a remote location. Their towers are manned stations. Paying rent for remote locations would be cost prohibitive for these amateur activities, and is not a practical alternative for those amateur radio operators that operate experimental systems (such as Mr. Swaney). Costs of processing land use applications for towers over 75 feet is cost prohibitive. The effect of the planning commission's proposal is to impose substantial and unjustifiable burdens on operators, deterring them from conducting their lawful activities on any type of zoning in Deschutes County. p._.e ;-Vq fi r c For generations amateur radio opera rs have practiced in Deschutes County without complaint. They have been good neighbor, always willing to provide communications services in times of public emergency. When hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast it was the amateur radio operators that continued to provide essential communications. When tsunamis hit coastal areas, or earthquakes or forest fire destroy land line facilities and cell towers, amateur radio operators continue to provide vital communication links. When natural disaster strike, the amateur radio operator provides vital communication links. Those links require operating from stations with adequate tower height. Amateur radio operators prefer retaining unregulated height limits. Having said this, Mr. Swaney understand the desires of the community to enjoy unobstructed views of the landscape. In some zones this is an appropriate consideration for county government to consider. In other zones scenic views are purely a private matter. If the residents desire to require the preservation of scenic vistas, residents have the option of establishing CCRs that establish view corridors. It is not the job of County Government to establish unobstructed countywide view corridors. Height limitations should be limited only to those zones in which the county has an established purpose of preserving scenic view corridors. And in no event should the height limit be so low as to unreasonably impair amateur radio operation. The planning commission's proposals do little to preserve safety (which can be addressed by requiring building permits). At the same time the planning commission's proposal imposes substantial land use permitting costs on amateur operators. The benefits of imposing land use permit requirements on operators should be measured against the necessity for them. Screening a 100 foot tall tower behind 30 foot tall junipers accomplishes little. Requiring location of a tower in a swale or gulley only requires construction of a taller tower than one placed on a ridge or hilltop. Expensive land use permits that serve no purpose will price amateurs out of their hobby. Least restrictive means cannot include regulation that does nothing more than increase expense. In establishing a height limit 47 CRF 97.15 and ORS 221.295 require that the regulation of the placement, screening or height of amateur radio towers or antennas, and their support structures, must reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications, and that county regulations must represent the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the county's purpose. The county's purpose in the EFU zone is set forth at DCC 18.16.010(A) which provides that "The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve and maintain Page 6 of 19 agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm use. " The height of an amateur radio tower is unrelated to preservation and maintenance of agricultural lands. The effect of a tower 30 feet tall will be the same as a tower 150 feet tall. Either tower will be an obstacle to wheel line and pivot irrigation. The difference is that the 30 foot tall tower is acceptable under the 30 foot EFU height limit and a 150 foot tall tower is not. Other than presenting an obstacle to irrigation lines, there is no impact on agricultural practices. The least restrictive regulation necessary to preserve farm use is to no regulation. There is simply no need for it in the EFU zone. Proponents of height regulation may assert that they prefer an unobstructed view of the horizon. Unobstructed views are not the purpose in the EFU zone. There is no reason for the County to preserve private property owner's unobstructed view of the landscape in the EFU zone. So long as the tower height does not interfere with the county's purpose in the EFU zone, no height regulation should be considered. In order to regulate height, the county must consider the purpose of each zone, and make findings establishing why height restrictions are necessary to achieve-the county's purpose. The - planning commission made no effort to do so. There is no history of amateur radio operator's violating of the Deschutes County Code. Nor is application of the limitations proposed by the planning commission on a county wide basis the least restrictive alternative. The density per square mile of amateur towers county wide is miniscule. Blanket regulation of towers of any height is a solution in search of a problem. No health or safety objectives were articulated by the planning commission as a basis for the proposed 75 foot limit beyond which site plan approval is required. A least restrictive alternative minimizing impacts on aesthetics would limit the density of towers in zones that include a preservation of scenic vistas purpose. The Commission should refuse to adopt the planning commission's proposal. The Commission should find that despite the absence of "radio and other similar projections" in the exception provisions of the published code, the exception still exists. The Commission should find that code provisions restricting height to 30 feet are preempted by federal and state law. Having said all of that, it has been, and continues to be Mr. Swaney's hope that a reasonable regulation can be adopted so that future amateur radio operators as well as their neighbors have a better understanding of what is authorized and what is prohibited by the code. The CODXC's original proposed ordinance is a reasonable compromise, and has been adopted in the same form by other municipalities, including the city of Beaverton. Reasonableness. Tower height is primarily a function of the frequency utilized. So long as Congress and the FCC authorize amateur use of various frequencies below 14 MHz for amateur use, the tower height necessary for use of those frequencies is, by implication, also authorized. If either the FCC or Congress eliminates use of frequencies which require tall towers, then those tall towers will become relics and should be torn down. So long as Congress and the FCC authorizes frequencies that require tall towers, local regulation of towers is subject to the least restrictive regulation requirements of PRB-I and ORS 221.295. Page 7 of 19 Amateur radio operators need reasonable options to operate within licensed frequencies. It is unreasonable for the County to establish public policies inconsistent with state and federal regulation that leave. The Planning Department stated in its April 18, 2007 staff report to the planning commission that the current code section 18.120.040 Building Height Restrictions does not comply with the requirements of ORS 215.295. Rather than acknowledge that its authority to regulate is limited, the planning commission proposed harsh and unfair regulations. If adopted the planning commission's regulations will unreasonably restrict amateur radio operations. Mr. Swaney's responses to specific provisions of the planning commission's proposal are set forth below. The proposed regulations relate to tower heights exceeding, 75. feet.. 3. amateur radio facilities exceeding 75 feet are subject to site plan review as defined in DCC 18.116.XXX Requiring site plan review as generally understood in zoning matters is unreasonable unless a process is established for administrative issuance by staff in all cases with no or nominal fee and without notice or hearings. Filing certain minimal information (see the Beaverton ordinance for towers above 70 feet) for Administrative Permits would be Reasonable. We suggest this be part of building permit application process. 18.116.XXX Amateur Radio Facilities An application for a site plan review for an amateur radio facility shall comply with the applicable standards, setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any combining zone and the following requirements. A. Application Requirements. An application for an amateur radio facility shall comply with the following meeting, notice, and submittal requirements: I . Neighborhood Meeting. Prior to building permit approval from Building 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 facilities no greater than 100 feet in height, and b. Two thousand feet for a facility 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. Unreasonable. Requiring notice and hearing is not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. Page 8 of 19 Submittal Requirements. An application for a amateur radio facility shall include: a. A copy of the written notice of the required neighborhood meeting and a certificate of mailing showing that the notice was mailed to the list of property owners falling within the notice area designated under DCC 18.128.340(A)(1). Requiring written notice to neighbors is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. b. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the meeting, the time, date and location of the meeting and a list of meeting attendees. Requiring a meeting and a summary thereof is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. c. A site plan showing the location of the proposed facility and its components. The site plan shall also identify the location of existing and proposed landscaping, any equipment shelters, utility connections, and any fencing proposed to enclose the facility. A simple plot plan would be acceptable as part of a building permit application. Requiring landscaping and fencing is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. d. A copy of the design specifications, including proposed colors, and/or elevation of an antenna array proposed with the facility. Acceptable only as part of an Administrative Permit process such as a building permit application. e. An elevation drawing of the facility and a photographic simulation of the facility showing how it would fit into the landscape. Unacceptable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. f. A copy of a letter of determination from the Federal Aviation Administration or the Oregon Department of Transportation - Aeronautics Division as to whether or not aviation lighting would be required for the proposed facility. Unacceptable. FAA determination is required only for antenna support structures exceeding 200 feet in height or in the 1:100 slope from the nearest runway of an airport listed in the Airman's Guide. B. Approval Criteria: An application for a amateur radio facility will be approved upon findings that: Page 9 of 19 The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences. Requiring landscaping, screening, or fencing is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. 2. An amateur radio facility located in an LM Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Amateur radio facilities shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. Requiring landscaping, screening, or fencing is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. 3. In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Amateur radio facilities shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. Requiring landscaping, screening, or fencing is unreasonable and not in accord with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. 4. Any approval of a amateur radio facility shall include a condition that if the facility is left unused or is abandoned by all amateur radio facilities providers located on the facility for more than one year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. Acceptable only if restricted to "abandoned". An amateur radio facility is not required by Federal law to maintain any particular operating schedule and local jurisdictions have no authority or standing to determine when an amateur radio facility is "used" or "unused" as against the determination of the Federal Communications Commission and the licensee. 5. Antenna support structures, not including guy wires and anchors, shall be located outside of required front, rear and side yard setbacks. Acceptable. 6. Metal structures shall have a galvanized finish, or flat or matte silver, or flat or matte gray in color. Acceptable. But no clearly articulated reason for this restriction is given. 7. Amateur radio facilities shall not include attached signage, symbols, or decorations, lighted or otherwise, other than required unlighted signage for safety or regulatory purposes Page 10 of 19 Acceptable. But no clearly articulated reason for this restriction is given. The property owner shall obtain a valid building permit if required from the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division. Acceptable. "Property owner" must include authorized tenant,. renter, or other authorized occupant of the property. 9. The property owner has demonstrated compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) restrictions. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting true copies of the FCC's, FAA's, and ODA's written determination to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division at time of application for a building permit; and Unreasonable. Amateur radio antenna support structure locations or heights do not have to be reported to or evaluated by the FCC or the FAA unless they are over 200 ft. in height or are located within the 1:100 slope from the nearest runway of an airport listed in the Airman's Guide. Also see comment above regarding "property owner" 10. The property owner has a current, valid FCC Amateur Radio License for the operation of amateur ("Ham") radio services in the name of property owner. Compliance may be demonstrated by submitting a true copy of the property owner's Amateur Radio License to the Deschutes County Community Development Department, Building Safety Division at time of application for a building permit. Acceptable, but see comment above regarding "property owner." Note that persons authorized to operate an amateur radio station in the United States is controlled by Section 97.3(a)(1) of the FCC Rules [47 C.F.R. s. 97.3(a)(1)] which defines an amateur operator as: A person named in an amateur operator/primary license station grant on the ULS consolidated licensee database to be the control operator of an amateur station. 18.04.030. Definitions. As used in. DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030. "Amateur Radio Facilities" means the external, outdoor structures associated with amateur radio services. This includes antennae, masts, towers, and other antenna support structures that consist of solid tubular or open lattice metal structure not exceeding 25 inches on average in diameter or face width. Page I 1 of 19 Acceptable except for the specification of maximum width, which is unacceptable because it does not comply with the requirement for Least Restrictive Means. "Amateur ("Ham") Radio Services" means radio communication services, including amateur-satellite service and amateur service, which are for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication, and technical investigations carried out by duly licensed amateur radio operators solely for personal aims and without pecuniary interest, as defined in Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 and regulated there under. Acceptable. See comment above in section 10 regarding definition of amateur radio operator. Also, aliens licensed in their country of citizenship are authorized to operate amateur radios in the United States. Summary. The FCC said in PRB-l, "Amateur operators who believe that local or state governments have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums." The planning commission failed to consider the limitations that PRB-1 place on them. Nor did the planning commission consider limitations imposed by ORS 221.295. The substantial burdens they now propose to place on amateur radio operators are legally unjustifiable and unacceptable. The alternative presented by CODX in their initial text amendment application should be reconsidered by the Board of Commissioners and adopted without further amendment. , 2007. Page 12 of 19 Attorney for Robert Swaney Exhibit A DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701 Telephone (541)388-6575, Fax (541)385-1764 CERTIFIED LETTER April 19, 2006 ~~T ` Robert D. Swaney Sarah E. Swaney 62515 Stenkamp Rd Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes County Code Violation - Case #C06-81, C06-82.62545 Stenkamp Rd, Bend Dear Mr. & Mrs. Swaney: This letter is to inform you of an alleged violation of the County Code associated with your property, Specifically, that multiple radio antennas have been constructed without building or land use permits and exceed height limit. This circumstance violates County Code section 15.04.200, 18.16.020, 18.120.040, 18.80, which states that (see enclosed). Since many violations occur because of unfamiliarity with the county code, voluntary compliance is sought before further legal enforcement actions are taken. In the vast majority of cases, property owners correct the situation without the necessity for further action. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parties and of a more satisfactory and lasting nature than involuntary compliance. You are hereby requested to contact Lori Furlong at (541.385-1707) within 15 days to discuss the details of your case including necessary corrective action. In certain cases, the corrective action may be obvious. Nevertheless, you are still asked to contact our office to confirm your compliance and establish timelines. For your information, code enforcement cases are initiated in several ways, including notification from County field personnel, other governmental agencies, and from private citizens. In each case, confirmation of the alleged violation is required prior to the mailing of this letter. For more information on the Code Enforcement program, please visit the County's website at httn;//www/co.deschutes.or.us (Community Development Department), or stop by our lobby, to review the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, its &Xj, Lori Furlong Deschutes County Code Enforcement Technician Page 13 of 19 Exhibit B Community Development Department Panning Oidaion • Building Safety Divaian • rnwu"&UW H"It D w mr, 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon • 97701-1925 (541) 3BB-6575 • FAX (541) 3851764 htzp://www.co.deschutes.or. us/ cdd/ October 22, 2007 Ken Brinich Hendrix, Brinich & Bertalan, L.L.P. 716 NW Harriman Street Bend, Oregon 97701 Re: Demand to Complete Plan Reviews - B63422 and B64044 Dear Ken: On August 28, 2006, Building Permit Number B63422 was reviewed and approved by Chuck Woolsey, Deschutes County Plans Examiner. On December 5, 2006, Building Permit Number B64044 was reviewed and approved by Terry Trask, Deschutes County Plans Examiner. As far as the Community Development Department receiving a demand to complete the plan reviews, it is my understanding from our permit records that your demand has been met. 12egar , Dennis Perkins Deschutes County Building Official Page 14 of 19 Exhibit C BEFORE Tin: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DE SCHUfES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18 the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance of the Deschutes County Code to Amend the Regulations for Building Height Exceptions And Declaring an Emergency ORDINANCE NO. 2000-028 WHEREAS, the citizens and the Deschutes County Planning Commission of Deschutes County have brought concerns over the building height exceptions process in Deschutes County to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planting Division; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and Deschutes County Planning Commission held a joint meeting on July i0, 2000 to discuss the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Building Height Exception, Section 18.120.040; WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners requested that the Deschutes County Planning Commission review the existing Building Height Exception Ordinance, conduct a public process and make recommendations and or modifications to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Section 18.120.040; WHEREAS, after notice was given the Deschutes County Planning Commission held public hearing on November 16, 2000, to consider proposed changes to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Building Height .Exception, Section 18.120.040; WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission opened the public hearing, took public testimony and continued the public hearing to a date certain of February 27, 2001 for the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Building Height Exception, Section 18.120.040; WHEREAS, after notice was given and a public hearing was conducted on , 2001 before the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the proposed amendments; now, therefore, PAGE I Of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2000-028 (12!200) Page 15 of 19 Ordinance 2000-028 EXHIBIT "A" 11/16/00 18.120.040. Building height exceptions. A. The following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of this title-section= publie seheals, chimneys not mom then three feet six inches (3'6") above the highest point of the root, leeks,-ehursh , 4ke t .$Sion -towers vertical support structures for teleahoneand Dower transmission, smeltesteeks flagpoles not exceeding forty (40)feet, tmdie-aed-edw -prejeetiens and agricultural similar structures as defined in this ordinance not over forty (40) feet in height. This exception does not apply to an Airport Development Zone, Airport Height Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone. H~he following structures or t u a pr _ nta Mc9ive exceptions to th building.._ 1 limitations of this hei lion if approved as part of a CpLWiti a ,tlae._ Permit. as defined in the DCC 18,128 gr, through a Site Plan Review, as defined in the DCC 18.124 and suhect to the cdiLeria contained therein, public schools. tanks. church belfries domes monuments fire an hose towers observation towers. transmission towers vertical support structures for telephone and power transmission, flagpoles and other similar pMiec tions This exception does not LippIv to an Airport tkvelopmeent Zone Airport Height Combining Zone or Landscape Management Com ini family dwelling with an attached hangar located in an unincorporated community and the structure has a maximum height of 35 feet including chimneys. antennas, flagpoles or other projections from the roof of the structure; 2. The structure is not located within 100 feet of any rintrock, as defined in DCC 18.04.030; 3. After consultation with the applicable fire department, the proposed height does not exceed the height limitation of the department's fire fighting equipment, considering the evacuation of the building's occupants and the fire fighting requirements of the department; and 4. The proposed additional height will not adversely impact scenic views from existing nearby residences. (Ord. 96-035 § 1, 1996; 93-043 § 20C, 1993; Ord. 92-055 § 10, 1992; Ord. 92-036 § 1, 1992) Zone. &C. An exception (up to 36 feet) to the building height limitations for structures not otherwise exempted by 18.120.040(A) may be approved upon findings that: 1. The structure is not located in a Landscape Management Zone, except when the stricture is a singlc- Page l of I- EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE, NO. 2000-027 (12/04/00) Page 16 of 19 Exhibit D VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 441 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes apart of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: May. 24,2001; 12:04 p.m. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance (Cr) NUMBER OF PAGES: I MARY SUE PENHOLLOW K DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK .1U 001 Page 17 of 19 County Zoning Ordinance of the Deschutes County Code, to Amend the Regulations for Building Height Exceptions. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Of ft HUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18 Deschutes REVIEWED (:2- LEGAL COUNSft ORDINANCE NO. 2001-004 r WHEREAS, the citizens and the Deschutes County Planning Commission of Deschutes County have brought concerns over the building height exceptions process in Deschutes County to the attention of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and Deschutes County Planning Commission held a joint meeting on July 10, 2000 to discuss the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Building Height Exceptions, Section 18.120.040; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission, after conducting a Public Hearing, forwarded recommendations regarding this matter to the Board of County Commissioners to consider; and WHEREAS, after notice was given and a public hearing was conducted on May 2, 2001, before the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that there is a need to protect the scenic views in Deschutes County by limiting the types of structures that are allowed an outright exception to the existing 30-foot building height limit; and WHEREAS, because consideration of changes to the allowable height for agricultural bams/structures is a more complicated matter, the Board is deferring the decision on these structures pending a subsequent public hearing process; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. Section 18.120.040, Building Height Exceptions, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, is amended to read as shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and deleted language shown in strike h. DATED this -day of May, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY CO MISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 1 OF 1 -ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -004 (03102/01) Page 18 of 19 EXHIBIT "A" 0 10, 4i I 20.040. Building height exceptions. The following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of Title 18: pubW wheels, chimneys not more than three feet six inches 3'S-1_a9vS...dg~fa!t point of the root. yg ical tNntnort ctMc=s for t leoloric and RQ aransalission lin s in utility ease nts or public rights-of-way. not requiring a site nlan review as defined-in._ the DCC J$,124± , dowift M000FRenth 140 and hose , omeliestaeks flagpoles not exceeding forty {4,01 feet ; and agricultural structures as defined in this ordinance. This exception does not apply to an Airport Development Zone, AkpM Safety Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zane. B. The following _ stntcttues or structural pates My receive exceptions to the, buildinghciph limitations of Title 18 if gpprovcd as part of a Site Plan Review. as defined in the C 18.124.060 and subject to the criteria containgi therein. pupjjg schools Kc.lucal support structures for tclcohone and Rower tr=;miimioa line reQuiring a site plan, structures that arc ncoessary for public safety and fiaQnales Thi cxcep 'on does not su2mcdc the more restrictive reoui ents t are found in SafetyCombining Zone or Landscaznc Management Combining Zane, 8 C An exception (up to 36 feet) to the building height limitations for structures not otherwise exempted by 18.120.040(A) may be approved upon findings that: 1. The structure is not located in a Landscape Management Zane, except when the structure is a single- family dwelling with an attached hangar located in an unincorporated P»e 1 of I •EXHLBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO.2001.004 (05/02.01) community and the structure has a maximum height of 35 feet including chimneys, antennas, flagpoles or other projections from the roof of the structure; 2. The structure is not located within 100 feet of any rinrock, as defined in DCC 18.04.030; 3. After consultation with the applicable fire department, the proposed height does not exceed the height limitation of the department's fire fighting equipment, considering the evacuation of the building's occupants and the fire fighting requirements of the department; 4. The proposed additional height will not adversely impact scenic views from existing nearby residences; and 5. Ilig_ roUgsed structure shall relate harmonious) to the natural pnvironm nt and elc' ina development minimizing visual Ir~Ra as and preservin natural features including views and jogg=ghical,features, (Ord 2001-ON § 3, 2001; Ord. 96-035 § 1, 1996; 93-043 § 20C, 1993; Ord. 92-055 § 10, 1992; Ord. 92-0361,1992) Page 19 of 19 Memorandum Opinion and Order in PRB - l Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 FCC 85-506 36149 In the Matter of Federal preemption of state and ) PRB-1 local regulations pertaining ) to Amateur radio facilities. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: September 16, 1985 ; Released: September 19, 1985 By the Commission: Commissioner Rivera not participating. Background 1. On July 16, 1984, the American Radio Relay League, Inc (ARRL) filed a Request for Issuance of a Declaratory Ruling asking us to delineate the limitations of local zoning and other local and state regulatory authority over Federally-licensed radio facilities. Specifically, the ARRL wanted an explicit statement that would preempt all local ordinances which provably preclude or significantly inhibit effective reliable amateur radio communications. The ARRL acknowledges that local authorities can regulate amateur installations to insure the safety and health of persons in the community, but believes that those regulations cannot be so restrictive that they preclude effective amateur communications. 2. Interested parties were advised that they could file comments in the matter.' With extension, comments were due on or before December 26, 1984,2 with reply comments due on or before January 25, 1985.3 Over sixteen hundred comments were filed. Local Ordinances 3. Conflicts between amateur operators regarding radio antennas and local authorities regarding restrictive ordinances are common. The amateur operator is governed by the regulations contained in Part 97 of our rules. Those rules do not limit the height of an amateur antenna but they require, for aviation safety reasons, that certain FAA notification and FCC approval procedures must be followed for antennas which exceed 200 feet in height above ground level or antennas which are to be erected near airports. Thus, under FCC rules some antenna support structures require obstruction marking and lighting. On the other hand, local municipalities or governing bodies frequently enact regulations limiting antennas and their support structures in height and location, e.g. to side or rear yards, for health, safety or aesthetic considerations. These limiting regulations can result in conflict because the effectiveness of the communications that emanate from an amateur radio station are directly dependent upon the location and the height of the antenna. Amateur operators maintain that they are precluded from operating in certain bands allocated for their use if the height of their antennas is limited by a local ordinance. 4. Examples of restrictive local ordinances were submitted by several amateur operators in this proceeding. Stanley J. Cichy, San Diego, California, noted that in San Diego amateur radio antennas come under a structures ruling which limits building heights to 30 feet. Thus, antennas there are also limited to 30 feet. Alexander Vrenios, Mundelein, Illinois, wrote that an ordinance- of the Village of Mundelein provides that an antenna must be a distance from the property line that is equal to one and one-half times its height. In his case, he is limited to an antenna tower for his amateur station just over 53 feet in height. 5. John C. Chapman, an amateur living in Bloomington, Minnesota, commented that he was not able to obtain a building permit to install an amateur radio antenna exceeding 35 feet in height because the Bloomington city ordinance restricted "structures" heights to 35 feet. Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance, when written, undoubtedly applied to buildings but was now being applied to antennas in the absence of a specific ordinance regulating them. There were two options open to him if he wanted to engage in amateur communications. He could request a variance to the ordinance by way of a hearing before the City Council, or he could obtain affidavits from his neighbors swearing that they had no objection to the proposed antenna installation. He got the building permit after obtaining the cooperation of his neighbors. His concern, however, is that he had to get permission from several people before he could effectively engage in radio communications for which he had a valid FCC amateur license. 6. In addition to height restrictions, other limits are enacted by local jurisdictions-anti- climb devices on towers or fences around them; minimum distances from high voltage power lines; minimum distances of towers from property lines; and regulations pertaining to the structural soundness of the antenna installation. By and large, amateurs do not find these safety precautions objectionable. What they do object to are the sometimes prohibitive, non-refundable application filing fees to obtain a permit to erect an antenna installation and those provisions in ordinances which regulate antennas for purely aesthetic reasons. The amateurs contend, almost universally, that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." They assert that an antenna installation is not more aesthetically displeasing than other objects that people keep on their property, e.g. motor homes, trailers, pick-up bucks, solar collectors and gardening equipment. Restrictive Covenants 7. Amateur operators also oppose restrictions on their amateur operations which are contained in the deeds for their homes or in their apartment leases. Since these restrictive covenants are contractual agreements between private parties, they are not generally a matter of concern to the Commission. However, since some amateurs who commented in this proceeding provided us with examples of restrictive covenants, they are included for information. Mr. Eugene 0. Thomas of Hollister, California, included. in his comments an extract of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Ridgemark Estates, County of San Benito, State of California. It provides: No antenna for transmission or reception of radio signals shall be erected outdoors for use by any dwelling unit except upon approval of the Directors. No radio or television signals or any other form of electromagnetic radiation shall be permitted to originate from any lot which may unreasonably interfere with the reception of television or radio signals upon any other lot. Marshall Wilson, Jr. provided a copy of the restrictive covenant contained in deeds for the Bell Martin Addition #2, Irving, Texas. It is binding upon all of the owners or purchasers of the lots in the said addition, his or their heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. It reads: No antenna or tower shall be erected upon any lot for the purposes of radio operations. William J. Hamilton resides in an apartment building in Gladstone, Missouri. He cites a clause in his lease prohibiting the erection of an antenna. He states that he has been forced to give up operating amateur radio equipment except a hand-held 2 meter (144-148 MHz) radio transceiver. He maintains that he should not be penalized just because he lives in an apartment. Other restrictive covenants are less global in scope than those cited above. For example, Robert Webb purchased a home in Houston, Texas. His deed restriction prohibited "transmitting or receiving antennas extending above the roof line." 8. Amateur operators generally oppose restrictive covenants for several reasons. They maintain that such restrictions limit the places that they can reside if they want to pursue their hobby of amateur radio. Some state that they impinge on First Amendment rights of speech. Others believe that a constitutional right is being abridged because, in their view, everyone has a right to access the airwaves regardless of where they live. 9. The contrary belief held by housing subdivision communities and condominium or homeowner's associations is that amateur radio installations constitute safety hazards, cause interference to other electronic equipment which may be operated in the home (television, radio, stereos) or are eyesores that detract from the aesthetic and tasteful appearance of the housing development or apartment complex. To counteract these negative consequences, the subdivisions and associations include in their deeds, leases or by-laws, restrictions and limitations on the location and height of antennas or, in some cases, prohibit them altogether. The restrictive covenants are contained in the contractual agreement entered into at the time of the sale or lease of the property. Purchasers or lessees are free to choose whether they wish to reside where such restrictions on amateur antennas are in effect or settle elsewhere. Supporting Comments 10. The Department of Defense (DOD) supported the ARRL and emphasized in its comments that continued success of existing national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications plans involving amateur stations would be severely diminished if state and local ordinances were allowed to prohibit the construction and usage of effective amateur transmission facilities. DOD utilizes volunteers in the Military Affiliate Radio Service (MARS),' Civil Air Patrol (CAP) and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES). It points out that these volunteer communicators are operating radio equipment installed in their homes and that undue restrictions on antennas by local authorities adversely affect their efforts. DOD states that the responsiveness of these volunteer systems would be impaired if local ordinances interfere with the effectiveness of these important national telecommunication resources. DOD favors the issuance of a ruling that would set limits for local and state regulatory bodies when they are dealing with amateur stations. 