The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-893-Minutes for Meeting September 17,2008 Recorded 10/9/2008I- COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSNIP, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 1008.893 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/09/2008 01:52:42 PM III!208-8 3 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Eric Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Joe Studer, Forester; Kristen Maze, Anthony Raguine, Kevin Harrison and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Don Webber, Emergency Services; and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel. Also present was Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. No other citizens were in attendance. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. L Discussion of Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan. Don Webber explained the Plan, which does not relate to the tactical use of resources. Counties from the region are participating. DOGAMI will notify the State of emergency situations, who will in turn notify the counties. The State Emergency Services Department is now under the military department umbrella. Chair Luke asked that an original with all signatures be returned to Board staff. MELTON: Move Chair signature of the Plan. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Mr. Webber said that a statewide earthquake drill would take place in April. In the meantime, he would like to have James Roddey of DOGAMI speak to the Board about the Plan and the lessons learned from the Mount St. Helens event some years ago. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Pages 2. Forester Update. Joe Stutler gave an overview of the current wild fire situation in the Crescent area. He said that significant work on hazardous fuels treatment has been made in many subdivisions, although some neighborhoods and subdivisions have not yet been done. He feels the qualified pool concept saved a lot of money. Some funding remains from the FEMA grant and other sources. All of the County-owned lots from Sunriver south will be treated with some of the remaining funds, along with other privately owned properties that were not previously treated. By next summer, all of the County-owned properties will be addressed. He said that there is an open burning ordinance in County Code, but it needs some revisions. It is similar to the policy used by the Fire Districts, and the Fire Districts, along with the Sheriff's Office, would be given authority to make decisions in that regard. It is hoped that the standards adopted by the County mirror those of the Fire Districts, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Stutler went over a large map showing where major fires have happened over the years, and the areas with dwellings that are basically unprotected at this time. He continues to work with the public and other entities on this ongoing issue. There have been a few complaints about logging trucks and traffic, but for the most part everyone who is aware of what is going on with the program is supportive. Commissioners Melton asked about students' participation. The High Desert Museum has a program in development and there could be others developing. 3. Work Session on Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles Used as Medical Hardship Dwellings. Commissioner Daly asked about an additional driveway, which he would encourage be allowed. He said that some locations might require an additional driveway due to the terrain or the location of the septic system drainfield. He would like this necessity to be considered. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 2 of 6 Pages Commissioner Luke liked the wording about a deed restriction or condition of approval or other document that is recorded indicating that if the property changes hands, the additional dwelling is to be removed from use. He said that the main reason for allowing the use is so that the person can get appropriate care, allowing for the residents to have a measure of privacy. Kristen Maze stated that Clackamas County listed its requirements and qualified each with potential exceptions. Commissioner Melton asked about the foundation issue. Commissioner Luke stated that some kind of footings are needed for support, and skirting or blocking is required per Code. Commissioner Daly said that if they want to pour a slab or put up blocks, as long as they understand it is temporary, why not allow it. It will make the structure look better. The slab could be used for other purposes later, or the building itself could be turned into a guest house (in some zones), or a workshop or other type of utility building. Permits are required for this to occur. Tom Anderson said that a manufactured home can be decommissioned for another use, but this has to go through the State and County. The kitchen has to be removed and an inspection done. This is the same process that is followed if someone wants to bring a decommissioned structure onto his or her land. By State law, manufactured homes cannot be denied in many locations; this depends on the type of manufactured home, which might be restricted by subdivision CC&R's. In regard to the time limit, some agencies require renewals after one or two years from date of issuance. A suggestion was that eventually the house would be expanded to include the person, or alternative care could be arranged. Mr. Harrison said that in most cases the person needing care is elderly; few are others who are handicapped or otherwise in need of care. Mr. Blikstad said that putting in a manufactured home is a major expense, but up until now, people did not have the option to use an RV for the same purpose. This is a much better way to solve the "temporary" question, and people who legitimately need to have a dwelling for that purpose may feel it is more cost effective to utilize an RV. Mr. Raguine pointed out that the use of the RV may preclude use by a wheelchair-bound person. Staff will put together comments and suggestions and work on wording relating to enforcement of existing situations. Community Development will continue with enforcement as needed in the meantime. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 3 of 6 Pages 4. Discussion of Application for Wireless Telecommunications Facility. Anthony Raguine stated that the subject property is off Arnold Market and Dodds Road, near Sundance Meadows. The Hearings Officer approved the 62- foot fake pine tree that would serve as the tower, but the local residents oppose it and have appealed. There are other locations that are possible for this use. The 150-day timeline is also under dispute. Mr. Raguine also said that some people have indicated that they did not receive notice; significant time was taken to make sure appropriate notice was done. Laurie Craghead explained that most of the dispute is based on State law, and she recommends the Board not hear it. The main issue of the neighbors is the alternative sites analysis; some local citizens prefer that public lands be used. A couple of dwellings would be located less than 100 feet from the tower. Mr. Raguine said that income from the tower could be as much as $2,000 per month. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels the Hearings Officer made a good decision and he prefers not to hear it. Commissioner Melton said that it is her understanding that the State and Federal have more jurisdiction in this situation and they are the proper entities to deal with it. Ms. Craghead indicated that even if the Board decided something differently, the State would not give deference to the County, and the applicants could now go straight to LUBA instead. MELTON: Move signature of an order declining to hear the appeal. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: LUKE: 5. Other Items. Yes. Chair votes yes. A brief discussion took place regarding the Planning Commission vacancy. Commissioner Melton asked if a stand-in could be appointed. Commissioners Luke and Daly pointed out that there will be no vacancy until next summer, and it would be awkward to do this if perhaps a more suitable candidate came forward in the meantime. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Pages DALY: Move that Chris Brown be appointed to the vacant seat. LUKE: Second. VOTE: MELTON: No. (Split vote) DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 6. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation. The Board went into executive session at 3:25 p.m. After the conclusion of executive session, the Board took the following action. MELTON: Regarding File # A-05-5, A-05-6 (MA-05-4, SP-05-13, LM 05-22, Christian Life Center), move that Legal Counsel be authorized to agree to a stipulated motion to enter an order of remand pursuant to ORS 197.860, and authorizing Legal Counsel to sign as the Board's designee. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. At this time, the Board discussed whether the Financial Advisory Committee in La Pine should continue in an advisory capacity. Mr. Kanner said that he asked Tom Anderson to respond to inquiries in this regard. The Committee's work ended official on August 31 but they could continue as an ad-hoc committee. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Pages DATED this 17th Day of September 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary De is R. Luke, ai 111"JVz4V~f ~A, Tammy jf3aneyLM)lton, Vice Chair Minutes of Administrative Work Session Page 6 of 6 Pages Wednesday, September 17, 2008 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 1. Discussion of Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan - Don Webber 2. Forester Update - Joe Stutler 3. Work Session on Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles Used as Medical Hardship Dwellings - Kristen Maze 4. Discussion of Application for Wireless Telecommunications Facility - Anthony Raguine 5. Other Items 6. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. A t 1 Date: December 13, 2007 To: Crook County Emergency Management Deschutes County Emergency Services Jefferson County Emergency Services Klamath County Emergency Services Lane County Emergency Management Linn County Emergency Management Marion County Emergency Management Subject : Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan County Signature sheet Dear County Emergency Manager, Thank you for your participation in the interagency coordination involved to complete the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan. This Coordination Plan is the framework for the Facilitation Committee (FAC) which has been established to maintain preparedness during times of volcanic quiescence and to review plan implementation after an incident has ended. During a period of escalating volcanic unrest, the FAC will support interagency coordination up to the point of establishing an Incident Command System structure. As a final step in completing the plan, we need a formal signature from the designated authority listed for your County on the signing sheet. In the interest of reducing delays and answering questions, we encourage you to work directly through your supervisors and the office of the county authority to secure the appropriate signature on the space provided. Once your county has signed, please forward this cover letter and signature sheet using the enclosed address labels to the remaining county(s). Upon the completion of all signatures, please return the signature sheet to Oregon Emergency Management. And please contact OEM if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jay Wilson Earthquake, Tsunami, and Volcano Programs Coordinator 503-378-2911 x22237 lmwil sc)nna,oem.state.or.us M - 24-08 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan CENTRAL CASCADES VOLCANO COORDINATION PLAN Coordinating Efforts among Governmental Agencies in the Event of Volcanic Unrest in the Central Cascades, Oregon Cover Sheet Prepared by: The Central Cascades Facilitating Committee May 31, 2007 FINAL N- 24-08 T Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan This page intentionally left blank May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan FOREWORD Oregon Emergency Management sincerely appreciates the cooperation and support from the agencies and local jurisdictions that have contributed to the development and publication of the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan. The plan provides vital Central Cascade volcanic event response and recovery information that will greatly enhance the hazard planning efforts of seven counties, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and multiple state and Federal agencies. The Plan supports and complements local response plans, the National Response Plan, the and the Oregon State Emergency Management Plan The Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan is an important element in a coordinated effort to enhance our region's preparedness for emergencies and disasters. This plan embraces the philosophy and vision of a Disaster Resistant and Resilient State and will empower local communities to minimize the impacts of volcanic activity on people, property, the environment and the economy of the Pacific Northwest. Approved by (planned signatories): State Signatories to the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination. Plan Kenneth D. Murphy Director Oregon Emergency Management Raymond F. Rees Major General The Adjutant General Oregon Military Department Vicki S. McConnell State Geologist and Director Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Douglas Tindall Deputy Director, Highway Division Oregon Department of Transportation May 31, 2007 FINAL i M- 214-08 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Local Signatories to the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan ~t4 4L,- Scott R. Cooper Judge Crook County -Mike-A+=n, air, / Ale4y Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Russel E. Burger Sheriff Lane County Dennis Luke, Chair Board of Commissioners Deschutes County John Elliot, Chair Board of Commissioners Klamath County Linn County Board of Commissioners John Lindsey Roger Nyquist Sam Bretano Commissioner Marion County May 31, 2007 FINAL Cliff Wooten iii Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Tribal Signatories to the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation Federal Signatories to the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Cynthia Gardner Scientist in Charge U.S Geological Survey Cascades Volcano Observatory Susan Reinertson Regional Administrator FEMA Region 10 Department of Homeland Security John Allen Forest Supervisor Deschutes National Forest U.S. Forest Service Dallas Emch Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest U.S. Forest Service May 31, 2007 FINAL iv Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Table of Contents FOREWORD AND SIGNATURE SHEETS. ii PURPOSE _ INTRODUCTION VOLCANIC HISTORY and HAZARDS 2 Mount Jefferson 2 Three Sisters 2 Newberry Volcano 6 Fields of Mafic Volcanoes_... 