11. Various chapters of the American Red Cross also came forward to support the ARRL's request for a preemptive ruling. The Red Cross works closely with amateur radio volunteers. It believes that without amateurs' dedicated support, disaster relief operations would significantly suffer and that its ability to serve disaster victims would be hampered. It feels that antenna height limitations that might be imposed by local bodies will negatively affect the service now rendered by the volunteers. 12. Cities and counties from various parts of the United States filed comments in support of the ARRL's request for a Federal preemption ruling. The comments from the. Director of Civil Defense, Port Arthur, Texas, are representative: The Amateur Radio Service plays a vital role with our Civil Defense program here in Port Arthur and the design of these antennas and towers lends greatly to our ability to communicate during times of disaster. We do not believe there should be any restrictions on the antennas and towers except for reasonable safety precautions. Tropical storms, hurricanes and tornadoes are a way of life here on the Texas Gulf Coast and good communications are absolutely essential when preparing for a hurricane and even more so during recovery operations after the hurricane has past. 13. The Quarter Century Wireless Association took a strong stand in favor of the Issuance of a declaratory ruling. It believes that Federal preemption is necessary so that there will be uniformity for all Amateur Radio installations on private property throughout the United States. 14. In its comments, the ARRL argued that the Commission has the jurisdiction to preempt certain local land use regulations which frustrate or prohibit amateur radio communications. It said that the appropriate standard in preemption cases is not the extent of state and local interest in a given regulation, but rather the impact of the regulation on Federal goals. Its position is that Federal preemption is warranted whenever local government regulations relate adversely to the operational aspects of amateur communication. The ARRL maintains that localities routinely employ a variety of land use devices to preclude the installation of effective amateur antennas, including height restrictions, conditional use permits, building setbacks and dimensional limitations on antennas. It sees a declaratory ruling of Federal preemption as necessary to cause municipalities to accommodate amateur operator needs in land use planning efforts. 15. James C. O'Connell, an attorney who has represented several amateurs before local zoning authorities, said that requiring amateurs to seek variances or special use approval to erect reasonable antennas unduly restricts the operation of amateur stations. He suggested that the Commission preempt zoning ordinances which impose antenna height limits of less than 65 feet. He said that this height would represent a reasonable accommodation of the communication needs of most amateurs and the legitimate concerns of local zoning authorities. Opposing Comments 16. The City of La Mesa, California, has a zoning regulation which controls amateur antennas. Its comments reflected an attempt to reach a balanced view. This regulation has neither the intent, nor the effect, of precluding or inhibiting effective and reliable communications. Such antennas may be built as long as their construction does not unreasonably block views or constitute eyesores. The reasonable assumption is that there are always alternatives at a given site for different placement, and/or methods for aesthetic treatment. Thus, both public objectives of controlling land use for the public health, safety, and convenience, and providing an effective communications network, can be satisfied. A blanket to completely set aside local control, or a ruling which recognizes control only for the purpose of safety of antenna construction, would be contrary to...legitimate local control. 17. Comments from the County of San Diego state: While we are aware of the benefits provided by amateur operators, we oppose the issuance of a preemption ruling which would elevate `antenna effectiveness' to a position above all other considerations. We must, however, argue that the local government must have the ability to place reasonable limitations upon the placement and configuration of amateur radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Such ability is necessary to assure that the local decision-makers have the authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare of all citizens. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize an important difference between your regulatory powers and that of local governments. Your Commission's approval of the preemptive requests would establish a "national policy." However, any regulation adopted by a local jurisdiction could be overturned by your Commission or a court if such regulation was determined to be unreasonable. 18. The City of Anderson, Indiana, summarized some of the problems that face local communities: I am sympathetic to the concerns of these antenna owners and I understand that to gain the maximum reception from their devices, optimal location is necessary. However, the preservation of residential zoning districts as "liveable" neighborhoods is jeopardized by placing these antennas in front yards of homes. Major problems of public safety have been encountered, particularly vision blockage for auto and pedestrian access. In addition, all communities are faced with various building lot sizes. Many building lots are so small that established setback requirements (in order to preserve adequate air and light) are vulnerable to the unregulated placement of antennas....the exercise of preemptive authority by the FCC in granting this request would not be in the best interest of the general public. 19. The National Association of Counties (NACO), the American Planning Association (APA) and the National League of Cities (NLC) all opposed the issuance of an antenna preemption ruling. NACO emphasized that federal and state power must be viewed in harmony and warns that Federal intrusion into local concerns of health, safety and welfare could weaken the traditional police power exercised by the state and unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the states. NLC believed that both Federal and local interests can be accommodated without preempting local authority to regulate the installation of amateur radio antennas. The APA said that the FCC should continue to leave the issue of regulating amateur antennas with the local government and with the state and Federal courts. Discussion 20. When considering preemption, we must begin with two constitutional provisions. The tenth amendment provides that any powers which the constitution either does not delegate to the United States or does not prohibit the states from exercising are reserved to the states. These are the police powers of the states. The Supremacy Clause, however, provides that the constitution and the laws of the United States shall supersede any state law to the contrary. Article III, Section 2. Given these basic premises, state laws may be preempted in three ways: First, Congress may expressly preempt the state law. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). Or, Congress may indicate its intent to completely occupy a given field so that any state law encompassed within that field would implicitly be preempted. Such intent to preempt could be found in a congressional regulatory scheme that was so pervasive that it would be reasonable to assume that Congress did not intend to permit the states to supplement it. See Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). Finally, preemption may be warranted when state law conflicts with federal law. Such conflicts may occur when "compliance with both Federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 143 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). Furthermore, federal regulations have the same preemptive effect as federal statues, Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association v. de la Cuesta, supra. 21. The situation before us requires us to determine the extent to which state and local zoning regulations may conflict with federal policies concerning amateur radio operators. 22. Few matters coming before us present such a clear dichotomy of view point as does the instant issue. The cities, countries, local communities and housing associations see an obligation to all of their citizens and try to address their concerns. This is accomplished through regulations, ordinances or covenants oriented toward the health, safety and general welfare of those they regulate. At the opposite pole are the individual amateur operators and their support groups who are troubled by local regulations which may inhibit the use of amateur stations or, in some instances, totally preclude amateur communications. Aligned with the operators are such entities as the Department of Defense, the American Red Cross and local civil defense and emergency organizations who have found in Amateur Radio a pool of skilled radio operators and a readily available backup network. In this situation, we believe it is appropriate to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. The cornerstone on which we will predicate our decision is that a reasonable accommodation may be made. between the two sides. 23. Preemption is primarily a function of the extent of the conflict between federal and state and local regulation. Thus, in considering whether our regulations or policies can tolerate a state regulation, we may consider such factors as the severity of the conflict and the reasons underlying the state's regulations. In this regard, we have previously recognized the legitimate and important state interests reflected in local zoning regulations. For example, in Earth Satellite Communications, Inc., 95 FCC 2d 1223 (1983), we recognized that ...countervailing state interests inhere in the present situation...For example, we do not wish to preclude a state or locality from exercising jurisdiction over certain elements of an SMATV operation that properly may fall within its authority, such as zoning or public safety and health, provided the regulation in question is not undertaken as a pretext for the actual purpose of frustrating achievement of the preeminent federal objective and so long as the non-federal regulation is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. 24. Similarly, we recognize here that there are certain general state and local interests which may, in their even-handed application, legitimately affect amateur radio facilities. Nonetheless, there is also a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Evidence of this interest may be found in the comprehensive set of rules that the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service. 5 Those rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency allocations, technical standards which amateur radio equipment must meet and operating practices which amateur operators must follow. We recognize the amateur radio service as a voluntary, noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. Moreover, the amateur radio service provides a reservoir of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts who can be called on in times of national or local emergencies. By its nature, the Amateur Radio Service also provides the opportunity for individual operators to further international goodwill. Upon weighing these interests, we believe a limited preemption policy is warranted. State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted. 25. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur communications. Some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial installations than others if they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for international amateur communications will differ from an antenna used to contact other amateur operators at shorter distances. We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, 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.' 26. Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all state and local laws that affect amateur operations. We are confident, however, that state and local governments will endeavor to legislate in a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts with federal policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive litigation in this area. Amateur operators who believe that local or state governments have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums. 27. Accordingly, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16, 1984, by the American Radio Relay League, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and in all other respects, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William J. Tricarico Secretary Footnotes !Public Notice, August 30, 1984, Mimeo. No. 6299, 49 F.R. 36113, September 14, 1984. 2Public Notice, December 19,1984, Mimeo. No. 1498. 30rder, November 8, 1984, Mimeo, No. 770. 4MARS is solely under the auspices of the military which recruits volunteer amateur operators to render assistance to it. The Comission is not involved in the MARS program. 547 CFR Part 97. 6We reiterate that our ruling herein does not reach restrictive covenants in private contractual agreements. Such agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed and do not usually concern this Commission. Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness. Second Edition A Guide for City Planners and Amateur Radio Operators By R. Dean Straw, N6BV, and Gerald L. Hall, KITD Senior Assistant Technical Editor and Retired Associate Technical Editor Copyright ©1999 The American Radio Relay League, Inc. 225 Main Street • Newington, CT 06111 Executive.Summary Amateur radio operators, or "hams" as they are called, communicate with stations located all over the world. Some contacts may be local in nature, while others may be literally halfway around the world. Hams use a variety of internationally allocated frequencies to accomplish their communications. Except for local contacts, which are primarily made on Very High and Ultra High Frequencies (VHF and UHF), communicating between any two points on the earth rely primarily on high-frequency (HF) signals propagating through the ionosphere. The earth's ionosphere acts much like a mirror at heights of about 150 miles. The vertical angle of radiation of a signal launched from an antenna is one of the key factors determining effective communication distances. The ability to communicate over long distances generally requires a low radiation angle, meaning that an antenna must be placed high above the ground in terms of the wavelength of the radio wave being transmitted. A beam type of antenna at a height of 70 feet or more will provide greatly superior performance over the same antenna at 35 feet, all other factors being equal. A height of 120 feet or even higher will provide even more advantages for long-distance communications. To a distant receiving station, a transmitting antenna at 120 feet will provide the effect of approximately 8 to 10 times more transmitting power than the same antenna at 35 feet. Depending on the level of noise and interference, this performance disparity is often enough to mean the difference between making distant radio contact with fairly reliable signals, and being unable to make distant contact at all. Radio Amateurs have a well-deserved reputation for providing vital communications in emergency situations, such as in the aftermath of a severe icestorm, a hurricane or an earthquake. Short-range communications at VHF or UHF frequencies also require sufficient antenna heights above the local terrain to ensure that the antenna has a clear horizon. In terms of safety and aesthetic considerations, it might seem intuitively reasonable for a planning board to want to restrict antenna installations to low heights. However, such height restrictions often prove very counterproductive and frustrating to all parties involved. If an amateur is restricted to low antenna heights, say 35 feet, he will suffer from poor transmission of his own signals as well as poor reception of distant signals. In an attempt to compensate on the transmitting side (he can't do anything about the poor reception problem), he might boost his transmitted power, say from 150 watts to 1,500 watts, the maximum legal limit. This ten-fold increase in power will very significantly increase the potential for interference to telephones, televisions, VCRs and audio equipment in his neighborhood. Instead, if the antenna can be moved farther away from neighboring electronic devices- putting it higher, in other words-this will greatly reduce the likelihood of interference, which decreases at the inverse square of the distance. For example, doubling the distance reduces the potential for interference by 75%. As a further benefit, a large antenna doesn't look anywhere near as large at 120 feet as it does close-up at 35 feet. As a not-so-inconsequential side benefit, moving an antenna higher will also greatly reduce the potential of exposure to electromagnetic fields for neighboring human and animals. Interference and RF exposure standards have been thoroughly covered in recently enacted Federal Regulations. Page 1 Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness By R. Dean Straw, N6BV, and Gerald L. Hall, K1TD Senior Assistant Technical Editor and Retired Associate Technical Editor The purpose of this paper is to provide general information about communications effectiveness as related to the physical height of antennas. The intended audience is amateur radio operators and the city and town Planning Boards before which a radio amateur must sometimes appear to obtain building permits for radio towers and antennas. The performance of horizontally polarized antennas at heights of 35, 70 and 120 feet is examined in detail. Vertically polarized arrays are not considered here because at short-wave frequencies, over average terrain and at low radiation angles, they are usually less effective than horizontal antennas. Ionospheric Propagation Frequencies between 3 and 30 megahertz (abbreviated MHz) are often called the "short- wave" bands. In engineering terms this range of frequencies is defined as the high-frequency or HF portion of the radio spectrum. HF radio communications between two points that are separated by more than about 15 to 25 miles depend almost solely on propagation of radio signals through the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a region of the Earth's upper atmosphere that is ionized primarily by ultraviolet rays from the Sun. The Earth's ionosphere has the property that it will refract or bend radio waves passing through it. The ionosphere is not a single "blanket" of ionization. Instead, for a number of complex reasons, a few discrete layers are formed at different heights above the earth. From the standpoint of radio propagation, each ionized layer has distinctive characteristics, related primarily to different amounts of ionization in the various layers. The ionized layer that is most useful for HF radio communication is called the F layer. The F layer exists at heights varying from approximately 130 to 260 miles above the earth's surface. Both the layer height and the amount of ionization depend on the latitude from the equator, the time of day, the season of the year, -and on the level of sunspot activity. Sunspot activity varies generally in cycles that are approximately 11 years in duration, although short- term bursts of activity may create changes in propagation conditions that last anywhere from a few minutes to several days. The ionosphere is not homogeneous, and is undergoing continual change. In fact, the exact state of the ionosphere at any one time is so variable that is best described in statistical terms. The F layer disappears at night in periods of low and medium solar activity, as the ultraviolet energy required to sustain ionization is no longer received from the Sun. The amount that a passing radio wave will bend in an ionospheric layer is directly related to the intensity of ionization in that layer, and to the frequency of the radio wave. A triangle may be used to portray the cross-sectional path of ionospheric radio-wave travel, as shown in Fig 1, a highly simplified picture of what happens in propagation of radio waves. The base of the triangle is the surface of the Earth between two distant points, and the apex of the triangle is the point representing refraction in the ionosphere. If all the necessary conditions are Page 2 met, the radio wave will travel from the first point on the Earth's surface to the ionosphere, where it will be bent (refracted) sufficiently to travel to the second point on the earth, many hundreds of miles away. n R / Actual \ Virtual Height - . Fig 1-A simplified cross-sectional representation of ionospheric propagation. The simple triangle goes from the Transmitter T up to the virtual height and then back down to the Receiver R. Typically the F layer exists at a height of 150 miles above the Earth at mid-latitudes. The distance between T and R may range from a few miles to 2500 miles under normal propagation conditions. Of course the Earth's surface is not a flat plane, but instead is curved. High-frequency radio waves behave in essentially the same manner as light waves-they tend to travel in straight lines, but with a slight amount of downward bending caused by refraction in the air. For this reason it is not possible to communicate by a direct path over distances greater than about 15 to 25 miles in this frequency range, slightly farther than the optical horizon. The curvature of the earth causes the surface to "fall away" from the path of the radio wave with greater distances. Therefore, it is the ionosphere that permits HF radio communications to be made between points separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles. The range of frequencies from 3 to 30 MHz is unique in this respect, as ionospheric propagation is not consistently supported for any frequencies outside this range. One of the necessary conditions for ionospheric communications is that the radio wave must encounter the ionosphere at the correct angle. This is illustrated in Fig 2, another very simplified drawing of the geometry involved. Radio waves leaving the earth at high elevation angles above the horizon may receive only very slight bending due to refraction, and are then lost to outer space. For the same fixed frequency of operation, as the elevation angle is lowered toward the horizon, a point is reached where the bending of the wave is sufficient to return the wave to the Earth. At successively lower angles, the wave returns to the Earth at increasing distances. Page 3 Fig 2-Behavior of radio waves encountering the ionosphere. Rays entering the ionized region at angles above the critical angle are not bent enough to return to Earth and are lost to space. Waves entering at angles below the critical angle reach the Earth at increasingly greater distances as the angle approaches the .horizontal. The maximum distance that may normally be covered in a single hop is 2500 miles. Greater distances may be covered with multiple hops. If the radio wave leaves the earth at an elevation angle of zero degrees, just toward the horizon (or just tangent to the earth's surface), the maximum distance that may be reached under usual ionospheric conditions is approximately 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers). However, the Earth itself also acts as a reflector of radio waves coming down from the ionosphere. Quite often a radio signal will be reflected from the reception point on the Earth back into the ionosphere again, reaching the Earth a second time at a still more distant point. As in the case of light waves, the angle of reflection is the same as the angle of incidence, so a wave striking the surface of the Earth at an angle of, say, 15° is reflected upward from the surface at the same angle. Thus, the distance to the second point of reception will be approximately twice the distance of the first. This effect is also illustrated in Fig 2, where the signal travels from the transmitter at the left of the drawing via the ionosphere to Point A, in the center of the drawing. From Point A the signal travels via the ionosphere again to Point B, at the right. A signal traveling from the Earth through the ionosphere and back to the Earth is called a hop. Under some conditions it is possible for as many as four or five signal hops to occur over a radio path, but no more than two or three hops is the norm. In this way, HF communications can be conducted over thousands of miles. Page 4 With regard to signal hopping, two important points should be recognized. First, a significant loss of signal occurs with each hop. Lower layers of the ionosphere absorb energy from the signals as they pass through, and the ionosphere tends to scatter the radio energy in various directions, rather than confining it to a tight bundle. The earth also scatters the energy at a reflection point. Thus, only a small fraction of the transmitted energy actually reaches a distant receiving point. Again refer to Fig 2. Two radio paths are shown from the transmitter to Point B, a one-hop path and a two-hop path. Measurements indicate that although there can be great variation in the ratio of the two signal strengths in a situation such as this, the signal power received at Point B will generally be from five to ten times greater for the one-hop wave than for the two-hop wave. (The terrain at the mid-path reflection point for the two-hop wave, the angle at which the wave is reflected from the earth, and the condition of the ionosphere in the vicinity of all the refraction points are the primary factors in determining the signal-strength ratio.) Signal levels are generally compared in decibels, abbreviated dB. The decibel is a logarithmic unit. Three decibels difference in signal strengths is equivalent to a power ratio of 2:1; a difference of 10 dB equates to a power ratio of 10:1. Thus the signal loss for an additional hop is about 7 to 10 dB. The additional loss per hop becomes significant at greater distances. For a simplified example, a distance of 4,000 miles can be covered in two hops of 2,000 miles each or in four hops of 1,000 miles each. For illustration, assume the loss for additional hops is 10 dB, or a 1/10 power ratio. Under such conditions, the four-hop signal will be received with only 1/100 the power or 20 dB below that received in two hops. The reason for this is that only 1/10 of the two- hop signal is received for the first additional (Y) hop, and only 1/10 of that 1/10 for the second additional (4`") hop. It is for this reason that no more than four or five propagation hops are useful; the received signal eventually becomes too weak to be heard. The second important point to be recognized in multihop propagation is that the geometry of the first hop establishes the geometry for all succeeding hops. And it is the elevation angle at the transmitter that sets up the geometry for the first hop. It should be obvious from the preceding discussion that one needs a detailed knowledge of the range of elevation angles for effective communication in order to do a scientific evaluation of a possible communications circuit. The range of angles should be statistically valid over the full 11-year solar sunspot cycle, since the behavior of the Sun determines the changes in the nature of the Earth's ionosphere. ARRL did a very detailed computer study in the early 1990s to determine the angles needed for propagation throughout the world. The results of this study will be examined later, after we introduce the relationship between antenna height and the elevation pattern for an antenna. Horizontal Antennas Over Flat Ground A simple antenna that is commonly used for HF communications is the horizontal half-wave dipole. The dipole is a straight length of wire (or tubing) into which radio-frequency energy is fed at the center. Because of its simplicity, the dipole may be easily subjected to theoretical performance analyses. Further, the results of proper analyses are well borne out in practice. For these reasons, the half-wave dipole is a convenient performance standard against which other antenna systems can be compared. Because the earth acts as a reflector for HF radio waves, the directive properties of any antenna are modified considerably by the ground underneath it. If a dipole antenna is placed horizontally above the ground; most of the energy radiated downward from the dipole is Page 5 reflected upward. The reflected waves combine with the direct waves (those radiated at angles above the horizontal) in various ways, depending on the height of the antenna, the frequency, and the electrical characteristics of the ground under and around the antenna. At some vertical angles above the horizon, the direct and reflected waves may be exactly in phase-that is, the maximum signal or field strengths of both waves are reached at the same instant at some distant point. In this case the resultant field strength is equal to the sum of the two components. At other vertical angles the two waves may be completely out of phase at some distant point-that is, the fields are maximum at the same instant but the phase directions are opposite. The resultant field strength in this case is the difference between the two. At still other angles the resultant field will have intermediate values. Thus, the effect of the ground is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to decrease it at others. The elevation angles at which the maxima and minima occur depend primarily on the antenna height above ground. (The electrical characteristics of the ground have some slight effect too.) For simplicity here, we consider the ground to be a perfectly conducting, perfectly flat reflector, so that straightforward trigonometric calculations can be made to determine the relative amount of radiation intensity at any vertical angle for any dipole height. Graphs from such calculations are often plotted on rectangular axes to show best resolution over particularly useful ranges of elevation angles, although they are also shown on polar plots so that both the front and back of the response can be examined easily. Fig 3 shows an overlay of the polar elevation- pattern responses of two dipoles at different heights over perfectly conducting flat ground. The lower dipole is located a half wavelength above ground, while the higher dipole is located one wavelength above ground. The pattern of the lower antenna peaks at an elevation angle of about 30°, while the higher antenna has two main lobes, one peaking at 15° and the other at about 50° elevation angle. Dipole, 1-Wave High 6 I Dipole, 1/2-Wave High `i a deg. Fig 3-Comparison of elevation responses for two dipoles: one %2-wavelength high, and the other 1-wavelength high. In the plots shown in Fig 3; the elevation angle above the horizon is represented in the same fashion that angles are measured on a protractor. The concentric circles are calibrated to represent ratios of field strengths, referenced to the strength represented by the outer circle. The circles are calibrated in decibels. Diminishing strengths are plotted toward the center. Page 6 You may have noted that antenna heights are often discussed in terms of wavelengths. The reason for this is that the length of a radio wave is inversely proportional to its frequency. Therefore a fixed physical height will represent different electrical heights at different radio frequencies. For example, a height of 70 feet represents one wavelength at a frequency of 14 MHz. But the same 70-foot height represents a half wavelength for a frequency of 7 MHz and only a quarter wavelength at 3.5 MHz. On the other hand, 70 feet is 2 wavelengths high at 28 MHz. The lobes and nulls of the patterns shown in Fig 3 illustrate what was described earlier, that the effect of the ground beneath an antenna is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical elevation angles and to decrease it at others. At a height of a half wavelength, the radiated energy is strongest at a rather high elevation angle of 30°. This would represent the situation for a 14-MHz dipole 35 feet off the ground. As the horizontal antenna is raised to greater heights, additional lobes are formed, and the lower ones move closer to the horizon. The maximum amplitude of each of the lobes is roughly equal. As may be seen in Fig 3, for an antenna height of one wavelength, the energy in the lowest lobe is strongest at 15°. This would represent the situation for a 14-MHz dipole 70 feet high. The elevation angle of the lowest lobe for a horizontal antenna above perfectly conducting ground may be determined mathematically: 0 = sin-'(0.25 ) l h J Where 0 = the wave or elevation angle h = the antenna height above ground in wavelengths In short, the higher the horizontal antenna, the lower is the lowest lobe of the pattern. As a very general rule of thumb, the higher an HF antenna can be placed above ground, the farther it will provide effective communications because of the resulting lower radiation angle. This is true for any horizontal antenna over real as well as theoretically perfect ground. You should note that the nulls in the elevation pattern can play an important role in communications-or lack of communication. If a signal arrives at an angle where the antenna system exhibits a deep null, communication effectiveness will be greatly reduced. It is thus quite possible that an antenna can be too high for good communications efficiency on a particular frequency. Although this rarely arises as a significant problem on the amateur bands below 14 MHz, we'll discuss the subject of optimal height in more detail later. Actual earth does not reflect all the radio-frequency energy striking it; some absorption takes place. Over real earth, therefore, the patterns will be slightly different than those shown in Fig 3, however the differences between theoretical and perfect earth ground are not significant for the range of elevation angles necessary for good HF communication. Modern computer programs can do accurate evaluations, taking all the significant ground-related factors into account. Beam Antennas For point-to-point communications, it is beneficial to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam that can be aimed toward a distant point. An analogy can be made by comparing the light Page 7 from a bare electric bulb to that from an automobile headlight, which incorporates a built-in focusing lens. For illuminating a distant point, the headlight is far more effective. Antennas designed to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam are called, naturally enough, beam antennas. For a fixed amount of transmitter power fed to the transmitting antenna, beam antennas provide increased signal strength at a distant receiver. In radio communications, the use of a beam antenna is also beneficial during reception, because the antenna pattern for transmission is the same for reception. A beam antenna helps to reject signals from unwanted directions, and in effect boosts the strength of signals received from the desired direction. The increase in signal or field strength a beam antenna offers is frequently referenced to a dipole antenna in free space (or to another theoretical antenna in free space called an isotropic antenna) by a term called gain. Gain is commonly expressed in decibels. The isotropic antenna is defined as being one that radiates equally well in all directions, much like the way a bare lightbulb radiates essentially equally in all directions. One particularly well known type of beam antenna is called a Yagi, named after one of its Japanese inventors. Different varieties of Yagi antennas exist, each having somewhat different characteristics. Many television antennas are forms of multi-element Yagi beam antennas. In the next section of this paper, we will refer to a four-element Yagi, with a gain of 8.5 dBi in free space, exclusive of any influence due to ground. This antenna has 8.5 dB more gain than an isotropic antenna in free space and it achieves that gain by squeezing the pattern in certain desired directions. Think of a normally round balloon and imagine squeezing that balloon to elongate it in one direction. The increased length in one direction comes at the expense of length in other directions. This is analogous to how an antenna achieves more signal strength in one direction, at the expense of signal strength in other directions. The elevation pattern for a Yagi over flat ground will vary with the electrical height over ground in exactly the same manner as for a simpler dipole antenna. The Yagi is one of the most common antennas employed by radio amateurs, second in popularity only to the dipole. Putting the Pieces Together In Fig 4, the elevation angles necessary for communication from a particular transmitting site, in Boston, Massachusetts, to the continent of Europe using the 14-MHz amateur band are shown in the form of a bargraph. For each elevation angle from 1° to 30°, Fig 4 shows the percentage of time when the 14-MHz band is open at each elevation angle. For example, 5° is the elevation angle that occurs just over 12% of the time when the band is available for communication, while 11° occurs about 10% of the time when the band is open. The useful range of elevation angles that must accommodated by an amateur station wishing to talk to Europe from Boston is from 1° to 28°. In addition to the bar-graph elevation-angle statistics shown in Fig 4, the elevation pattern responses for three Yagi antennas, located at three different heights above flat ground, are overlaid on the same graph. You can easily see that the 120-foot antenna is the best antenna to cover the most likely angles for this particular frequency, although it suffers at the higher elevation angles on this particular propagation path, beyond about 12°. If, however, you can accept somewhat lower gain at the lowest angles, the 70-foot antenna would arguably be the best overall choice to cover all the elevation angles. Page 8 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz, Boston to Europe 32 16 28 -----------------vr~:~:~ ..f►a~: a r 14 r 5520 w y..~,r :--.4------- 0 x..-................-- x 10 v v 16 r..-.... ` ° *------------i 8 O , 12 * . 7 . ....p....... ---k i--------- 6 8 r - - r 4 4 t _ t........rt ......''r------ I 111 1 2 0 r j- 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % of Openings IN Yagi 79 Yagi 3S Yagi Fig 4-Elevation response patterns of three Yagis at 120, 70 and 35 feet,. at 14 MHz over flat ground. The patterns are overlaid with the statistical elevation- angles for the path from Boston to continental Europe over the entire 11-year solar sunspot cycle. Clearly, the 120-foot antenna is the best choice to cover the low angles needed, but it suffers some at higher angles. Other graphs are needed to show other target receiving areas around the world. For comparison, Fig 5 is also for the 14-MHz band, but this time from Boston to Sydney, Australia. The peak angle for this very long path is about 2°, occurring 19% of the time when the band is actually open for communication. Here, even the 120-foot high antenna is not ideal. Nonetheless, at a moderate 5° elevation angle, the 120-foot antenna is still 10 dB better than the one at 35 feet. Fig 4 and Fig 5 have portrayed the situation for the 14-MHz amateur band, the most popular and heavily utilized HF band used by radio amateurs. During medium to high levels of solar sunspot activity, the 21 and 28-MHz amateur bands are open during the daytime for long- distance communication. Fig 6 illustrates the 28-MHz elevation-angle statistics, compared to the elevation patterns.for the same three antenna heights shown in Fig 5. Clearly, the elevation response for the 120-foot antenna has a severe (and undesirable) null at 8°. The 120-foot antenna is almost 3.4 wavelengths high on 28 MHz (whereas it is 1.7 wavelengths high on 14 MHz.) For many launch angles, the 120-foot high Yagi on 28 MHz would simply be too high. The radio amateur who must operate on a variety of frequencies might require two or more towers at different heights to maintain essential elevation coverage on all the authorized bands. Antennas can sometimes be mounted at different heights on a single supporting tower, although it is more difficult to rotate antennas that are "vertically stacked" around the tower to point in all the needed directions. Further, closely spaced antennas tuned to different frequencies usually interact electrically with each other, often causing severe performance degradation. Page 9 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz, Boston to Sydney, Australia 32 16 28 ...............fR:='. i 14 20 n o y r 12 - 1 i - - i - , g rt - ----°L.......... ii............ 1 4 4 - --------I 2 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % of Openings 120' Yagi • 70' Yagi 35' Yagi Fig 5-Elevation responses for same antennas as Fig 4, but for a longer-range path from Boston to Sydney, Australia. Note that the prevailing elevation angles are very low. Antenna Response Versus Height 28 MHz, Boston to Europe 32 16 28 I+t +.....;ti;~ p.r.x:..w..........--°------------------°-- 14 r 20 zs----" Y 4 . • L , a .i + 16 - -t a i--- .-.r........ - 8 ,e 12 : - - >----i- 8 r s r 1 4 i 0 ~ i 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % of Openings 120' Yagi 70' Yagi 35' Magi Fig 6-Elevation angles compared to antenna responses for 28-MHz path from Boston to Europe. The 70-foot antenna is probably the best overall choice on this path. Page 10 During periods of low to moderate sunspot activity (about 50% of the 11-year solar cycle), the 14-MHz band closes down for propagation in the early evening. A radio amateur wishing to continue communication must shift to a lower frequency band. The next most highly used band below the 14-MHz band is the 7-MHz amateur band. Fig.7 portrays a 7-MHz case for another transmitting site, this time from San Francisco, California, to the European continent. Now, the range of necessary elevation angles is from about 1° to 16°, with a peak statistical likelihood of about 16% occurring at an elevation of Y. At this low elevation angle, a 7-MHz antenna must be very high in the air to be effective. Even the 120-foot antenna is hardly optimal for the peak angle of 3°. The 200-foot antenna shown would be far better than a 120-foot antenna. Further, the 35-foot high antenna is greatly inferior to the other antennas on this path and would provide far less capabilities, on both receiving and transmitting. Antenna Response Versus Height . 7 MHz, San Francisco to.Europe 32 16 28 ---......------........-s"-! -4,'~ :rte a_~ ay 14 ~ ' ` . . R .......ti. 12 24 J~ 1■ r g16 - I! .......T: .._.......-la- 8 12 ~ * 6 o . w ° s 4 --4--.--------- 2 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % of Openings i- 120' Yagi • 70' Yagi 35' Yagi ~ 200' Yagi Fig 7-Comparison of antenna responses for another propagation path: from San Francisco to Europe on 7 MHz. Here, even a 120-foot high antenna is hardly optimal for the very low elevation angles required on this very long path. In fact, the 200-foot high antenna is far better suited for this path. What If the Ground Isn't Flat? In the preceding discussion, antenna radiation patterns were computed for antennas located over flat ground. Things get much more complicated when the exact local terrain surrounding a tower and antenna are taken into account. In the last few years, sophisticated ray-tracing computer models have become available that can calculate the effect that local terrain has on the elevation patterns for real-world HF installations-and each real-world situation is indeed different. Page 11 For simplicity, first consider an antenna on the top of a hill with a constant slope downward. The general effect is to lower the effective elevation angle by an amount equal to the downslope of the hill. For example, if the downslope is -3° for a long distance away from the tower and the flat-ground peak elevation angle is 10° (due to the height of the antenna), then the net result will be 10° - 3° = 7° peak angle. However, if the local terrain is rough, with many bumps and valleys in the desired direction, the response can be modified considerably. Fig 8 shows the fairly complicated terrain profile for Jan Carman, KSMA, in the direction of Japan. Jan is located on one of the tallest hills in West Falmouth, Massachusetts. Within 500 feet of his tower is a small hill with a water tower on the top, and then the ground quickly falls away, so that at a distance of about 3000 feet from the tower base, the elevation has fallen to sea level, at 0 feet. Terrain Towards Japan, YOMA West Falmouth, MA on Cape Cod zoo 150 w isa. t~ 1 J 100 - t-~ 4 1 01 i f 4 - 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Feet From Tower Base Fig 8-Terrain profile from location of KSMA, Jan Carman, in West Falmouth, MA, towards Japan. This is a moderately complicated real-world terrain on one of the highest hills on Cape Cod. , The computed responses toward Japan from this location, using a 120- and a 70-foot high Yagi, are shown in Fig 9, overlaid for comparison with the response for a 120-foot Yagi over flat ground. Over this particular terrain, the elevation pattern for the 70-foot antenna is actually better than that of the 120-foot antenna for angles below about 3°, but not for medium angles! The responses for each height oscillate around the pattern for flat ground - all due to the complex reflections and diffractions occurring off the terrain. . At an elevation angle of 5°, the situation reverses itself and the gain is now higher for the 120-foot-high antenna than for the 70-foot antenna. A pair of antennas on one tower would be required to cover all the angles properly. To avoid any electrical interactions between similar antennas on one tower, two towers would be much better. Compared to the flat-ground situation, the responses of real-world antenna can be very complicated due to the interactions with the local terrain. Page 12 Antenna Response Versus Height 14 MHz, K5MA QTH to Japan 32 wR 16 28 - :.:.1~ . '..Y T~r TT s T~w 24 12 a20 1 .......s.........a - . ~ I 0 v W IN Y 8 e 12 .................................::."............P g 4 a 2 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % Openings K5MA, 70' + K5MA 120' * 120' Flat Fig 9-Computed elevation responses of 120-,and 70-foot high Yagis, at the K5MA location on Cape Cod, in the direction of Japan and over flat ground, for comparison. The elevation response of the real-world antenna has been significantly modified by the local terrain. Fig 10 shows the situation for the same Cape Cod location, but now for 7 MHz. Again, it is clear that the 120-foot high Yagi is superior by at least 3 dB (equivalent to twice the power) to the 70-foot high antenna at the statistical elevation angle of 6°. However, the response of the real-world 120-foot high antenna is still up some 2 dB from the response for an identical antenna over flat ground at this angle. On this frequency, the local terrain has helped boost the gain at the medium angles more than a similar antenna 120 feet over flat ground. The gain is even greater at lower angles, say at 1° elevation, where most signals take off, statistically speaking. Putting the antenna up higher, say 150 feet, will help the situation at this location, as would adding an additional Yagi at the 70-foot level and feeding both antennas in phase as a vertical stack. Although the preceding discussion has been in terms of the transmitting antenna, the same principles apply when the antenna is used for reception. A high antenna will receive low-angle signals more effectively than will a low antenna. Indeed, amateur operators know very well that "If you can't hear them, you can't talk to them." Stations with tall towers can usually hear far better than their counterparts with low installations. The situation becomes even more difficult for the next lowest amateur band at 3.5 MHz, where optimal antenna heights for effective long-range communication become truly heroic! Towers that exceed 120 feet are commonplace among amateurs wishing to do serious 3.5-MHz long-distance work. Page 13 Antenna Response Versus Height 7 MHz, KSMA QTH to Japan 36 19 32 1! 16 28 - 14 24 7} T.' 12 • ----ta 12 f 1 Ta k---/ 6 8 - - 4 i 4 - 2 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Elevation Angle, Degrees % openings - KSMA, 70' KSMA 120' - 120' Flat Fig 10-Elevation response on 7 MHz from KSMA location towards Japan on 7 MHz. The 120-foot high Yagi is definitely superior to the one only 70-feet high. The 3.5 and 7-MHz amateur bands are, however, not always used strictly for long-range work. Both bands are crucial for providing communications throughout a local area, such as might be necessary in times of a local emergency. For example, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes have often disrupted local communications-because telephone and power lines are down and because local police and fire-department VHF/UHF repeaters are thus knocked out of action. Radio amateurs often will use the 3.5 and 7-MHz bands to provide communications out beyond the local area affected by the disaster, perhaps into the next county or the next metropolitan area. For example, an earthquake in San Francisco might see amateurs using emergency power providing communications through amateurs in Oakland across the San Francisco Bay, or even as far away as Los Angeles or Sacramento. These places are where commercial power and telephone lines are still intact, while most power and telephones might be down in San Francisco itself. Similarly, a hurricane that selectively destroys certain towns on Cape Cod might find amateurs in these towns using 3.5 or 7.0 MHz to contact their counterparts in Boston or New York. However, in order to get the emergency messages through, amateurs must have effective antennas. Most such relatively local emergency situations require towers of moderate height, less than about 100 feet tall typically. Antenna Height and Interference Extensive Federal Regulations. cover the subject of interference to home electronic devices. It is an unfortunate fact of life, however, that many home electronic devices (such as stereos, TVs, telephones and VCRs) do not meet the Federal standards. They are simply inadequately designed to be resistant to RF energy in their vicinity. Thus, a perfectly legal amateur-radio transmitter may cause interference to a neighbor's VCR or TV because cost-saving shortcuts were taken in Page 14 the design and manufacture of these home entertainment devices. Unfortunately, it is difficult to explain to an irate neighbor why his brand-new $1000 stereo is receiving the perfectly legitimate transmissions by a nearby radio operator. The potential for interference to any receiving device is a function of the transmitter power, transmitter frequency, receiver frequency, and most important of all, the proximity of the transmitter to the potential receiver. The transmitted field intensity decreases as the inverse square of the distance. This means that doubling the height of an antenna from 35 to 70 feet will reduce the potential for interference by 75%. Doubling the height again to 140 feet high would reduce the potential another 75%. Higher is better to prevent interference in the first place! Recently enacted Federal Regulations address the potential for harm to humans because of exposure to electromagnetic fields. Amateur-radio stations rarely have problems in this area, because they use relatively low transmitting power levels and intermittent duty cycles compared to commercial operations, such as TV or FM broadcast stations. Nevertheless, the potential for RF exposure is again directly related to the distance separating the transmitting antenna and the human beings around it. Again, doubling the height will reduce potential exposure by 75%. The higher the antenna, the less there will any potential for significant RF exposure. THE WORLD IS A VERY COMPLICATED PLACE It should be pretty clear by now that designing scientifically valid communication systems is an enormously complex subject. The main complications come from the vagaries of the medium itself, the Earth's ionosphere. However, local terrain can considerably complicate the analysis also. The main points of this paper may be summarized briefly: The radiation elevation angle is the key factor determining effective communication distances beyond line-of-sight. Antenna height is the primary variable under control of the station builder, since antenna height affects the angle of radiation. In general, placing an amateur antenna system higher in the air enhances communication capabilities and also reduces chances for electromagnetic interference with neighbors. Page 15 Rex A. Auker 62575 Stenkamp Road Bend, Oregon 97701 November 16, 2007 Deschutes County Commissioners c/o Kristen Maze 117 LaFayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Subj: Text Amendment TA-06-10 regarding Amateur Radios RECEIVED BY: Grfffs- NOV 16 2007 "L~Elj Y: Introduction: As the Board of Commissioners considers Text Amendment TA-06- 10, wisdom dictates that we first review the existing code. Let us begin by coming to a clear understanding of a "wireless telecommunications facility" as defined by Deschutes County Code, Title 18. 