6 Current Unrest at Three Sisters Status of Volcano Monitoring in the Central Oregon Cascades .......9 EFFORTS TO MONITOR VOLCANIC UNREST. 12 Event Notification. 12 Description of Volcano Alert Levels 12 Aviation Color Codes 14 ORGANIZATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 16 Central Cascades Facilitating Committee.......................................... .....16 Interagency Organizations 16 Incident Management--• 17 Incident Command System 18 Unified Command 19 Agency Responsibilities 20 CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS, ----_23 Preparedness Phase,----------------------------------------------- 23 Response Phase 23 Recovery Phase 23 NOTIFICATION LIST FOR CENTRAL CASCADES EVENTS 24 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACCORDING TO LEVELS OF UNREST Following aNotice of Volcanic Advisory -.25 Following a Volcano Watch 26 Following a Volcano Warning 27 PREPAREDNESS AND EDUCATION 28 APPENDIX A: [WHATARE VOLCANO HAZARDS? USGS FACT SHEET] 29 APPENDIX B: AUTHORITIES. ---.30 APPENDIX C: FIELD VOLCANO OBSERVATORY REQUIREMENTS ...................31 APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ......................33 APPENDIX EF: JOINT INFORMATION CENTER PURPOSE and STRUCTURE 35 APPENDIX FG: REFERENCES AND WEB SITES. „ .............................................37 May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan This Page Intentionally Left Blank May 31, 2007 FINAL vi r: Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan PURPOSE The purpose of this plan is to coordinate the actions that various agencies must take to minimize the loss of life and damage to property before, during, and after hazardous geologic events at Central Cascades volcanoes. The plan strives to ensure timely and accurate dissemination of notifications and public information. The plan also includes the necessary legal authorities as well as statements of responsibility of County, State and Federal agencies. INTRODUCTION Volcanoes dominate the skyline in many parts of the Pacific Northwest, although their fiery past is often unrecognized. These familiar snow-clad peaks are part of a 1, 000-mile-long chain of volcanoes, the Cascade Range, which extends from northern California to southern British Columbia. Seven of those volcanoes have erupted since the birth of this nation about 230 years ago. These include Mount Baker, Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood, Mount Shasta, and Lassen Peak. These and many others could erupt again. Many people do not consider the Cascade volcanoes to be hazardous because the time between eruptions is often measured in centuries or millennia, and volcanic activity is not part of our everyday experience. However, the vast destructive power unleashed by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens reminds us of what can happen when they do erupt. As populations increase in the Pacific Northwest, areas near the Cascade volcanoes are being developed and recreational use is expanding. Consequently, more and more people and property are at risk from future volcanic activity. The Central Cascades extends from Mount Jefferson in the north to Diamond Peak in the south. The most active volcanoes in this stretch have been Three Sisters and Newberry. The last eruptive period in the Three Sisters area was 1000-2000 years ago. The most recent eruption (Big Obsidian Flow) in Newberry was 1300 years ago. Recently ground uplift (bulge) and anomalous water chemistry have been recorded west of Three Sisters. Because there are no written chronicles of past major eruptions, most of our information about the Central Cascades past comes from geologic study of deposits produced during those eruptions. We also use observations of recent eruptions at other similar volcanoes around the world to help us understand how future eruptions of the Central Cascades volcanoes may develop and to help delineate areas that are likely to be at risk during future eruptions. The geologically recent history of volcanism in Central Cascades region, the ongoing ground uplift near Three Sisters and increasing growth in the region prompted the development of the Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan by emergency managers from seven counties, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and the State of Oregon, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Forest Service/Willamette and Deschutes (USFS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan VOLCANIC HISTORY AND HAZARDS The Cascade Range in central Oregon, from Mount Jefferson to Diamond Peak, is composed of hundreds of individual volcanoes that lie among the major volcanic centers of Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, and Newberry Volcano. The area has witnessed numerous eruptions during the past 14,000 years (Fig. 1). Some future eruptions will be focused at the long-lived composite volcanoes in these major centers. Composite volcanoes host a wide array of eruption types and sizes over life spans of hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, new mafic (also called basaltic or monogenetic) volcanoes could be born almost anywhere in the range. They produce chiefly lava flows and falls of bombs and cinders near vents and modest amounts of ash or tephra that fall out from eruption clouds farther downwind. Each of the major volcanic centers represents a specific set of eruptive characteristics and history, and each poses a variety of potential hazards from future eruptions (see Appendix A for definitions of terms in bold). The key aspects of each center are summarized below, followed by a discussion of the broad field of mafic volcanoes within which the major centers lie. Past eruptive events help to define zones of potential hazards during future eruptions; these are shown in a volcano-hazard map (Fig. 2). Mount Jefferson Of the 13 volcanic centers in the Cascade Range, Mount Jefferson has been the least active in the recent geologic past. In fact, the volcano has been dormant for more than 15,000 years, but is still considered capable of erupting in the future. Mount Jefferson has hosted large explosive eruptions in the past that blanketed areas near present Lake Billy Chinook with more than I meter (3 feet) of pumice and showered tephra over a broad area of the western United States. Eruptions also generated pyroclastic flows of ash and pumice that moved rapidly down valleys near the volcano and melted snow and ice to form lahars, or volcanic debris flows, that traveled even farther down the Deschutes and North Santiam river valleys. Lahars in the North Santiam valley nearly reached Salem. Past eruptions have also produced lava flows and lava domes, the latter of which can collapse during their growth and produce pyroclastic flows and lahars. The steep upper parts of the volcano could also be susceptible to landslides, or debris avalanches, that could be triggered by renewed volcanic activity. Such avalanches bury valleys near the volcano and can transform to lahars that travel much farther down valley. Unlike other major volcanic centers in central Oregon, all valleys that drain Mount Jefferson contain large reservoirs, Detroit Reservoir on the North Santiam and Lake Billy Chinook on the Deschutes River. If water levels are lowered, such impoundments can provide traps for avalanches and lahars. But, if full, they can compound downstream problems. Large avalanches or lahars that enter full reservoirs can generate waves that overtop dams and cause downstream flooding or endanger the integrity of the dam itself. Three Sisters Unlike other major Cascade volcanic centers, the Three Sisters center contains two young composite volcanoes, South Sister and Middle Sister, rather than one. The third sister, North Sister, and other nearby conspicuous volcanoes such as Mount Bachelor are large mafic volcanoes. Broken Top is a composite volcano that has not erupted for tens of thousands of years. Eruptions about 2000 years ago from vents on South Sister produced conspicuous blocky lava flows, such as Rock Mesa. These eruptions also produced a modest amount of pumice and May 31, 2007 FINAL 2 .L Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan ash that blanketed downwind areas. Probably no more than 1 or 2 centimeters (less than one inch) of ash fell in the area now occupied by Bend. Similar, but larger, eruptions occurred during the last ice age, which ended about 12,000 years ago, and had more widespread effects. Such eruptions occurred from both Middle Sister and South Sister. Three eruptions during the past one-half million years have been significantly larger and produced pyroclastic flows that swept over present-day Bend and Sisters. Fortunately such eruptions are rare-the last one occurred more than 200,000 years ago-and there is no sign that the Three Sisters system is capable of producing such an eruption during our lifetimes. Owing to the prevailing westerly winds in central Oregon, areas east of Three Sisters have the greatest probability of being affected by tephra falls from future eruptions. Eruptions that produce higher eruption clouds and greater volumes of tephra will affect progressively larger areas. Although seldom life threatening, ash fall can greatly disrupt life. Darkness and swirling clouds of ash limit visibility and affect transportation (see "USGS Fact Sheet 027-00, Volcanic Ashfall A "Hard Rain " of Abrasive Particles" in Appendix). If wet, ash creates slippery conditions on roads. Ash is electrically conductive, especially if wet, and abrasive, so it can severely affect electrical and mechanical systems. Ash is also extremely dangerous to aircraft in flight. The three major drainage systems that head in the Three Sisters area are all potentially at risk from lahars during future eruptions (Fig. 2). The location and size of lahars will depend on the site of the eruption and its character. • Separation Creek and White Branch lead to several small communities in the McKenzie valley, including McKenzie Bridge and Blue River, which could be in the paths of lahars flowing westward. Large-volume lahars could reach communities farther west. Oregon Highway 126 and municipal water and hydroelectric facilities could be affected by lahars and excess sediment in the McKenzie. • Broad basins in the upper Deschutes valley, such as those occupied by Sparks, Elk, and Lava lakes, provide traps for lahars and sediment moving south, as do Wickiup and Crane Prairie Reservoirs. • The Sisters area represents the largest concentration of residents and development in a lahar-hazard zone. The city lies less than 30 kilometers (19 miles) downstream from Middle and South Sisters along Whychus Creek. Below Sisters, Whychus Creek flows into a deep canyon and joins the Deschutes River. Eruptions that disrupt watersheds by removing vegetation and adding large quantities of sediment from tephra fall, pyroclastic flows, debris avalanches, and lahars, typically initiate a period of years to decades during which streams carry increased sediment loads and channels become unstable and migrate. Such effects propagate downstream and can disrupt channels and flood plains far from where direct impacts of eruptions end. The Springfield-Eugene area along the lower McKenzie River and Sunriver and Bend along the Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir could be vulnerable to such events in the years following eruptions. Similarly the Tumalo Creek watershed that supplies part of Bend's municipal water, although not likely to be affected directly by volcanic flows, is likely to receive ash fall from any eruption in the Three Sisters area. May 31, 2007 FINAL Rf CL C O E O O U O C U O a~ c0 U U L C N U N.: c V~ c "O c 4 tf u (D .7 U N ro ' Lo ° : ' E N O O A v a i'A y y v v v: c F- tl C U C> U y a c~ t qu m m CL c .c LO) L M in 'Y u lot! i -0 to et V; a q d W u3 oc rc n fi L y 1 yyp O Lv 3 ~o p : 0 O 1 6r y b cC O C T LL V ! a.. : C 7 O m Z t G J ~ ~p N y> V > qq ~ ~pp > E Q F jp F N J~ W J . ~ ----._-----N------------• L Cd N C ~i C C Y S G! y E V D o ' V1 C = N L L 0 n Q3 `lb~ ~o by -d G y N h N = F•' q m°c a d°E~ N ,N A a~ w V ~ w U C O= 0 .2 , 2 ev 2 E L. to L ro C y~421 C l p ~ 'L rLi C C a ro 'c° V i q ~ L 'b u ro j Z C p ' ° m A c qY o MU M o.' p O V 3 ~ N O ~ N O ~ a v lJ ~ ~ N 3 C L V V p ~ c c ' C N 2 A C C N ` C 10 M Z pp C a LA 11 V1 c ~ C~ V 5 YY > C ' OOD Y > C O 10 11~pp " U L) En rA _ qq qq p p L 42 CC O - v ~d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cd Q~ O UN = Y Cd N = L E N G O o E N N ° Y ~ m C ~L U v i In N ca m A c fi y y -p c v y i o N = 3 Y L t v E cE v e acv q> bc= ico aE y u L a~ U F- v mv = v c ~Eo _g ^ E ^ oN ~N 'd O cl N~ evo~ ro6r t y c~ 'Y La 09 n a>~ ' 'Sirs rf ~ H=i n p bD o (Q n • L O r'S y L Q~ cl O c o a O 'O O L L~ y y °c cC 1 N d E c n 13 a m ' ~~3nn C O. O L c A o Nc ' o to C p L y U Q D o a mo Ln o ' I I ~ I I I I L ~ CD C) 0 ° O O W O O O O O O O p D O O O C O O r' Y U N 1G 00 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ s o6e saea k LT. a -C •f :i A 2 3 w W IJ O O v z a `rl . -y V5 fD 0 Cn O w N K O n~ 0 i a w 1].. N O 0 N (IQ o O < w O ? ^7 a N O Cn 0 ~ W 0 ~ 5 S 0 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) n w n w Q. 0 ti 0 w 0 n 0 0 a w r. o' m Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Newberry Volcano Newberry Volcano is among the largest and most voluminous of Cascade volcanoes. Even though it is not of great height, it is very broad. The edifice covers more than 1300 square kilometers (500 square miles). Beyond the edifice, Newberry lava flows cover an additional 700 square kilometers (270 square miles), and reach about 25 kilometers (16 miles) north of Redmond. Hundreds of volcanic vents occur on the flanks of Newberry, many arranged in linear arrays, or rift zones, that extend far down the flanks. The youngest rift-zone eruption occurred about 7,000 years ago. During that time lava flows issued from numerous vents, including Lava Butte, which lies about 22 kilometers (14 miles) from the volcano's summit at the north end of the rift zone. Lava flows from Lava Butte temporarily dammed the Deschutes River and traveled more than 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the butte. Lava fountains and small explosive eruptions that created cinder cones, such as Lava Butte, and downwind blankets of cinders and ash, preceded most lava flows. Potential future eruptions from rift zones on the north flank of Newberry represent the most credible lava-flow threat to a large settled area in the United States outside of Hawai'i. Most of the City of Bend east of the Deschutes River is built on lava flows from Newberry. Lava flows advance relatively slowly compared to rapid flows such as lahars and pyroclastic flows, so they rarely threaten human life. But an advancing lava flow ensures almost total destruction owing to burial and incineration. Once lava begins to flow from a vent, scientists are typically able to forecast which areas downslope are at greatest risk. Newberry has also produced some notable explosive eruptions. Most of these originated from vents located in the broad depression, or caldera, that forms the summit of the volcano. Eruptions as recently as 1300 years ago generated thick tephra falls and pyroclastic flows. Larger events are known in the more distant geologic past at Newberry, including some that transported tephra over broad areas of the western United States and sent pyroclastic flows down the volcano's flanks. The presence of the summit caldera and closed basins within it create conditions favorable for accumulation of heavier-than-air volcanic gases, notably carbon dioxide, which could lead to dangerous conditions were increased emission of gas to occur during volcanic unrest or eruption. Two lakes in the caldera create the possibility of rising magma interacting with water to generate strong explosions that would affect areas in the caldera and on the upper flanks. In addition, one of the lakes, Paulina, drains into Paulina Creek, a tributary of the Little Deschutes River. As has happened in the past, rapid release of water from the lake could produce lahars or floods that inundate the Paulina Prairie area north of La Pine. Fields of Mafic Volcanoes Hundreds of geologically young volcanoes composed of cinders, ash, and lava flows dot the central Oregon landscape among the major volcanic centers. Many, such as Collier Cone on the north flank of Middle Sister, lie near one of the composite volcanoes; others lie far from one. Some are small cones; others, such as Mount Bachelor, are large shield volcanoes that stand more than 1000 meters (3300 feet) above their bases and can be more than 10 kilometers (6 miles) wide. The youngest mafic volcano in the region is Belknap Crater, north of McKenzie Pass, which formed about 1500 years ago. Geologic evidence suggests that the eruptions that May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan formed these features may have lasted for centuries in the case of the largest cones to weeks to months for smaller ones. In some cases, vents in linear chains as long as 10 kilometers (6 miles) were erupting concurrently, or nearly so. Since the last ice age waned, about 12,000 years ago, vents of mafic volcanoes have been concentrated in a narrow zone about 80 kilometers (50 miles) long, extending from south of Mount Bachelor to north of Santiam Junction. A few scattered vents in the area between Davis Lake and Oregon Highway 58 and a few south of Mount Jefferson were also active during this time period. Future eruptions of mafic volcanoes are possible anywhere in the broad central Cascades region, although eruptions are probably more likely to occur in the greater Three Sisters area, judging from the volcanic history of the past 14,000 years. Tephra from eruptions of mafic volcanoes will affect areas chiefly east of the Cascade crest. Tephra falls from ongoing eruptions of mafic volcanoes, which could last months to years or even longer, would represent a chronic nuisance in Deschutes County. Once an eruption begins, ultimate extent of lava flows will depend on vent location, local topography, and the total volume and rate of lava erupted, but scientists will be able to make forecasts about areas at greatest risk. Fortunately most future lava-flow eruptions in the central Cascades will occur away from populated areas. Impacts are more likely to affect forests and stream channels. Less likely to be affected are major highways and power-line corridors. Current Unrest at Three Sisters Since late 1997, a broad dome-shaped area about 20 kilometers (12 miles) in diameter centered 5 kilometers (3 miles) west of South Sister has been slowly rising (Fig. 3). At its center the average rate of uplift was about 3 cm (a little more than 1 inch) per year until 2004, when the rate slackened. Such activity is known from many volcanic areas around the world and is thought to be caused by intrusion of magma, or molten rock, at depth. The anomalous chemical and isotopic composition of spring water in the uplift area is also consistent with magmatic intrusion. However, at least some of the chemical anomalies were first noted in the late 1980s, more than 7 years before the current episode of uplift began. Scientists think that either (1) intrusion similar to the present has occurred episodically in the past, or (2) the current intrusion represents a pronounced increase in rate over a longer-term, much lower rate. In either case, the outcome of the ongoing intrusion is unknown. Possibilities range from the rate of intrusion gradually waning and reappearing at some time in the future, to the ongoing intrusion eventually leading to an eruption. If the system were to head toward eruption, the rate of unrest would increase dramatically and be recorded on monitoring networks, but significant uncertainty would surround forecasts of the location, timing, and scale of activity. The onset of a swarm of hundreds of small earthquakes in March 2004 between South and Middle Sisters suggests that seven years of deformation had progressed to the point where the accumulated strain began causing small amounts of rock breakage or slippage on faults. Since then there have been only a modest number of small earthquakes. The ability to accurately locate the small earthquakes in such swarms is essential if we are to learn more about the character of the intrusion, so efforts are underway to increase the number of seismometers and the effectiveness of the seismic network. Improving the ability to monitor the pattern and rate of uplift or other ground deformation in real time is a more expensive process. It requires May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan installation of a large number of continuous Global Positioning System receivers located throughout the area of uplift and in adjacent areas. Earthquake Swarm at Three Sisters (76 PNSN Located Earthquakes from March 23-25,2004) 44.5" 44.4' 44.3' 44.2' 44.1' 44' 43.9' 43.8' 43.7'- -122.2' -122.1' -122' -121.9' -121.8' -121.7' -121.6' -121.5' -121.4' Figure 3. Area of uplift near Three Sisters from 1997-2002 mapped by satellite radar interferometry (INSAR). Map shows characteristic bull's eye pattern of uplift; each rainbow band corresponds to 28mm (little over one inch) of range change between the ground and satellite. Yellow dots are epicenters of earthquakes of March 2004 swarm located by the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network; all earthquakes were less than magnitude 2. White dots are continuous GPS stations; red triangles are North, Middle, and South Sister; black dashed line is boundary of Three Sisters Wilderness Area; white on black line is Pacific Crest Trail; white lines are geologically recent faults; yellow lines are highways. May 31, 2007 FINAL 8 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Status of Volcano Monitoring in the Central Oregon Cascades Techniques for monitoring active or potentially active volcanoes focus on three areas- earthquakes (seismicity), ground deformation, and volcanic gases. Magma intruding a volcanic system breaks rock and causes slippage on faults, thereby creating earthquakes; it adds material at depth and heats and pressurizes ground water, thereby bowing up the ground surface; and it releases volcanic gases, mainly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Heat and volcanic gases from magma warm and add telltale chemicals to the ground water, which affects the composition of spring water throughout the area. Some monitoring occurs in real-time or near real-time as data are telemetered from field sites to base stations; other monitoring is done on a periodic basis and requires visits to the field or gathering data from satellites. Earthquakes in central Oregon are detected and located in real-time by the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network at the University of Washington, a cooperative undertaking of the university, USGS, and University of Oregon. Compared to areas that have frequent earthquakes, the station spacing in central Oregon is relatively large, so only earthquakes greater than magnitude (M) I or 2 are able to be located routinely. Six stations added in the Three Sisters area since ongoing uplift was recognized in 2001 have reduced the magnitude threshold for location there to about M 0.5 to 1, if all stations are operating. Two additional stations are planned for summer 2007. In addition, a cache of instruments at USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory is available to rapidly augment the existing network should conditions warrant. Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) receivers are able to track ground deformation in real time for a single point on Earth's surface. At present CGPS receivers at Redmond, Mount Bachelor, and two near the center of the ongoing uplift operate in real time. Such a sparse network is of limited use in understanding the complex nature of ground deformation in a volcanic environment. Additional instruments are planned. Broader regional coverage is afforded by periodic USGS surveys (typically annual or every few years; more often if conditions warrant) of an array of benchmarks in the Three Sisters and Newberry areas by temporary deployment of GPS instruments. Both areas also have a system of precisely surveyed lines along roads or trails that are used for tiltleveling, a procedure that is capable of measuring slight crustal movements. Another technique called 1nSAR uses satellite radar data to detect crustal movements over broad areas. It discovered the uplift in the Three Sisters area but has had limited use since, owing to problems with the satellite. Its utility should improve with launch of new satellites. USGS scientists measure output of volcanic gases by airborne surveys. Flights to central Oregon volcanoes are made every few years in order to develop baseline information; additional flights occur as conditions warrant. During times of increased concern, flights could occur as often as atmospheric conditions allow. Annual sampling and chemical and isotopic analysis of spring water from the area permit a broad regional view of how magmatic intrusion is affecting the chemical composition of shallow ground water. By combining the results of these and other techniques and an understanding of a volcano's past behavior, the goal of volcano monitoring is to issue forecasts as accurately as possible about the state of a volcanic system and the probability for the onset of potentially hazardous conditions. May 31, 2007 FINAL Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Once an eruption has begun, monitoring information is used to forecast the character and expected outcome of the eruption, as well as its end. NOTE: The USGS-Cascade Volcano Observatory (CVO) maintains summary volcano information on its public website http://vulcan.wr.usg_s_gov/ Warning time and duration of eruption-long or short? At volcanoes around the world, the amount of warning time between the first appearance of volcanic unrest and the onset of a hazardous eruption has ranged from about one day