1. Title 18.04.030 Definition of Wireless Telecommunications Facility: "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 service facilities" as defined under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (Enclosure 1) a. The term wireless telecommunication facility is defined broadly. It is intended to refer to all sorts of radio telecommunications structures. The definition includes but is not limited to "personal wireless service facilities". The term wireless telecommunications facility includes amateur radio towers and antennas. At a DCPC work session leading to the establishment of the current code George Read, who was then the Director of the Community Development Department, is reported to have explained that " by definition ham radios are considered wireless telecommunication facilities in the code..." (DCPC Minutes -11/09/00) (See Enclosure 2.) b. In the Proposed Text Amendment county staff has recommended that amateur radio equipment be set apart from all other types of radio communications equipment by adding to Title 18.04.030 a new definition, "Amateur Radio Facilities". The effect of this new definition and the proposed text amendment is to give amateur radio a distinct and greatly preferred status in Deschutes County when compared to all other types of radio communications equipment and facilities. c. The origin of this text amendment is a zoning violation complaint that I filed in the spring of 2006 against Mr Robert Swaney. The tower he built that prompted my complaint clearly fits the county code definition of a wireless telecommunications facility. It is an unstaffed facility which is detached from any other structure. It is located approximately 500 feet from Mr. Swaney's residence where his transmitter, receiver, microphone, etc. are located. It is built in an irrigated field on a tax lot separate from his residence. Mr. Swaney maintains an older home as a rental property on the lot where his antenna is located but it is my understanding that he operates his amateur radio facility remotely from his residence. His facility consists of. 1) a gray metal cabinet approximately 70 cubic feet in volume which contains electronic equipment, 2) a 120 foot lattice tower on a concrete base, 3) nine guy wires that run diagonally down from the tower to three concrete and steel anchor points each located about 100 feet from the base of the tower and about 5 feet in height. 4) a moveable Yagi type antenna about 30 feet wide and 20 feet deep oriented along a horizontal plane. d. I have attended most of the planning commission meetings and reviewed the documentation concerning the proposed text amendment. It is clear that the county attorney believes the term "Wireless Telecommunications Facility" in Title 18 does not include amateur radio facilities, but I have yet to hear the rationale for that decision. I fear that the attorney's determination is based on a misunderstanding of the term "wireless". In current popular vernacular, we think of "wireless" in terms of cell phones and lap top computer use. In the broader historic and technical context, and I believe in the current county code, "wireless" must be interpreted quite literally. "Wireless" means "without wires". A "wireless telecommunications facility" refers to a facility that conveys telecommunication, any sort of telecommunication, without the use of metal wires or optic cables. Instead, the medium of transmission is the radio wave. (1) The June 2007 issue of "Discover" magazine, a popular journal about science and technology, featured an article reviewing the history of radio. It was entitled "Tireless Wireless: How Radio Changed Everything" The article discusses maritime and military radio, commercial television and radio, Wi-Fi and, yes, even amateur/ham radio. The author wrote "When radio arrived at the end of the 19th century, few thought that `wireless' communications, in which intangible signals could be sent through the air over long distances, would be competitive in a world dominated by the telegraph and telephone." 2. Amateur Radios and Title 18.120.40. Building Height Exceptions. The language of the current code was selected with specific intention to exclude radio antennas and all other wireless telecommunications facilities from Building Height Exceptions. Prior to 2001, several specific structures, such as chimneys, flagpoles and radio antenna, were allowed limited exceptions to Title 18 height restrictions. The reference to radio antenna and other similar projections was intentionally removed from the list of building height exceptions because the Commissioners intended for all structures of that sort to be regulated as "wireless telecommunications facilities". a. Prior to 2002, radio antennae attached to an existing structure were allowed to exceed the structure height by 3 feet. Under the current code antenna attached to an existing structure are allowed to reach up to 15 feet above the structure. Prior to 2002, the language of the DCC 18.120.40 imposed greater restrictions on radio antenna than the language of the current requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities. its. 11&.2. 4. Amateur Radios and Title IS-42O.-40; Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. (Enclosure 3). My research indicates that the codes regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities were first implemented in 1997 and then fine-tuned in 2000-2001. These code changes divided wireless telecommunications facilities, including amateur radio facilities, into three classes or tiers. Tier 1 addresses antenna that can be attached to an existing structure or to a wood monopole that does not exceed 45 feet. Tier 1 facilities are permitted outright in all zones. . Tier 2 addresses facilities with wood monopole support structures up to 75 feet in height which are located in commercial and industrial zones. Those wireless telecommunication facilities are allowed outright subject to specific sight plan review. Since Tier 2 addresses facilities in commercial and industrial zones, one might expect few ham radio stations to be classified as Tier 2. Tier 3 addresses facilities that can not be classified as Tier 1 or Tier 2, and new facilities in EFU, SM and Forest zones. In those zones one would expect that lot sizes would be large and valued for their scenic beauty.. Tier II includes structures constructed of metal or more than 65 feet in height. These facilities can be approved on a case-by-case basis if they meet the criteria specified in Title 18.128.330 and Title 18.128.340. Tier 3 facilities require a conditional use permit and a limited easily produced site plan. 5. Title 18.128.330. Microwave and radio communication towers in the SM zone. (See Enclosure 4) This section establishes a requirement for a conditional use permit that may be granted for towers up to 150 feet. It says those towers must meet the requirements for Title 18.128.340 (regarding EFU zones) plus additional specific criteria applicable to Surface Mining Zones. 6. Title 18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. (See Enclosure 4) This code section applies to radio communication facilities in EFU, Forest, and Surface Mining Zones. Facilities in these zones require a conditional use permit but are exempted from the extensive site plan reviews that might otherwise be required. Application requirements include a neighborhood meeting, a pre-application conference, and a limited site plan. Approval criteria include a prohibition from building on irrigated land, requirements for locating antenna towers so as to screen the facility from the view of nearby residents, a prohibition against building towers where there is no available vegetative, topographical or structural screening, color requirements, and requirements that new structures be capable of carrying at least one additional antenna. a. Mr. Swaney's property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. He built his amateur "wireless telecommunications facility" in a manner that maximizes the exercise of his ham radio hobby but demonstrates no regard for legitimate county government purposes or the rights of his neighbors. The tower is built on irrigated land where there is little existing visual shielding. He has located the tower so that the view from his own residence is largely shielded by trees and accessory buildings, but it sits in the middle of the scenic view of the mountains from the neighbor's home across the street. The base of the tower is setback about 150 feet from my property line, but one of the guy wire anchors is much closer. If a guy wire snapped, it could easily disable my fencing and allow my livestock, which includes high-value horses, to escape. 7. Overall Effect of the. Current Code. If we accept as fact that the term "wireless telecommunications facilities" was intended to include all manner of RF transmission/reception structures, the various provisions of the code make sense and form a coherent and enforceable policy. By defming "wireless telecommunications facilities" broadly, the intent of the current code provisions is to treat all RF transmission reception facilities even-handedly. Any party, private or commercial, wanting to build an antenna structure in Deschutes County must meet the same criteria. No one can claim special privilege or disadvantage. If we presume that the term "wireless telecommunications facilities" applies only to a specific subset of RF transmission/reception structures, such as commercial cell phone towers, then the provisions of the codes appear to be disjointed, senseless and unenforceable. a. If we assume that amateur radio stations are not included under the term "wireless telecommunications facilities", then it begs the question, what other sorts of RF transmission/reception structures are also excluded from that definition. What about a television transmission antenna? What about a maritime radio antenna or a commercial FM radio station? If we say that ham radios are not included in the definition of "wireless telecommunications facilities" and determine that specific codes must be developed for that type of RF transmission/reception structure, then we open the door for complaints from owners of all other sorts of facilities to claim that they too are excluded from the definition and that they too cannot be held accountable to the current codes. 8. Effect of Current Code on Amateur Radio. Now, let us assume that I am correct in my belief that the term "wireless telecommunications facilities" refers to all sorts of RF transmission/reception structures including ham radio antenna. What would be required of ham radio enthusiasts who wanted to practice their hobby? a. In general, ham radio operators living in residential zones of the county would be allowed to attach an antenna to their existing home, outbuilding, or vertical structure as long as it did not reach more than 15 feet above the structure. They also would be allowed to erect a wooden monopole with antenna reaching up to 45 feet. Antenna structures exceeding 45 feet in height are also allowed, but must meet the criteria of DCC 18.128.330 and DCC 18.128.340 which required a conditional use permit, neighborhood meeting and a limited site plan. It is certainly reasonable to require a ham radio operator living in a residential zone to talk to his neighbors before building an antenna higher than 45 feet. b. Ham radio operators can normally build a station in commercial and industrial zones with towers up to 65 feet (75 feet in RI zone). Taller towers could be erected, but would have to meet the requirements of DCC 18.128.330 and DCC 18.128.340. which require a conditional use permit, neighborhood meeting and limited site plan. Personally, I see no problem with amending the Tier II requirements to allow towers in commercial and industrial zones up to 75 feet. This would protect the county from allegations that the codes Tier II codes violate state statutes. c. If the current code is applied to amateur radio operators in EFU, SM and Forest Zones amateur radio towers would have to meet the criteria set fourth in DCC 18.128.330 and DCC 18.128.340. They would require a conditional use permit, neighborhood meeting and limited site plan. (1) The County Commissioners have a legitimate, even compelling, interest in protecting the scenic beauty and the appropriate use of land in these mostly rural zones, even when considering amateur radio operations. For instance the current code disallows the construction of a free standing amateur radio tower on irrigated land. Certainly the preservation of the county's irrigated land and water rights is a goal of equal importance to the right of a ham radio operator to erect an antenna. (2) Current code would also require the ham radio operator to choose a site that takes advantage of existing screening vegetation and topography and minimizes impact on the neighbors' scenic views. In EFU, SM and Forest Zones the parcels of land are normally much larger than in residential or commercial zones. I can imagine few scenarios where the effectiveness of a ham radio antenna will be significantly diminished if, in deference to the neighbors' scenic views, the amateur radio operator is required to locate a tower 50, 100 or even 500 feet from what the owner regards as the ideal site. (3) In the case that brought the ham radio issue to the county's attention, Mr. Swaney owns twenty acres of property and had already constructed two 70 foot metal lattice towers without permits and with no complaints from his neighbors. Yet he wanted more. Again ignoring the requirements for permits he constructed a 120 foot tower on irrigated land directly in front of his neighbor's only view of the Cascade mountains. There are dozens of other potential antenna sites on his property which are not on irrigated land and which are not in front of his neighbor's houses. 9. Conclusion: The Board of Commissioners and county staff could dedicate hundreds of hours trying to create special conditions that would satisfy amateur radio hobbyists. Such action would ultimately prove to be both futile and irresponsible. It would be futile because some ham radio operators will not be fully satisfied until they are free from all restrictions to the exercise of their hobby. It would be irresponsible because the matter of amateur radio was deliberated and decided in 1997 and 2000-2001. Efforts to second- guess those decisions are unnecessary and expensive. 