to several years. At Redoubt Volcano in Alaska, increased steaming was noted in early November 1989; but seismic activity remained low until December 13, about 25 hours before the onset of a major explosive eruption. Three more explosive events on December 15 were followed by six months of dome growth and dome collapse until activity ceased in early summer of 1990. At Soufriere Hills Volcano on the island of Montserrat, British West Indies, the initial seismic unrest in January 1992 preceded the first eruption by three years. The first small steam explosion in July 1995 was followed by the appearance of a lava dome in September of that year. Pyroclastic flows from the growing dome began spilling into surrounding valleys in March 1996, leading to the gradual destruction of Plymouth, the capital city, and surrounding towns and farmland over the next two years. Dome growth and periodic explosions continue at Montserrat today (2007). For a variety of reasons, hazardous magmatic eruptions in the Central Cascades will probably be preceded by weeks or more of unrest. Chief among those reasons is that volcanoes in the Central Cascades have been dormant for more than 1000 years; the conduit system that conveys magma to the surface has solidified and will have to be fractured and reopened for the next magma to reach the surface. In the Cascade Range, two volcanoes have produced magmatic eruptions during the twentieth century. At Mount St. Helens, the climactic eruption of May 18, 1980, was preceded by increased seismicity, ground deformation and steam eruptions that began in late March of that year. But the onset of lava dome-growth in 2004 followed just two weeks of seismicity and intense, localized ground deformation. At Lassen Peak in California, small steam and ash explosions began on June 30, 1914, and continued sporadically for almost a year before the onset of large magmatic eruptions in May 1915. May 31, 2007 FINAL 10 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan References and Additional Reading Decker, R.W., and Decker, B.B., 1991, Mountains of Fire: the Nature of Volcanoes: New York, Cambridge University Press, 198 p. Harris, S.L., 2005, Fire Mountains of the West: the Cascade and Mono Lake Volcanoes: Missoula, Montana, Mountain Press, 454 p. MacLeod, N.S., Sherrod, D.R., Chitwood, L.A., and Jensen, R.A., 1995, Geologic map of Newberry volcano, Deschutes, Klamath, and Lake Counties, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-2455, scales 1:62,500 and 1:24,000. Scott, W.E., Iverson, R.M., Schilling, S.P., and Fisher, B.J., 1999, Volcano hazards in the Three Sisters region, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-437, 14 p., scale 1:167,000. Sherrod, D.R., Mastin, L.G., Scott, W.E., and Schilling, S.P., 1997, Volcano hazards at Newberry volcano, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-513, 14 p., scale 1:100,000. Sherrod, D.R., Taylor, E.M., Ferns, M.L., Scott, W.E., Conrey, R.M., and Smith, G.A., 2004, Geologic map of the Bend 30- x 60-minute quadrangle, central Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Map I-2683, scale 1:100,000, 48-page pamphlet. Walder, J.S., Gardner, C.A., Conrey, R.M., Fisher, B.J., and Schilling, S.P., 1999, Volcano hazards in the Mount Jefferson region, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-24, 14 p., two plates, scale 1:100,000. Internet Resources Pacific Northwest Seismic Network http://www.ess.washington.edu/recenteqs/latest.htm Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program http://www.voicano.si.edu/ USGS Volcano Hazards Program http://voIcanoes.usgs.gov/ Volcanic ash-what it can do and how to prevent damage http://voicanoes.usgs. ovg /ash/ Volcanic ashfall-how to be prepared for an ashfall f http://emd.wa.gov/5-prog/prgms/eq-tsunami/vol-ash-english.pd May 31, 2007 FINAL 1 I Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan EFFORTS TO MONITOR VOLCANIC UNREST In response to developing volcanic unrest in the Central Cascades, a USGS response team expects to: 1. Establish a temporary volcano observatory with the USFS and USGS, most likely at Willamette and/or Deschutes National Forest headquarters in Eugene and Bend, respectively, with best location as determined by the event. The observatory will maintain close contact with emergency managers and will be sited to allow efficient daily helicopter access to the volcano. The primary function of the USGS response team is to monitor all volcanic developments and to provide eruption-forecasting and hazard- assessment information to support decisions by public officials. 2. Install additional monitoring instruments to collect and analyze visual, seismic, lahar- detection, deformation, and gas-emission data. As an important element of redundancy, critical seismic data will be received and analyzed at the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network at the University of Washington, the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory, and the local temporary volcano observatory. Event Notification In 2006 the USGS adopted a single system for characterizing the level of hazardous activity at U.S. volcanoes. The system is a means to communicate the status of a volcano in a clear, direct form to non-volcanologists and to prompt people and organizations potentially at risk to seek further information or to decide upon mitigation measures. The system employs a set of general terms, the latter two of which, Watch and Warning, are used in a manner similar to that used by the National Weather Service for hazardous meteorological phenomena and thus familiar to emergency managers and the public. As part of the system, color codes (described in a later section) are used to provide quick information about volcanic-ash hazards to the aviation sector. They are part of an integrated worldwide warning system that follows procedures sanctioned by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and that in the United States involves the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Weather Service (NWS). Description of Volcano Alert Levels The USGS ranks the alert level at a U.S. volcano using the terms Normal, Advisory, Watch, and Warning (table 1). These levels reflect conditions at the volcano and the expected or ongoing hazards. Assigning an alert level depends upon monitoring data and interpretation of changing phenomena. Alert levels are not always followed sequentially and escalate or de- escalate depending on volcanic behavior. Volcano-alert notices are accompanied by explanatory text to give fuller explanation of the observed phenomena and to clarify hazard implications to affected groups. Updates that describe the ongoing activity are issued on a regular basis, at increasing frequency at higher activity levels. May 31, 2007 FINAL 12 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Volcanic events are different enough that it is not possible to predetermine a detailed set of geophysical and geochemical criteria for each level that would be applicable universally. The alert-level definitions are guidelines for scientists to use to gauge the level of hazardous activity and for public officials and the public to consider when deciding what actions they need to take. Note that Watch is used for both heightened precursory unrest and for minor eruptive activity because both states bear close watching but do not have immediate, major hazardous effects. Because the size, style, and reach of eruptions can vary substantially, a higher level (Warning) is needed to highlight very hazardous eruptive activity. Normal: Typical background activity of a volcano in a noneruptive stale This level applies to inactive, non-erupting volcanoes, with allowance for periods of increased steaming, seismic events, deformation, thermal anomalies, or detectable levels of degassing as long as such activity is within the range of typical non-eruptive phenomena seen at a volcano during its monitoring history (or at similar types of volcanoes). Advisory: Elevated unrest above known background activity This level is declared when a volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest above known background levels. Progression toward eruption is by no means certain. After a change from a higher level, Advisory means that volcanic activity has decreased significantly but continues to be closely monitored for possible renewed increase. Watch: Heightened or escalating unrest with potential for eruptive activity OR a minor eruption underway that poses limited hazards This level is declared for two situations: (1) when a volcano is exhibiting heightened or escalating unrest with potential for eruptive activity (not necessarily imminent) or (2) when a minor eruption is underway with limited hazardous impact. When changing from Advisory, this level implies increased potential for an eruption (timeframe variable). When changing from Warning, this level signifies that the volcano is still showing signs of heightened activity that may lead to renewed highly hazardous activity or that the volcano has settled into minor eruptive activity with limited hazards. Warning: Major or highly hazardous eruption underway or imminent This level is declared by the USGS when a major or highly hazardous eruption appears to be imminent or is confirmed or suspected to be underway. Owing to remoteness or poor weather conditions, some eruptions may not be confirmed visually or by satellite imagery, but ground-based monitoring data may strongly suggest that eruptive activity is occurring; in such cases, the accompanying information will say that a "suspected" rather than a "confirmed" eruption is underway. Accompanying information will indicate in as much detail as possible the eruption's time of onset, duration, size, intensity or explosivity, and impact on the landscape and atmosphere. When the major eruptive period ends or settles into milder, less hazardous activity, the level is downgraded. May 31, 2007 FINAL 13 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Information Statement: Notable event at a volcano, not necessarily eruptive Phenomena such as prominent steam plumes, small avalanches and rock falls, minor mudflows, changes in appearance of a lake in a volcanic crater, and minor seismic activity may occur while a volcano is at a Normal level. Most such events are short-lived and lack recognizable precursors and do not necessarily suggest volcanic unrest or major flank instability that would warrant a crisis response. However, owing to public and media inquiries that often result from a notable event, the USGS along with other involved agencies will attempt to verify the nature and extent of the event and issue explanations in the form of an Information Statement. An Information Statement also may be issued periodically to provide commentary about a significant event or change occurring within higher alert levels. Aviation Color Codes Eruptions threaten aviation safety when plumes of volcanic ash are explosively erupted and disperse as airborne clouds in flight paths of jet aircraft. Numerous instances of aircraft flying into volcanic-ash clouds have demonstrated both the economic costs and life-threatening potential of this hazard. The accepted mitigation strategy is to avoid encounters of aircraft with ash clouds, which requires that pilots, dispatchers, and air-traffic controllers quickly learn of occurrences of explosive eruptions and the whereabouts of airborne ash clouds globally. For the aviation sector, in accord with recommended ICAO procedures, the USGS issues color- coded activity levels - Green, Yellow, Orange, and Red - focused on ash hazards (table 2). Color-codes are especially suitable for the aviation sector because pilots, dispatchers, and air- traffic controllers planning or executing flights over broad regions of the globe quickly need to ascertain the status of numerous volcanoes and determine if continued attention, re-routing, or extra fuel is warranted. As with the Watch term, Orange is used for both heightened precursory unrest and minor eruptive activity, and there are two levels (Orange and Red) to cover the range of eruption size and impact. All Volcano Advisories, Watches, and Warnings will include the "Aviation Color Code," clearly identified as such to differentiate it from other hazard statements. In most cases, the term and aviation-specific color code will move together (e.g., Normal and Green; Advisory and Yellow; Watch and Orange; Warning and Red). However, there may be occasions when activity at a volcano poses a hazard to the aviation sector that is significantly lower than hazards posed to ground-based communities. In those cases, the aviation color code will be lower than what is normally associated with the alert term. An example is a large lava flow heading towards a town (Volcano Warning in effect) that is unlikely to produce any ash in flight routes or near an airport (Aviation Color Code Orange). Conversely, an ash plume that does not yield significant ash fall onto ground communities but does drift into air routes might warrant a Volcano Watch and Aviation Color Code Red. May 31, 2007 FINAL 14 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Table 1. VOLCANO ALERT LEVELS NORMAL Volcano is in typical background, noneruptive state or, after a change from a higher level, volcanic activity has ceased and volcano has returned to noneru tive background state. Volcano is exhibiting signs of elevated unrest above known background level ADVISORY or, after a change from a higher level, volcanic activityhas decreased significantly, but continues to be closely monitored for possible renewed increase. Volcano is exhibiting heightened or escalating unrest with increased potential of eruption, WATCH timeframe uncertain, OR eruption is underway but poses limited hazards. WARNING Hazardous eruption is imminent, underway, or suspected. May 31, 2007 FINAL 15 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES CENTRAL CASCADES FACILITATING COMMITTEE (FAC) The FAC has been established to maintain preparedness during times of volcanic quiescence and to review plan implementation after an incident has ended. It is composed of members from each jurisdiction with statutory responsibility for emergency response (Table 3). Additional agencies (Associate Members in Table 3) may also attend meetings of the FAC. The FAC may be called together by any member who identifies a need for coordinated discussions. The FAC will be responsible for maintaining the plan, including exercises, as needed. Oregon Emergency Management has the responsibility to assemble the FAC for an annual review of this plan. Although agencies represented on the FAC will be involved in management of volcanic incidents in the Central Cascades, the FAC itself does not have a response role. Onset of volcanic activity will trigger FAC notification and a conference call among members. [Table 3. FAC Membershinl Members shall include Associate Members may include Crook County Emergency Services Oregon State Parks Deschutes County Emergency Services Public Health Alert Network Jefferson County Emergency Services Department of Environmental Klamath County Emergency Services Quality Lane County Emergency Services Other concerned jurisdictions, Linn County Emergency Services agencies and/or organizations Marion County Emergency Services Oregon Emergency Management Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Military Department Oregon State Police Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Forest Service/Willamette U.S. Forest Service/Deschutes DHS/FEMA Region X Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs May 31, 2007 FINAL 16 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan TRANSITION FROM THE FAC TO INCIDENT COMMAND The FAC will recommend to the affected agencies and Oregon OEM that an Incident Command organization be established if the level of volcanic activity goes beyond the mission or capabilities of the FAC (Fig 4). The determination to activate an Incident Command organization for a volcanic incident in the Central Cascades will terminate FAC activities until after-action activities at the close of the recovery phase. HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO OF UNREST AND ERUPTION Aviation Gr"n color code - Volcano- alert level Normal Advisory Watch Warning i Unrest ! 1 I recognized I Ir ZX Information i I I statements Frequent Frequent released updates updates y Eruption Increasing volcanic unrest FAC Unified Command confers established Figure 4. INCIDENT MANAGEMENT Interagency Organizations The overriding principle in a volcanic emergency is that preservation of human life takes precedence over protection of property. Federal, State and/or local jurisdictional authorities max protect life and property by, among other actions, closing high-risk areas to public access, or - evacuating local residents from hazard zones. During a response, each agency and organization will provide resources and administrative support, and will conduct operations within an Incident Command System (ICS) structure. Interagency operations will be conducted under a Unified Command structure. County emergency management agencies, Oregon Emergency Management (OEM), and the US Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have primary responsibilities for coordinating local, regional, State and Federal responses, respectively. The responsibilities of local, State and Federal agencies are summarized in Table 4. The authorities under which these agencies operate are described in Appendix C. May 31, 2007 FINAL 17 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Table 4. Responsibilities and contact information for members of the Central Cascades FAC Jurisdiction and Responsibilities Contact Information (phone) LOCAL GOVERNMENT Crook County 541-447-6398 Local jurisdictions are responsible for the overall Deschutes County 541-617-3303 direction and control of emergency activities Jefferson County 541-475-6520 undertaken within their jurisdictions. Each County Klamath County 541-883-5130 x215 may activate their emergency operations center. Lane County 541-682-6744 Linn County 541-967-3950 Marion County 503-365-3133 STATE GOVERNMENT Oregon Emergency Management The Governor, the Governor's cabinet, composed of Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) Salem Directors of State agencies or their representatives, and 503-378-2911 staff from the State Emergency Management Agency, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries are responsible for the conduct of emergency functions (DOGAMI) Portland, OR 971-673-1555 and will exercise overall direction and control of state government operations Oregon Military Department FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Region 10, (FEMA; part of DHS) is responsible for federal agency Bothell, WA coordination and operations of the Regional Response 425-487-4600 Coordination Center(RRCC) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will conduct field operations and monitoring, and provide information U.S. Geological Survey regarding the status of the volcano. The USGS may Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, WA, locate with the USFS or with an appropriate county. 360-993-8973 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is responsible for U.S. Forest Service management of lands within the Deschutes and Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR 541-383-5300 Willamette National Forests. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR 541-225-6300 SOVEREIGN TRIBAL NATIONS Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 541-553-1634 Incident Command System A volcano-related incident demands coordinated response. The Incident Command System (ICS) shall be used to establish incident goals, priorities, and strategies, to coordinate incident resource management, and to provide incident support for eruptions, lahars, or other significant volcanic events. The Incident Commander will provide initial strategic guidance and decisions on emergency needs until a Unified Command organization can be established (see next section). S/he has ultimate responsibility for management of assigned resources to effectively accomplish stated objectives and strategies pertaining to a volcanic event in the Central Cascades. In the event of a volcanic eruption or if the prediction of an eruption is eminent, the Incident Command organization will function most effectively as a unified command with more than one Incident Commander serving multiple agencies. The Incident Commander will have key positions filled as soon as possible to meet known and projected incident needs. May 31, 2007 FINAL 18 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan Unified Command Unified Command is a multi-agency expansion of the Command function of ICS, allowing principal agencies with geographic, functional, and/or statutory responsibility to establish common incident strategy, objectives, and priorities. This process does not remove agency authority, responsibility, or accountability. As any volcanic event requiring activation of an ICS organization will involve multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and potential incident management complexities, a Unified Command organization shall be established as soon as possible. For a volcanic incident in the Central Cascades, Unified Command will likely comprise USGS, USFS, FEMA, affected local jurisdictions, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. The location of the Unified Command Incident Command Post (ICP) will depend on which volcano is active and on what flank. Possible locations could be the USFS facilities in Bend or Eugene. CENTRAL CASCADES VOLCANO COORDINATION PLAN INCIDENT COMMAND ORGANIZATION for a POTENTIAL or IMMENENT ERUPTION Willamette Valley IMT Unified Command USFS Willamette N.F. Lane County Linn County Marion County Central Oregon IMT Unified Command I USFS Deschutes N.F. Deschutes Jefferson County Klamath County Crook County Cooperating Agencies that may be part of Unified/Area Command.- (Multiple-Agency Coordination Center: MACC) Oregon Emergency Management Oregon Department of Transportation Oregon Military Department Oregon State Police Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries U.S. Geological Survey DHS/FEMA Region X Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs May 31, 2007 FINAL 19 Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) r` Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES Local Divisions or Departments of Emergency Management Information about the status of a volcano would normally be transmitted from the USGS through Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) to county Emergency Management agencies (DEMs). The DEMs would then relay the information to local jurisdictions and agencies. As needed, the county DEMs would: a) Implement Emergency Operations Plans, maintain and activate Emergency Operations Centers (EOC). b) Provide local public warnings and information. c) Activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS). d) Assist Incident Commander(s). e) Participate in establishing a unified command structure. f) Support a regional coordination center. g) Provide Public Information Officer(s) (PIOs) Information Office Field Representative (IOFR) for a Joint Information Center (JIC.) h) Assist the USGS in establishing a temporary volcano observatory. i) Provide for the welfare of citizens affected by a volcanic event. j) Initiate and coordinate local declarations of emergency or requests for assistance from mutual aid partners, state and/or federal resources. k) Implement response and recovery plans in their jurisdiction. 1) Provide information and training on volcano-hazard response to emergency workers and the public. m) Assess volcanic risks as part of a comprehensive Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Analysis. State Emergency Management: OEM Oregon Emergency Management (OEM), through its 24-hour Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS), is responsible for providing alert and warning to local jurisdictions within the state. Additionally, OEM/OERS will notify specific state and federal agencies that have a response role during a volcanic event. OEM would then work with other entities in order to coordinate resources to support local and state agency response. OEM's responsibilities in support of this plan include: a) Coordinating the acquisition and distribution of resources to support response. b) Developing plans and procedures. c) Acting as the central point of contact for local government requests for specific State and Federal disaster related assets and services. d) Activating and staffing the State Emergency Coordination Center (ECC) /Emergency Operations Center (EOC). e) Supporting EAS activations by local jurisdictions as necessary by serving as a backup activation point. f) Supporting DOGAMI public information efforts. g) Coordinating with the Federal government on supplemental disaster assistance necessary to preserve life and property, and on recovery assistance. h) Activating, if necessary, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) for interstate assistance. May 31, 2007 FINAL 20 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan i) Deploying County Liaison Officers to affected jurisdictions. j) Calling the yearly meeting of the FAC to review and update this plan. U. S. Geological Survey The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (PL 93-288) assigns to the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) the responsibility of providing timely warnings of volcanic eruptions and related activity. This responsibility is achieved by monitoring active and potentially active volcanoes, assessing their hazards, responding to crises, and conducting research on how volcanoes work. More specifically, these activities include: a) Issuing timely warnings of potential geologic hazards to responsible emergency management authorities and to the populace affected via the media and the CVO web site. b) Monitoring volcanic unrest, tracking its development, forecasting eruptions, and evaluating the likely hazards. c) Deploying staff and monitoring equipment during times of volcanic activity. d) Establishing a temporary volcano observatory located so as to provide ready access to the volcano for the USGS hazard-assessment team and ready access to the hazard-assessment team for technical assistance to the emergency managers and the JIC. (See Appendix D for temporary volcano observatory requirements.) U. S. Forest Service The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages public lands on and around the Central Cascades volcanoes. Authorities include land management responsibilities related to use, management and protection of these lands. Roles and responsibilities during a disaster or emergency include protection of life, property and natural forest resources on USFS-managed lands. Control of access and use of national forest lands is regulated by the USFS in coordination with adjoining landowners and agencies. USFS responsibilities include: a) Restricting access to hazard areas within the Willamette and/or Deschutes National Forests b) Providing for employee and National Forest visitor safety c) Coordinating with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on road closures d) Providing facility for USGS and staff in a location appropriate to the event e) Providing Public Information Officer(s) (PIOs) for a Joint Information Center (JIC.) f) Other activities necessary based on volcanic conditions Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) roles and responsibilities during a disaster are governed by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act, as amended, 42 USC 5121, et seq., and the National Response Plan (FRP) of Public Law 93-288, as amended. The primary disaster relief responsibility of FEMA is to coordinate and deliver assistance and support to state and local governments when requested. This is typically through the Governor as a Request for a Presidential Disaster Declaration. A volcanic eruption would be handled in much the same way as any other natural disaster. FEMA's responsibilities include: a) Monitoring situations with the potential for widespread impacts. May 31, 2007 FINAL 21 /0 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan b) Coordinating Federal level emergency planning, management, mitigation and assistance functions of Federal agencies in support of State and local efforts. c) Providing and maintaining the Federal and State National Warning System (NA WAS). d) Providing liaison staff to the Unified Command organization and the State ECC. e) Following a Presidential Disaster Declaration: 1. Establishing a Joint Field Office. 