10. Action: a. The evidence I have presented demonstrates that existing county code intends for amateur radio equipment to be treated exactly the same as any other sort of wireless telecommunications facilities. Clearly the existing code was written with the federal statutes in mind. There is evidence to indicate that the state requirements were also considered. I recommend that the Board of Commissioners dismiss proposed text amendment TA-06-10 because it is unnecessary and redundant. b. It appears that the issue of amateur radio has reached the Board of Commissioners because county staff did not hold Mr. Swaney accountable to the existing code requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities. This can be forgiven because there have been no previous complaints of this nature. With clear direction from the Board of Commissioners, county staff will be empowered to carry out their duties quickly and efficiently in the case of any future complaints. c.My understanding is that my complaint concerning Mr. Swaney's tower and antenna is still unresolved. Also, I have submitted a second complaint which clarifies why Mr. Swaney's tower fits the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility. If the planning commission upholds the existing code, then the Code Enforcement Officer will be empowered to continue normal enforcement procedures against Mr. Swaney. I request that the Planning Commission do whatever is necessary to provide for continued enforcement, with specific direction that amateur radio facilities should be regarded as wireless telecommunication facilities and that Mr. Swaney's tower will not be grandfathered. Sincerely, Rex A. Auker sewage lagoons,, sanitary landfills and similar facilities, but excluding local sewer, water, gas, telephone and power distribution lines, and similar minor facilities allowed in any zone. This definition shall not include wireless telecommunication facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a zone. "Variance" means an authorization for the construction or maintenance of a building or structure, or for the establishment or maintenance, of a use of land, which is prohibited by a zoning ordinance. A. "Area variance" means a variance which does not concern a prohibited use. Usually granted to construct, alter or use a structure for a permitted use in a manner other than that prescribed by the zoning ordinance. B. "Use variance" means a variance which permits a use of land other than that prescribed by the zoning or other applicable ordinances. "Veterinary clinic" means a place where animals or pets are given medical attention and cared for during the time of such treatment. Vision Clearance Area (Repealed by Ord. 91-038,1991) "Visitor-Oriented Accommodations" with respect to destination resorts, means overnight lodging, restaurants and meeting facilities designed to provide for the needs of visitors rather than residents. "Walkway" means a structure that is built over or floats upon the waters of a lake, river or stream and that provides access to a boat dock or pier. "Wetland" means an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs and other similar areas. "Winter solar heating hours" means the time period extending two hours before and after the solar zenith on December 21. "Wireless telecommunications facilmeans an unstaffed facility for the transmission or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals usually consisting of anequipment 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. "Yard" means an open space on a lot which is unobstructed from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in DCC Title 18. "Yard, front" means a yard between side lot lines measured horizontally at right angles to the front lot line from the front lot line to the nearest point of a building. Any yard meeting this definition and adjoining on a street other than an alley shall be considered a front yard. "Yard, rear" means a yard between side lot lines measured horizontally at right angles from the rear lot line to the nearest point of a building. "Yard, side" means a yard between the front and rear yard measured horizontally at right angles from the side lot lines to the nearest point of a building. "Yard, street side" means a yard adjacent to a street between the front yard and rear lot line measured horizontally and at right angles from the side lot line to the nearest point of a building. "Yurt" means a round, domed shelter of cloth or canvas on a collapsible frame with no plumbing, sewage disposal hook-up or internal cooking appliance. "Zero lot line" means the location of a building on a lot or parcel in such a manner that one or more of the building's sides coincide with a lot line. (Ord 2006-008 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2005-041 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2004-024 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 § a DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES-11/09/00 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING ROOM 1130 NW HARRIMAN, BEND, OR 97701 1. CALL TO ORDER Paul Bianchina, Chair, called the meeting to order. Members present were Paul Bianchina, Bruce Brothers, Frank Deggendorfer, Dan Adams and Tammy Sailors. Staff members present were George Read, CDD Director, Geralyn Haas, Principal Planner, Damian Syrnyk, Associate Planner, and Christy Morgan, Assistant Planner. It was moved and seconded that the minutes from 8124/00 be approved. The vote was unanimous in favor of this motion. If. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Paul Bianchina gave some ground rules for the meeting and explained that next week's meeting has three items that have been noticed and have to be discussed, the height exception, ham radios, and cell towers. There was discussion about whether the Planning Commission wanted to meet again on the 28th to allow more time for deliberation. It was the consensus of the Commission to stay late on the 16th after the hearing to deliberate and close the record that night. George Read spoke to the Planning Commission about Ballot Measure 7. Ballot Measure 7 was sponsored by. Oregonians in Action to address the takings issue. The issue is basically when a property is re-zoned and people can't do what they want with it, should government compensate people for it? Present law requires that if there is a taking of an entire property (for example, a road) the government needs to compensate the property owner, but partial takings, where takings of the right to use property or a portion of a property, haven't been found to be valid unless there is no viable use of the property left. Zoning restrictions that leave other viable uses of the property have not been viewed to be takings. The measure basically says that all restriction of uses that protect, provide, or preserve wildlife habitat, natural areas, wetland ecosystems, scenery, open space, historical or archeological or cultural resources, or low income housing are considered a taking and the person who is restricted must be compensated. It allows 90 days for compensation or you have to let them do it. You either have to repeal the regulations that restrict it or you have to pay them. There is a question as to whether these are the only uses that have to be compensated or if it includes all uses. There is a section that states uses allowed when you buy your property. Deschutes County had no zoning until 1973 so people who owned property prior to 1973 can basically do anything and any restriction is subject to compensation by the government. There is some wording that suggests it applies to all land use regulations at the time you apply for the use. There are a lot of questions. For example, who is the landowner? Is it the original landowner, is it any part of the landowner, is it the family of the landowner? DCPC Minutes -11109/00 ` Page 1 trig foSUrzz- 2- 7.1 You have to compensate people the difference between the fair market value but it doesn't say whether it's the fair market value at the time they purchased the property or at the time they submit their request for the specific use. The ballot title said that based on just normal zoning implementation it would cost the state about 5.5 billion dollars a year to implement this. That's, bigger than the entire state budget. There is no money for compensation so basically it abolishes all the rules. This will be taken to court but it is effective in 30 days and we don't know if the courts will issue a stay in the meantime. George did an analysis assuming this explanatory statement is correct and thinks it is only those people who own the property at that time. In Deschutes County 28,000 of 75,000 tax lots haven't had a sale. In other words the other 63% have had a sale since 1993. That means 37% of the people are entitled to do what they want, if you will, in exclusive farm use or forest zones. 63% aren't allowed to do anything very drastic under the rules of 1993, which are very similar to what they are now. The Association of Oregon Counties is meeting next week and will discuss this issue. III. WORK SESSION - WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES - GERALYN HAAS, PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND DAMIAN SYRNYK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER Ron Meckler, Director of 9-1-1 for Deschutes County, was present as a technical expert for ham radios. He said that ham radio operators are a valuable and integral part of our emergency communications system. During a major emergency event they rely on ham radio operators to come in and lend a hand because often the standard methods of communication are either not working or are tremendously overloaded. He said it is extremely helpful in providing the additional links for getting information in and out. Neil McKie, PO Box 6267, Bend, OR 97708, said he moved here two years ago and is retired. He has been a ham radio operator since 1960 and retired from the communications industry, which is indirectly connected with cell towers. His interest in amateur radios is in putting together radio systems, helping other amateur radio operators in their interest, and helping emergency communications when necessary. He lives on Long Butte and the reason he bought the property is because it's on top of a hill and he moved there for better coverage. He said the commercial two-way people are given rules by the FCC and the amateur radio operators are basically told only three or four things they can't do - they can't broadcast music and they can't accept money for their efforts: Mr. McKie said they have 16 bands to deal with and the FCC basically says they can build their own radio transmitters so long as they don't cause interference to other people. Mr. McKie was asked how well someone could broadcast off a 70 foot tower. He said it was dependent upon the radio frequency. There are some radio frequencies that could require towers upward of 160 feet if you don't get a good radiation pattern. He said he personally knows of one amateur radio operator who lived in Vancouver, Washington who had a 220 foot tower in his backyard, hard 11 antennas mounted on the tower, and the entire tower turned. There was another who lived in McMinnville, Oregon with a 190 foot tower with multiple antennas and the entire tower turned. He stated the limitations from the FCC are to basically have fun, don't get hurt, enjoy, build everything you want, build up your own antennas, make alterations to the antennas every day if you want. We don't care. Here is your license, kick back and relax. DCPC Minutes -11/09/00 . 'a- Page 2 The Planning Commission asked Mr. McKie the height of his tower. Mr. McKie stated his tower is 30 feet tall, but is put up temporarily just to get something going. He would prefer at least 100 feet, perhaps taller. William Sawders, Bend, Oregon, stated that he is the Oregon Section Manager of the American Radio Relay League representing over 13,000 licensed amateur radio operators throughout the state. Over 1,000 reside within Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson counties. Ham radio is a great hobby and for many it provides a service for operators to participate and help communities during local, state, and national emergencies such as fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. Many hams are members of the amateur radio emergency services and are affiliated with the Oregon State Police Emergency Services Division, Deschutes County Sheriff's Search and Rescue, FEMA, and they provide much needed emergency communication links for the American Red Cross, including the local Bend Chapter. He asked that amateur radio towers be exempt from all Deschutes County telecommunications tower ordinances now an in the future and to grandfather apresin-Ty-ii alled amateur radio antenna structures. e a copies of questions and answers from the FCC Orer PRO-vvhich governs amateur radio antenna regulations contained in Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations and a copy of the Oregon Senate Bill 879 signed one year ago which alloAs licensed amateur radio operators to have tower structures of 70 feet and lower. The Planning Commission asked what Mr. Sawders considers a reasonable height for an antenna over 70 feet in Deschutes County? Is it reasonable to assume that an antenna of 100 feet or less is adequate for coverage? He said that most ham radio towers are in the vicinity of 60, 70, and 80 feet. There was discussion among the Planning Commission. It was suggested that, in an effort to prevent problems in the future, to add some language to the Landscape Management Plan where we can make recommendations and denials based on aesthetic objectives of the County. & George explained that by definition ham radios are'considered wireless telecommunications facilities in the code and this will need to be changed in order to get t em ou o aving to comply with the same regulations as the cell towers. He ty suggested the wording be changed so there is no ambiguity and thinks it would take a 91 few more words than are in the Comp Plan today to meet this standard, where it is an aesthetic objective that relates specifically to the impacts of ham radio operations. Damian said the section of the code that talks about building height exceptions starts out with a sentence that says the following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building limitations of this title and that includes buildings like schools and churches, but also includes vertical structures like flag poles and what is described as radio and other similar projections. The final sentence says this exception does not apply to an airport development zone, airport height combining zone, or landscape management combining zone. It currently states that if you are looking at doing something like a flagpole, a radio projection, fire and hose tower, outside of the landscape management zone, you are not subject to the building height restrictions in the zone. DCPC Minutes - 11/09/00 f 3 Page 3 One of the Commissioners said he would like to see the County come up with some aesthetic objectives language. Damian said there is a proposal to add to the zonin ordinance os~ 9 a sentence under the{-~r~~ first tier that says this section and the related criteria for a conditional use permit do not 1 apply to the installation and operation of amateur radio as defined by this ordinance. £Q This is in Exhibit C of Ordinance 2000-027 in section 18.116.250 under Section A. r 'J 0 It was the consensus of the Commission-that they take the ham radio portion out of the p s~ ordinance. Geralyn Haas spoke regarding Ordinance No. 2000-030, whic h is the f `fit J Plan Goals and Policies. These revisions are based on the last work session and Comprehensive changes are underlined in the document.; There was some discussion among the Commissioners about whether the notification to neighbors was adequate for the neighborhood meetings. Damian said that under the current ordinance before an applicant has a pre-application meeting with our division they have to hold a neighborhood meeting. Depending on the height of the support structure they are proposing they are to notify owners of record of property within 1,320 feet of the boundary of the property. If the tower is over 100 feet, they will notify people who own property within 2,000 feet of the boundary of the property on which they want to establish the facility. Geralyn reminded the Commission that they had previously discussed media notice in the form of display advertisement or press release. There was discussion among the Commissioners that the balloon test wasn't very effective because it really didn't give you a good impression of what the towers are going to look like. The balloons are small and give an idea of height but not mass or size. It was suggested that a crane and balloon be used as a better representation. There was also concern about weather having an effect on the balloon and this should be considered. It was suggested the crane should be 75% of the height of the proposed tower and kept in place for 48 hours to provide interested parties an opportunity to view it. It was also recommended that the test be done on a weekend. This would allow the neighborhood meeting to be held mid week and crane test on Saturday and Sunday. If the weather is bad the test should be rescheduled and notification given of new test date. In reviewing Goal 3 it was asked if an amount has been determined for a performance bond? George suggested the amount could be an engineer's estimate plus 10%. There was discussion about putting a lien on the property if a performance bond is deemed worthless. Staff suggested legal counsel would have to look into this but said that some times these rural properties aren't worth as much as the cost to tear down the towers. It was suggested that the inventory list of wireless facilities be updated every 12 months. DCPC Minutes -11/09/00 Page 4 P It was questioned whether or not the Commission was going to deal with the Master Plan. Geralyn said she felt the consensus was to not go to that extent but to require them to provide an annual inventory of their existing structures, what was working and what wasn't working and how it worked within the overall network. There was discussion related to enforcement. It was the consensus of the Commission that a permit inspection fee, annual fee, or renewal fee which includes reviewing the annual inventory list and enforcement be required. It was suggested that in Policy 4 and 5 the language be changed to shall require instead of encourage. It was also suggested that the language of Policy 4 be changed to' eliminate by r)romotinq and replace with through. Goal 5 Policy relates to screening ground base equipment. Damian said that one of the things proposed to be added to the ordinance is screening the perimeter of the leased area with plant materials appropriate for the location, finding a good spot with a dense tree cover, or if in a more open area, require them to landscape the perimeter of the leased area with some dense plant material to provide screening of the security fencing, equipment shelters, base of the pole, and anything at ground level. It