2. Coordinating public information activities for all federal agencies and disseminating releases to the news media. 3. Coordinating state requests for Federal or military assistance. 4. Coordinating Federal Assistance operations and programs. How to cope--Logistical problems during volcanic crises Volcanic crises pose problems to communities that may not exist during other types of catastrophes. Below are two problems that are inherent in volcanic crises. Appendix G lists some publications describing case studies. Uncertainty: Once a volcano shows signs of life, it is not clear whether or when it could produce a major hazardous eruption. In 1975, Mount Baker, Washington, increased the steam output from its summit crater for a few months, and then subsided with no indication of magma movement. Popocatepetl Volcano near Mexico City has periodically threatened nearby communities since 1993, causing nearby villagers to evacuate more than once, only to return after large eruptions fail to take place. At St. Pierre in Martinique (French West Indies), local authorities in 1902 opted not to evacuate in spite of four months of seismicity and steam explosions at Mont Pelee, five miles to the north. On May 8, a major eruption produced a pyroclastic flow that destroyed the town and killed 29,000 residents. In 1982, in response to earthquake swarms and uplift at Long Valley, California, the USGS issued a notice of potential volcanic hazard. Activity subsided and the USGS was branded the "U.S. Guessing Society" by local residents. Authorities in these circumstances are generally in a "no-win" situation. Their best hope of maintaining public trust is to convey the uncertainty inherent in volcanic crises, and to maintain extremely close and open relations with community leaders. Controlling access: During the crisis at Mount St. Helens in March and April, 1980, volcano-watchers would bypass road blocks to view the volcano, stage illegal climbs to the summit, even land helicopters at the summit to film advertisements. The difficulty in controlling access to the mountain was compounded by the checkerboard pattern of public and private land ownership, and the network of logging roads. Unlike at Mount St. Helens, access control around Central Cascades volcanoes could necessitate traffic restrictions on major regional thoroughfares, such as state highways 22, 126, 58, 242, and U.S. routes 20 and 97. May 31, 2007 FINAL 22 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS This plan is based on the premise that each agency with responsibility for preparedness, response or recovery activities has, or will develop, an operations plan or Standard Operating Guidelines that cover its organization and emergency operations. Since the Central Cascades are located within the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests, under the management of the USFS, the Forest Supervisors for the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests are the officials responsible for managing the lands surrounding the Central Cascades, including during times of emergency. The USFS practices coordinated management of incidents with surrounding landowners and expects to do so in a volcanic event as well, consistent with the Unified Command discussion above. This plan establishes a mechanism for coordination of each agency's efforts. The Concept of Operations can be defined with respect to the three phases of a volcanic emergency: (1) preparedness (2) response and (3) recovery. PREPAREDNESS PHASE (When volcanoes are in repose) Members of the FAC shall prepare emergency plans and programs to ensure continuous readiness and response capabilities. The FAC shall meet yearly to: 1. Coordinate, write, revise, and exercise this plan 2. Develop and evaluate alert and warning capabilities for the volcanic hazard risk areas 3. Review public education and awareness requirements and implement an outreach program on volcano hazards. RESPONSE PHASE Members of the FAC shall: 1. Confer whenever any member deems it necessary. 2. Share information on the current activity of Central Cascades volcanoes and coordinate data relating to hazard assessment, evaluation and analysis. 3. Coordinate any needed public information and/or establish a JIC for this purpose. 4. Assess the need for ICS organizations and recommend activation if necessary. RECOVERY PHASE Member of the FAC shall: Conduct an After Action Review of the event and make changes to this plan as necessary. May 31, 2007 FINAL 23 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan NOTIFICATION LIST FOR CENTRAL CASCADES EVENTS • USGS o USFS o FEMA o Oregon ECC o Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Seattle and Portland Offices o NWS Offices in Portland, Pendleton, and Medford • USFS o Internal Notifications (Special Agent, Unit Managers) o Northwest Interagency Coordination Center (NWCC) o Central Oregon Interagency Dispatch o Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs o National Weather Service (NWS) Portland o US Army Corps of Engineers (Portland District) o Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) o Bureau of Reclamation o Others as appropriate, such as special use permittees, recreation residence permittees, recreation site concessionaires, o Eugene Water and Electric o Pacific Gas and Electric o Midstate Power o Pacific Power o Central Oregon Fire Management o Irrigation Districts • State EOCs o State agencies o Counties o FEMA Region 10 o Neighboring states o Others as appropriate • County EOCs o Internal agencies as appropriate o Cities o Others as appropriate • Joint Information Center (JIC) o Media (following coordination among the FAC members) o Others as appropriate May 31, 2007 FINAL 24 V Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACCORDING TO LEVELS OF UNREST Following are the suggested responsibilities and tasks of jurisdictions and agencies at the various volcano alert levels. A. FOLLOWING A VOLCANO ADVISORY. 1. Local jurisdictions and agencies: • Convene the FAC • Review plans and procedures for response to the volcanic hazard threat. • Designate staff that will be responsible for filling positions in the local ICS and/car Unified Command Structure as requested, including a JIC. • Provide orientation sessions on current plans and organizational structure. • Update call-up procedures and listings for response staff. • Conduct briefings as needed. 2. Oregon OEM • Convene the FAC • Review internal plans and procedures • Implement notifications. • Provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions. • Coordinate with Emergency Support Function agencies that may be called upon to provide assistance. • Coordinate mutual aid agreements with neighboring states. • Evaluate the need for assistance from additional agencies. • Evaluate resource requirements. • Issue advisories and state-level policies in consultation with the FAC. • Conduct hazard specific training. • Conduct briefings as necessary. 3. USGS • Convene the FAC. • Monitor the status of the volcano and determine the need for additional instrumentation and/or other resources. • Issue alert-level notifications and updates. • Consider establishing a temporary field observatory. • Conduct briefings as necessary. 4. USFS • Convene the FAC • Provide public information and education • Evaluate need for access control and implement as needed. • Evaluate the need for air space controls and implement as needed. • Authorize placement of additional instrumentation as needed. May 31, 2007 FINAL 25 i Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan 5. FAC • Discuss and evaluate developing events and information. • Review this plan. • Disseminate public information. • Consider recommending the USFS implement an Incident Command System organization. .B. FOLLOWING A VOLCANO WATCH 1. Local jurisdictions and agencies: • Establish local Incident Command organization which will be Unified Command with other jurisdictions. • Conduct surveys on resource availability and reaffirm prior commitments. • Test communications systems and assess communications needs. • Begin procurement of needed resources. • Assign IOFR's to the JIC as needed. • Provide briefings and direction to all response personnel. • Request all assigned personnel to stand by for orders to activate the jurisdiction's emergency plan. • Coordinate support requirements for USGS field observatory. • Take readiness and precautionary actions to compress response time and to safeguard lives, equipment and supplies. 2. Oregon OEM • Implement plans for state level communications support for the affected area. • Coordinate joint public education programs. • Increase, as needed, the staffing at the ECC. • Establish a Joint Information Center (JIC) and support local government with IOFR information • Ensure state agencies are alerted to potential problems and review their operational responsibilities. • Assign liaison(s) to local Incident Command and/or Unified Command organization upon request. 3. USGS • Establish field observatory if not already established. 4. USFS • Provide space for the Unified Command structure. (Facilities for Unified Command structure will be "off-site" from the event and in all likelihood in a city or municipality. If the intent is for the USFS to take care of this fiscally, let's say that, other wise any jurisdiction can provide this as deemed appropriate by the incident.) • Identify staff to support Unified Command structure. May 31, 2007 FINAL 26 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan 5. FAC • Consider recommending USFS implement an Incident Command System organization if not already established. • Consider requesting the participation of the Mobilization Incident Commander (MIC) of the Incident Management Team (1MT). C. FOLLOWING A VOLCANO WARNING: 1. Local jurisdictions and agencies: • Fully mobilize a local Unified Incident Management Organization that has been pre-identified with emphasis on IOFR and Planning Section Chief (PSC) personnel. All assigned personnel and activate all or part of the Central Cascades Coordination Plan. • Activate Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans. • Continually broadcast emergency public information. • Coordinate emergency response activities in each jurisdiction in accordance with Unified Command procedures. • Ensure Incident Command Post (ICP) is adequately staffed and equipped. • Consider requesting state mobilization and possible activation of an IMT. 2. Oregon OEM • Activate the State of Oregon Emergency Management Plan (Volume ll Emergency Operations Plan) • Coordinate interstate mutual aid. • Coordinate Federal response. 3. USGS • Monitor status of volcanic activity in the hazard area. • Issue alert-level notifications and updates. • Provide Liaison to the Unified Command Structure to provide on-going information and advice. 4. USFS Implement plans to participate directly in the following coordinated response operations within the affected areas: • Fire • Evacuation • Security • Access Control • Search and Rescue • Alert and Notification • Provide personnel for Unified Command Structure • Support operations, logistics and planning functions with personnel and resources. May 31, 2007 FINAL 27 .1 Central Cascades Volcano Coordination Plan 5. FEMA Activate the National Response Plan. Administer disaster relief programs following declaration of Emergency or Major Disaster by the President. Coordinate Federal response efforts. 6. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Issue airspace alert warning of restricted or prohibited space. Coordinate use of affected airspace by aircraft involved in emergency response. PREPAREDNESS AND EDUCATION No living person in the Northwest has experienced an eruption in the Central Cascades; nor has any local official or scientist yet dealt with significant levels of activity at these volcanoes. When renewed volcanic activity strikes, it is vital that public officials and citizens alike know what actions to take to protect life and property. Of great importance is the need for emergency managers, local officials and scientists to be familiar and comfortable with their roles in the event of volcanic unrest. Development of specific plans like this one is only a first step. The plan must be reviewed regularly and revised to meet the changing needs of the region's rapidly growing communities and increased recreation usage. Although a volcanic eruption in the Cascades may be a once-in-a-lifetime event, those individuals charged with public safety must train themselves and their organizations through exercising the plan in order to ensure that coordination will be smooth and seamless. Residents of central Oregon will be able to receive information provided in partnership by the USGS and government agencies. The goals of this effort will be educating citizens, public officials and businesses on and around the Central Cascades of the hazards, vulnerabilities and preparedness steps associated with the volcano. May 31, 2007 FINAL 28 Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX A: What Are Volcano Hazards Selection from U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 002-97 h!V://r)ubs.usgs.o-ov/fs/fs002-97/ DEFINITIONS Lava Flows and Domes ".r, (T°on'°) F° Lava is molten rock that flows onto the earth's surface. Acld Rain Lava Lava flows move downslope away from a vent and bury or burn everything in their paths. Lava domes form when lava piles up over a vent. Pyroclastic Flows Volcanoes produce a wide variety of natural Pyroclastie flows are high- hazards that can kill speed avalanches of hot rock, people and destroy r-c►° gas, and ash that are formed by property. the collapse of lava domes or eruption columns. They can This simplified sketch move up to 100 miles per hour shows a volcano and have temperatures up to typical of those found 1500°F. They are lethal, in the Western United burning, burying, or States and Alaska but asphyxiating all in their paths. , many of these Te hra hazards also pose Explosive eruptions blast lava fragments (tephra) and gas into risks at other the air. Tephra can also be carried aloft in billowing ash clouds volcanoes, such as above pyroclastic flows. Large fragments fall to the ground those in Hawaii. close to the volcano, but smaller fragments (ash) can travel hundreds to thousands of miles downwind. Some hazards, such as lahars and Debris Avalanches and Lahars landslides, can occur even when a volcano Debris avalanches are rapid landslides of rock, soil and is not erupting. overlying vegetation, snow or ice. Lahars are fast-moving slurries of rock, mud, and water that move down river valley. Lahars form when pyroclastic flows melt snow or ice, or by the mobilization of loose debris on the flanks of volcanoes. Both lahars and debris avalanches can bury, move, or smash object; in their path. May 31, 2007 FINAL 29 Appendix A Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX B: AUTHORITIES Federal - United States Public Law 93-288 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 as amended Public Law 920 Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 as amended Public Law 96-342 The Improved Civil Defense Act of 1980 Public Law 84-99 Flood control and Coastal Emergencies Federal Response Plan 1999 Flood Control Act of 1950 Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958 Federal Energy Regulation Commission Order 122 USFS Incident Management Team Delegation of Authority Letter State of Oregon Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 401 Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 104 Oregon Emergency Management Plan, Volume Il , 2001 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) Local Government Each of the counties has established authorities governing emergency management and operations. May 31, 2007 FINAL 30 Appendix B Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX C: FIELD VOLCANO OBSERVATORY REQUIREMENTS The following is a rough guide to USGS requirements for a field observatory in, or close to, an established EOC. There is flexibility in these requirements. For example, if necessary, the USGS could set up operations in a temporary structure (e.g., trailer in the parking lot) if government owned or leased office space is not available. The bottom line is: The USGS can probably adapt to most situations, especially for the first few weeks of an incident. If an Incident/Unified Command structure has been established, USGS staff would work with the Logistics Section for facilities, supplies, and other support needed to establish a field observatory. Space Requirements: Space requirements can be separated into 5 areas; (1) Roof or tower space for mounting radio communications antennas; (2) an "operations" room that would be the focus of the real-time monitoring activities and coordination of field work; (3) an area where staff could set up desks and computers for data analysis, preparations for field activities, and hold staff meetings; (4) storage space for items such as batteries, spare parts and helicopter sling equipment; and (5) a media area separate from the other work areas. 1) Antennas: Real-time data from the volcano will be radio-telemetered to our field observatory. We will need space to mount approximately ten (10) yagi antennas, with a minimum of 4 feet separation between antennas. Line-of-sight access to the volcano is necessary as well as being within 100-foot proximity of the Operations room. 2) Operations Room: Approximately 300 sq. ft of space required. All data are funneled into the Operation room for coordination and display. Voice radios for communication with field crews as well as telephones for both voice and data are necessary in the Operations room. Space requirements should also take into account that it will be available to the media for photo opportunities and backdrops for interviews during slow periods of activity. 3) StaffOfficeArea: Approximately 400 sq. ft. of space required. Staff will use this area not only for office functions but also to store limited field supplies, rock samples, equipment, etc. The Staff area should be sufficiently large so as to contain some chairs, desks, tables and still have room to hold a meeting of 15-20 people. Close proximity to Operations Room desirable and phones desirable. 4) Storage Space: Approximately 300 sq. ft. of space required. A secure area for field equipment, supplies (batteries, concrete mix, water jugs, spare parts, etc.) and materials that is separate from the Operations Room and Staff Office Area. This could be commercial leased space but would need to be in close proximity to Operations. 5) Media Area: It is anticipated that a suitable media briefing area at the proximal EOC will already be in place. If none exists, the more physically separated from the Operations and Staff offices, the better. May 31, 2007 FINAL 31 Appendix C Central Cascades Coordination Plan Communication requirements: Six (6) standard voice phone lines (1 for fax, 2 `hot' lines, 1 for recorded volcano information, and 2 for normal use) Two (2) standard lines for data communications. Either dial-up access to the USGS computer network or remote colleagues dialing into the temporary observatory's computer network. Concurrent with setting up the observatory, USGS will negotiate the installation of a dedicated relatively high-speed data link between the observatory and the nearest Department of Interior facility. Power requirements: Observatory equipment does not draw large current loads, but does require reliable power. Approximately 15 computers (approx. 5kW), Doppler radar (I kW), plus radio and other equipment will be supported. If reliable commercial AC power is not available, it will be necessary to obtain an emergency generator and quality uninterruptible power supply(s) (UPS) Doppler radar: Doppler radar may be deployed to support operations. It requires a 6' x 6' secure roof area capable of supporting about 300 lbs. Line-of-sight access to the volcano is essential for proper operation of the system. Ideally, the radar would be located within a few hundred feet of the Operations room. The radar requires about 1 kw of power. Parking: Workers will travel frequently between the volcano, a local heli-pad, motel rooms, etc. Convenient parking for 8-10 vehicles will support efficient operations. May 31, 2007 FINAL 32 Appendix C Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF ACCRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS CVO: Cascades Volcano Observatory DEM: (local) Department (or Division) of Emergency Management JFO: (FEMA/State) Joint Field Office DoD: Department of Defense DOGAMI: (Oregon) Department of Geology and Mineral Industries EAS: Emergency Alert System ECC: Emergency Coordination Center EMAC: Emergency Management Assistance Compact EOC: Emergency Operations Center ERT: Emergency Response Team ESF: Emergency Support Function FAA: Federal Aviation Administration FA C: (Central Cascades) Facilitating Committee FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency HI VA: Hazard Identification Vulnerability Assessment ICS: Incident Command System IMT: Incident Management Team ICP: Incident Command Post IOFR: Information Office Field Representative JIC: Joint Information Center MACC: Multi-Agency Coordination Center May 31, 2007 FINAL 33 Appendix D I Central Cascades Coordination Plan NRP: National Response Plan NA WAS: (FEMA's) NAtional WArning System NWCC: NorthWest Coordination Center NWS: National Weather Service ODOT: Oregon Department of Transportation OEM: Oregon Emergency Management OERS: Oregon Emergency Response System OSP: Oregon State Police PNSN: Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network RRCC: (FEMA) Regional Response Coordination Center SOG: Suggested Operating Guidelines UPS: Uninterruptible Power Supply USFS: U.S. Forest Service USGS: U.S. Geological Survey May 31, 2007 FINAL 34 Appendix D Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX E: JOINT INFORMATION CENTER PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE Coordination of Information Flow The purpose of the Joint Information Center (JIC) is to coordinate the flow of information about volcanic activity and related response issues among agencies, and to provide a single information source for the media, general public and businesses. The JIC is an element of the Emergency Operations Center(s) (EOC) where the emergency response is being coordinated. Communications between agencies and to the media/public must be rapid, accurate and effective. A JIC provides a forum for the necessary information exchange. Public information between and from all responding agencies, EOCs, political jurisdictions, and the media is handled through this one center, thereby allowing the coordination of information from all sources, and reducing or eliminating conflicting information and rumors. Temporary and alternate media offices will be identified. All participants will be encouraged to facilitate an efficient flow of information from the JIC. A JIC may be necessary in one or more of the following circumstances: • Multiple local, state and/or Federal agencies are involved in an incident. • The volume of media inquiries overwhelms the capacities of the Public Information Officer(s) (PIOs) within the EOC. • A large-scale public phone team effort must be mounted over an extended period of time. When conditions warrant, or when a Volcano Watch (or Warning) is declared, a JIC will be activated by the FAC or Unified Command. A JIC must have: • Office space for the PIOs, • Facilities for communication by phone, fax and email • Briefing rooms • Easy access for the media • Proximity to restaurants or available food service • Security Recommended Structure of JIC during Volcanic Incidents A. Potential Participants: Oregon Emergency Management US Geological Survey US Forest Service Counties on the FAC DOGAMI FEMA Others as required or conditions dictate May 31, 2007 FINAL 35 Appendix E Central Cascades Coordination Plan B. Operating Assumptions I . All information will be coordinated among the JIC staff in order to ensure timely and accurate information flow to the public, to quell rumors and to prevent impediments to the response effort. 2. The JIC will operate under the Incident Command System 3. The JIC will adjust its size and scope to match the size and complexity of the incident. 4. State and local agencies may be requested to provide staff for the JIC, including augmentation. May 31, 2007 FINAL 36 Appendix E Central Cascades Coordination Plan APPENDIX F: REFERENCES AND WEB SITES References: Central Cascades (see Appendix B) On Volcanic Crises and Volcanic Hazards Blong, R.J., 1984, Volcanic Hazards: New York, Academic Press, 424p. Foxworthy, B.L., and Hill, M., 1982, Volcanic eruptions of 1980 at Mount St. Helens: The first 100 days. USGS Prof. Paper 1249: Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office. Harnley, C.D., and Tyckoson, D.A., 1984, Mount St. Helens: An Annotated Bibliography, Scarecrow Press, Inc., Metuchen NJ and London, 248 p. International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), 1995, Understanding Volcanic Hazards [video], Distributed by Northwest Interpretive Association, (360) 274-2127 Mader, G.G., Blair, M.L., and Olson, R.A., 1987, Living with a volcano threat: Response to volcanic hazards, Long Valley, California, William Spangle and Associates, Inc., 105p. Newhall, C.G., and Punongbayan, eds., 1996, Fire and Mud: eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, 1 126 p. Tilling, R.I., ed., 1989, Volcanic Hazards. American Geophysical Union Short Course In Geology: Volume 1, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 123 p. IA/wh @i~e~+• American Red Cross http://www.redcross.org FEMA http://www.fema.gov Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs http://www.warmsprings.com/ DOGAMI http://www.oregon eology.com/ Oregon De artment of Transport. Oregon Emergency Management http://www.odot.state.or.us/home/ http://egov.oregop.gov/OOHS/OEM/ USFS-Deschutes National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/ USFS-Willamette National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/willamette/ USGS-Cascades Volcano Observatory CVO http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/_ May 31, 2007 FINAL 37 Appendix F MEMORANDUM DATE: September 12, 2008 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Joe Stutler, Deschutes County Forester RE: Forester Update Since the last update the following identifies significant accomplishments: 1. Completion of hazardous fuels treatment in Deschutes River Woods, Woodside Ranch, Riverbend, Skyliners, Ponderosa Pines, Lower Bridges Estates, and near completion of work in Starwood and Newberry Estates. Total treated is 700 acres for approximately $300,000 for an average cost of $430/acre which is significantly less than the $1000/acre average and attributed to the "qualified pool" concept. 