was suggested , that the language be changed from speck diameter size to sufficient height and width to screen the structure. There was some discussion about what screening is necessary on a privately owned parcel surrounding by forest service land which may not need that kind of screening compared to a more developed area where you might have a mix of trees here and there and also some open areas. It was asked of staff if the goal of Goal 7 is to locate wireless telecommunications facilities along utility corridors because the discussion tonight would indicate in the middle of forests, etc. Geralyn said that in the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 we are encouraging them to locate on existing utilities and this is supporting what is already in the ordinance. Damian said that the idea three years ago was that Tier 1 would try to provide an incentive to avoid towers through co-location, using utility poles, and using buildings. It would be easy to co-locate, a little more difficult to put up a wood pole, and much more strict if you want to put up a tower. Commissioner Deggendorfer said he would like the utility corridor to be the primary site location and limited height to no higher than surrounding poles. George suggested that the utility corridor may not be the location with the least visual impact. Paul Bianchina suggested that the language should read that: #1. You put it in a utility corridor, and; #2. You install it in such a way that it has the least visual impact as possible without screening, but when you go out of the utility corridor, you have to screen. A Commissioner expressed mixed feelings about this because he could see where it would be good to have it on a utility corridor but could also see it would be nice if we DCPC Minutes -11/09100 ~c~ ~vS~lY- Z Page 5 P, s (Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991; Ord. 89-004 § 3, 1989; Ord. 86-054 § 2, 1986) 18.116.230. Standards for class I and H road projects. Class I and H road or street projects shall be reviewed against the applicable Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan element; shall be consistent with applicable road standards and shall meet the following criteria: A. Compatibility with existing land use and social patterns, including noise generation, safety hazards (e.g. children in a residential area), and zoning. B. Environmental impacts, including hazards imposed to and by wildlife (e.g. migration or water use patterns). C. Retention of scenic quality, including tree preservation. D. Means to improve the safety and fimetion of the facility, including surrounding zoning, access control and terrain modifications. E. In the case of roadways where modification results in a change of traffic types or density, impacts on route safety, route land use patterns, and route nonmotorized/pedestrian traffic. F. Consideration of the potential developmental impact created by the facility. G. Cost effectiveness. (Ord. 93-043 § 19H, 1993) 18.116.240. Protection of historic sites. Historic sites listed and described on the County's Goal 5 inventory, contained in the Resource Element of the comprehensive plan, shall be protected or not protected in accordance with programs set forth in the ESEE determinations for each individual site, adopted as part of the Resource Element of the comprehensive plan and any comprehensive plan policies specifically applicable to the site. The uses allowed and dimensional standards prescribed by the underlying zoning designations for designated historic sites are not otherwise affected by the historic designation. (Ord. 94-030 § 1, 1994) Chapter 18.116 17 18.116.250. Wireless telecommunications facilities. A. Tier 1 Facilities. Wireless telecommunica- tions facilities that do not require aviation lighting, that utilize natural wood colors or muted tones from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017, that utilize a radio equipment cabinet or shelter that is less than 120 square feet in area and less than 10 feet in height, and that meet the following standards are allowed outright in any zone other than the Exclusive Farm Use, the Surface Mining Zone, and the Forest Zones and shall not be subject to any other provision of the zone: 1. Facilities established by co-locating an additional set of antennas on an existing wireless telecommunications tower or monopole that do not exceed the County approved height of the tower or monopole, and do not add ground based equipment outside the existing lease area. Notwithstanding any provision of DCC 18.116.250(A), facilities established under DCC 18.116.250(A)(1) are permitted outright in any zoning district. 2. Facilities that make use of existing vertical structures, including but not limited to power or telephone utility poles or towers, parking lot or street lighting standards or flagpoles. For the Purposes of DCC 18.116.250(A), a vertical structure is "existing" if it was constructed after receiving all required land use and/or building permits on or before November 12, 1997, the date of adoption of Ordinance 97-063. A pole location in a public right of way shall not be fenced. Antennas established on an existing vertical structure shall be installed so that they do not exceed the height of the existing vertical structure by more than 15 feet. New structures in this category are limited to equipment shelters that do not require a building permit. Walk-in equipment shelters shall be set back out of any road right of way at least 20 feet back from the pole location. Any necessary road right of way permits shall (12/2006) ~•l be obtained from the Deschutes County Rural Service Center-Wickiup Junction Road Department. Equipment cabinets (RSC-WJ), Terrebonne Commercial District shall be subject only to the road right of (TeC), and Tumalo Commercial District way setback requirements. (TuC). Lattice towers or metal monopoles 3. Facilities that are established by attaching are not permitted with a Tier 2 facility or placing an antenna or set of antennas . 1. An application for site plan review for a on an existing building not designated as Tier 2 wireless telecommunications an historic structure, where the antenna facility shall meet the following criteria: array does not exceed the height of the a. Maximum Monopole Height. In the building by more than 15 feet. An LPCD, LPID, RSC, RSC-WJ, TeC, equipment shall be stored inside a and TuC zones, the maximum height building. For the purpose of DCC of a monopole that supports antennas 18.116.250(A), a building exists if it was and/or microwave dishes for a constructed after receiving all required wireless telecommunications facility land use and/or building permits and was shall be 60 feet from finished grade, occupied on or before November 12, In the RI Zone, the maximum height 1997, the date of adoption of Ordinance of a monopole that supports antennas 97-063. 4. Facilities that include installation of a and/or microwave dishes for a wireless telecommunications facility new wood monopole that does not exceed shall be 75 feet from finished grade. the height limit of the underlying zone, b. Setbacks. All equipment shelters and does not exceed 45 feet in height. shall be set back from property lines All equipment shall be stored in a according to the required setbacks of building that has a roof area that does not the underlying zone. A monopole exceed 120 square feet in area or 10 feet shall be set back from any adjacent in height. The monopole, and any dwelling a distance equal to the building, shall be set back from adjacent height of the monopole from finished property lines according to the setbacks grade, or according to the setbacks of of the underlying zone. Any microwave the underlying zone whichever is dishes installed on the monopole shall not , greater. exceed a diameter of three feet. No more c. Shelters. Any equipment shelter than two dishes shall be installed on a shall be finished with natural monopole or tower. The perimeter of a lease area for a facility established under aggregate materials or from colors a DCC 18.116.250(A) shall be landscaped pproved with Ordinance 97-017. d. Landscaping. The perimeter of a with shrubs eight feet in height and lease area shall be landscaped with planted a maximum of 24 inches on plant materials appropriate for its center. location. The lessee shall B. Tier 2 Facilities. Wireless continuously maintain all installed telecommunications facilities that do not landscaping and any existing require aviation lighting, that utilize a wood landscaping used to screen a facility. monopole for supporting antennas and/or e. Cabinets. Any equipment cabinets microwave dishes and that meet the criteria in shall be finished with colors from DCC 18.116.250 are allowed outright, subject amongst those colors approved with to site plan review under DCC 18.116250(B) Ordinance 97-063. Such colors shall (and not DCC 18.124.060) in the following be non-reflective and neutral. zones: La Pine Commercial District (LPCD) f Fences. A sight obscuring fence, as La Pine Industrial District (LPID), Rural defined by DCC Title 18, shall be Industrial (RI), Rural Service Center (RSC), installed around the perimeter of the lease area. The sight obscuring fence Chapter 18.116 18 (12/2006) iw~IosUf~ 3 shall surround the monopole and the equipment shelter. C. Tier 3 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities (or their equivalent uses described in the EFU, Forest, and SM Zones) not qualifying as either a Tier 1 or 2 facility may be approved in all zones, subject to the applicable criteria set forth in DCC 18.128.330 and 18.128.340. 1. A request for a written determination from the County as _ to whether a proposed facility falls within Tiers 1 or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 shall be submitted to the County in writing and accompanied by a site plan and proposed schematics of the facility. If the County can issue a written determination without exercising discretion or by making a land use decision as defined under ORS 197.015(10), the County shall respond to the request in writing. 2. A request for a written determination from the County as to whether a proposed facility falls within Tiers 1 or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 that involves exercising discretion or making a land use decision shall be submitted and acted upon as a request for a declaratory ruling under DCC 22.40. (Ord. 2000-19 § 1, 2000; Ord. 97-063 § 1, 1997; Ord. 97-017 § 7,1997) 18.116.260. Rock crushing outside the SM zone. A. The following standards apply to all on-site rock crushing activity outside the SM zone: 1. The subject property has received site plan, tentative plat or final plat approval for the construction or maintenance activity for which on-site rock crushing occurs; 2. Rock crushing equipment has a valid Oregon Department of Environmental Quality air contaminant discharge permit; 3. The volume of material excavated on-site does not exceed the amount necessary to complete on-site construction and maintenance; 4. Rock crushing equipment and all activity directly associated with crushing such as truck traffic is located at least 500 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive or dust- sensitive use or structure, unless an exception to this standard is allowed pursuant to DCC 18.116.260(F); 5. No off--site material is brought on site for crushing; 6. Rock crushing equipment is removed from the site within 30 days of completing the crushing activity; and 7. Excavated and crushed material not used for on-site construction or landscaping is removed from the site prior to occupancy, where a site plan is approved, or within 60 days of completing all road, utility or other improvements where a tentative or final plat is approved. B. On-site rock crashing for on-site construction and maintenance is permitted outright in any zone, except Flood Plain (FP), or in any combining zone, except Wildlife Area (WA), Landscape Management (LM), or Sensitive Bird And Mammal Habitat (SBMH), if the requirements of DCC 18.116.260(A) and the following standards are met: 1. Rock crushing activity, including set up and crushing, occurs for no more than 60 consecutive days on a site within any one-year period; 2. Rock crushing occurs Monday through Friday, between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and not on legal holidays; and 3. Water is available on-site to provide dust control. C. Except for the activity allowed outright as set forth under DCC 18.116.260(B), a temporary use permit for rock crashing for on-site construction and maintenance may be permitted in any zone or combining zone subject to approval of the Planning Director or Hearings Body under the provisions of DCC 18.116.260(D). D. Use limitations. On-site rock crushing provided for in DCC 18.116260(C) may be approved upon satisfaction of the Chapter 18.116 19 (12/2006) ~n~~.oSvl.~ 3 1. Neighborhood Meeting. Prior to 18.128330. Microwave and radio sc e g a pre-application conference communication towers in the SM with Planning Division staff, the zone. applicant shall provide notice of and hold A conditional use permit for siting of a a meeting with interested owners of microwave or radio communication tower and property nearby to a potential facility accessory equipment structures in the SM Zone location. Notice shall be in writing and shall be subject to the criteria of DCC 18.128.340 shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior and the following criteria: to the date set for the meeting to owners- A. Towers shall be limited to monopole towers of record of property within: of under 150 feet and lighted only as a. One thousand three hundred twenty prescribed by aviation safety regulations. feet for a tower or monopole no greater than 100 feet in height, and B. Towers and accessory equipment stmctures b. Two thousand feet for a tower or shall be located only on portions of an monopole at least 100 feet and no SM-Zoned site that do not overlay higher than 150 feet in height. Such economically viable mineral or aggregate notice shall not take the place of deposits and that minimize conflicts with notice required by DCC Title 22. mining operations at the site. 2. Pre-Application Conference. Applicant C. Such facilities proposed in an SM Zone shall attend a scheduled pre-application where the underlying or surrounding conference prior to submission of a land comprehensive plan designation is for forest use application. An application for a use must demonstrate compliance with the wireless telecommunications facility criteria set forth in DCC 18.36.040. permit will not be deemed complete until D. No new parcels or lots shall be created for the applicant has had a pre-application conference with Planning Division staff. siting of the proposed tower. 3. Submittal Requirements. An application E. Such facilities must not conflict with any site for a conditional use permit for a wireless plan which has been previously approved by telecommunications facility shall include: the County. a. A copy ofthe blank lease form. (Ord. 97-017 § 8, 1997; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; b. A copy of the applicant's Federal Ord. 95-046 § 3, 1995) Communications Commission license. 18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications c. A map that shows the applicant's Facilities. search ring for the proposed site and An application for a conditional use permit for a the properties within the search ring, wireless telecommunications facility or its including locations of existing equivalent in the EFU, Forest, or Surface Mining telecommunications towers or Zones shall comply with the applicable standards, monopoles. setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any d. A copy of the written notice of the combining zone and the following requirements. Site lan review d DCC 18 12 required neighborhood meeting and a certificat f ili p un er . 4 including site e o ma ng showing that plan review for a use that would otherwise require the notice was mailed to the list of site plan review under DCC 18.84 shall not be property owners falling within the required. notice area designated under DCC A. Application Requirements. An application for 18.128.340(A)(1). e A w itt a wireless telecommunications facility shall . r en summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the comply with the following meeting, notice, substance of the meeting the time and submittal requirements: , , I -l date and location of the meeting and 3. The facility is sited using trees, a list of meeting attendees. vegetation, and topography to the f. A site plan showing the location of maximum extent practicable to screen the the proposed facility and its facility from view of nearby residences. OA L components. The site plan shall also 4. A tower or monopole located in an LM •~Q identify the location of existing and Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or S` 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 cases, 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 6. 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 approved upon findings that: prevent the possibility of co-location of 1. The facility will not be located on additional wireless telecommunication irrigated land, as defined by DCC facilities at the site. 18.04.030. 9. Any tower or monopole shall be designed 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 EK c.(oS•Jte- year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. (Ord. 2000-019 § 2, 2000; Ord. 97-063 § 2, 1997; Ord. 97-017 § 8, 1997) 18.128.350. 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 18.128.3600, 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 farmland as defined in DCC 18.04.030. C. For each doubling of the initial 160 acres required under DCC 18.128.360(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 of the 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. 1. 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. ~-3