2. Completed the final draft of two ordinances (attached) which address defensible space on unprotected lands in Deschutes County and the revision of an existing ordinance for open burning on unprotected lands in Deschutes County. The defensible space ordinance will be brought to the board for consideration for adoption within the next two weeks and coincide with ODF efforts to re-classify all lands within the county under ODF protection and will be Phase Two of Senate Bill 360 implementation. The arrangement with ODF is Deschutes County will implement the exact standards on unprotected lands and ODF will track the certification with the remainder of private lands within the county at no cost. 3. Completing the fuels program of work for fall, winter and spring which will essentially treat all county owned lands south of Sun River to the county line which will treat an additional 700 acres utilizing the FEMA Grant. 4. On November 12th, the next scheduled update will include participation from the FS and possibly the BLM on activities on public lands in addition to County Forester update. Joe Stutler Deschutes County Forester Attachments Chapter 8.XX. HAZARDOUS NATURAL VEGETATIVE FUELS 8.XX.010. Definitions. 8.XX.020. Purpose and Intent 8.XX.030 Lands Subject to the Standards 8.XX.040 Standards 8.XX.050 Standard Waivers and Reductions 8.XX.060 Fuel Break Requirements 8.XX.010. Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in DCC 8.XX, shall mean the following, unless the context otherwise requires: A. "Developed" means lands which contains a structure. B. "Driveway" means the primary, privately owned vehicle access road that serves a dwelling, which is controlled by the owner of the dwelling, and which is longer than 150 feet. C. "Dwelling" means a structure, or a part of a structure, that is used as a home, as a residence, or as a sleeping place by one or more people who maintain a household in the structure. D. "Fire resistant roofing " means roofing material that has been installed and is maintained to the specifications of the manufacturer and which: 1. Is rated by Underwriter's Laboratory as Class A, Class B, Class C, or is equivalent thereto; or 2. Is metal. E. "Fuel break" means a natural or a human-made area immediately adjacent to a structure or to a driveway, where material capable of allowing a wildfire to spread does not exist or has been cleared, modified, or treated to: 1. Significantly reduce the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire; and 2. Create an area in which fire suppression operations may more safely occur. F. "Ladder fuel" means branches, leaves, needles, and other combustible vegetation that may allow a wildfire to spread from lower growing vegetation to higher growing vegetation. G. "Lands" means one or more tax lots. H. "Non-fire resistant roofing" means roofing material that is not fire resistant including, but not limited to, cedar shakes. I. "Road" means a road over which the public has a right of use that is a matter of public record. J. "Standards" means the actions, efforts, or measures which owners of suburban and urban lands shall take on their property, prior to a wildfire occurrence which originates on the property. K. "Structure" means a permanently sited building, a manufactured home, or a mobile home that is either a dwelling or an accessory building, which occupies at least 500 square feet of ground space, and which has at least one side that is fully covered. L. "Vacant" " means lands which do not contain a structure. M. "Wildfire" means an uncontrolled fire which is damaging, or is threatening to damage, natural vegetation or structures. 8.XX.020 Purpose and Intent. A. The standards set forth in DCC 8.XX.040 are designed to minimize or mitigate a wildfire hazard or risk on property which arises due, singly or in combination, to the presence of structures, to the arrangement or accumulation of vegetative fuels, or to the presence of other wildfire hazards. B. It is recognized that owners have a variety of objectives to achieve while applying the standards, including objectives related to aesthetics, dust barriers, fish and wildlife habitat, gardening, soil stabilization, sound barriers, and visual barriers. It is the intent of the standards to allow owners to meet such objectives, provided there is no compromise of the standards needed to mitigate wildfire hazards or risks. C. The standards are considered to be minimum measures which are intended to improve the survivability of structures during a wildfire, but which will not guarantee survivability. D. To the extent possible, the standards are the same as those required on lands subject to the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997, ORS 477.015 to 477.061. 8.XX.030 Lands Subject to the Standards. A. Owners of the following lands shall comply with the standards set forth in DCC 8.XX.040: 1. Developed lands not classified as High, Extreme or High Density Extreme under the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997. B. Owners of the following lands are not required to comply with the standards set forth in DCC 8.XX.040, however, they are encouraged to review their individual situation and to apply those standards which may be appropriate: 1. Developed lands classified as High, Extreme or High Density Extreme under the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997. 2. Vacant lands classified as High Density Extreme under the Oregon Forestland-Urban Interface Fire Protection Act of 1997. 3. Lands within the city limits of Bend, Redmond La Pine and Sisters. 4. Lands receiving fire protection from a rural fire protection district or from a county service district. 8.XX.040 Standards. A. On developed lands, the landowner shall: 1. Provide and maintain primary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.XX.060 and which are: a. Immediately adjacent to structures, for a distance of at least 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is the shortest distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope and from the furthest extension of the structure, including attached carports, decks, or eaves. b. Immediately adjacent to driveways, for a distance of at least ten feet from the centerline of a driveway, or to the property line, whichever is the shortest distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. Including the driving surface, a fuel break shall result in an open area which is not less than 13Y2 feet in height and 12 feet in width or to the property line, whichever is the shortest distance. . 2. Provide and maintain secondary fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.XX.060 and which are immediately adjacent to primary fuel breaks, for the distance necessary to comply with the total fuel break distance specified in DCC 8.XX.040.7, or to the property line, whichever is the shortest distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope and from the furthest extension of the structure, including attached carports, decks, or eaves. 3. Remove any portion of a tree which extends to within 10 feet of the outlet of a structure chimney or a stove pipe; 4. Maintain the portion of any tree which overhangs a structure substantially free of dead plant material; 5. Maintain the area under decks substantially free of firewood, stored flammable building material, leaves, needles, and other flammable material; and 6. During times of the year when wildfire may be a threat, locate firewood, flammable building material, and other similar flammable material: a. At least 20 feet away from a structure; or b. In a fully enclosed space. 7. Total fuel break distance requirements: a. Where lands contain a structure which has fire resistant roofing, a total fuel break distance of 50 feet is required. b. Where lands contain a structure which does not have fire resistant roofing, a total fuel break distance of 100 feet is. required. B. On vacant lands less than five acres in size, the landowner shall provide fuel breaks which comply with the requirements of DCC 8.XX.060 and which are immediately adjacent to all: 1. Property lines, for a distance of twenty feet or an adjacent property line, whichever is the shortest distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope; and 2. Roads, for a distance of at least thirty feet from the center of a road, or to the property line, whichever is the shortest distance. The distance shall be measured along the slope. 8.XX.050 Standard Waivers and Reductions. A. The may, in writing, reduce or waive any standard or requirement of DCC 8.XX if they find that conditions so warrant. Reductions or waivers made under this provision: 1. May be made only after a written request from the owner; 2. Are intended to be few in number; 3. May be approved only where there exists a site specific condition, such as a conflict with the requirements of another code, law, ordinance, or regulation, which does not allow compliance with DCC 8.XX.040. 8.XX.060 Fuel Break Requirements A. The purpose of a fuel break is to: 1. Slow the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire; and 2. Create an area in which fire suppression operations may more safely occur. B. A fuel break shall be a natural or a human-made area where material capable of allowing a wildfire to spread: 1. Does not exist; or 2. Has been cleared, modified, or treated in such a way that the rate of spread and the intensity of an advancing wildfire will be significantly reduced. C. A primary fuel break shall be comprised of one or more of the following: 1. An area of substantially non-flammable ground cover. Examples include asphalt, bare soil, clover, concrete, green grass, ivy, mulches, rock, succulent ground cover, or wildflowers. 2. An area of dry grass which is maintained to an average height of less than four inches. 3. An area of cut grass, leaves, needles, twigs, and other similar flammable materials, provided such materials do not create a continuous fuel bed and are in compliance with the intent of subsections A. and B. of this rule. 4. An area of single specimens or isolated groupings of ornamental shrubbery, native trees, or other plants, provided they are: a. Maintained in a green condition; b. Maintained substantially free of dead plant material; c. Maintained free of ladder fuel; d. Arranged and maintained in such a way that minimizes the possibility a wildfire can spread to adjacent vegetation; and e. In compliance with the intent of subsections (1) and (2) of this rule. D. A secondary fuel break shall be comprised of single specimens or isolated groupings of ornamental shrubbery, native trees, or other plants, provided they are: 1. Maintained in a green condition; 2. Maintained substantially free of dead plant material; 3. Maintained free of ladder fuel; 4. Arranged and maintained in such a way that minimizes the possibility a wildfire can spread to adjacent vegetation; and 5. In compliance with the intent of subsections (1) and (2) of this rule. Chapter 8.20. OPEN BURNING 8.20.010. Open Burning Prohibited-When. 8.20.020. Burning Permits-Conditions. 8.20.030. Violation-Penalty. 8.20.010. Open Burning Prohibited-When. No person, outside the boundaries of a rural fire protection district or a forest protection district, shall cause or permit to be initiated or maintained on his own property, or cause to be initiated or maintained on the property of another any open burning of commercial waste, demolition material, domestic waste, industrial waste, land clearing debris or field burning from July 1st through November 1st of each year unless weather conditions require earlier termination of burning, or permit earlier resumption of burning, as determined by the County Fire Defense Board. (Ord. 88-013 §1, 1988; Ord. 84-027 §1, 1984; Ord. 84-009 fl, 1984) 8.20.020. Burning Permits-Conditions. Notwithstanding DCC 8.20.010, burning permits may be issued by the County Commissioners, or their designees, if all three of the following conditions are met: A. Evidence is presented that the material must be disposed of prior to November 1st, and that no satisfactory alternative to burning is available; B. Appropriate fire-control measures are provided by the permittee as specified by the burning permit to prevent unwanted spread of the fire; C. The appropriate permit is obtained from the State Department of Environmental Quality, if under their jurisdiction. (Ord. 84.027 §2, 1984; Ord. 84.009 §2, 1984) 8.20.030. Violation-Penalty. Violation of DCC 8.20 is a Class A violation. (Ord. 2003-021 § 18, 2003; Ord. 84-027 §3, 1984; Ord. 84-009 §3, 1984) . 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/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Kristen Maze, Associate Planner DATE: September 4, 2008 MEETING: September 17, 2008 SUBJECT: Text Amendment Review for Manufactured Homes or RV's as Temporary Medical Hardship Dwellings Purpose At the July 30, 2008 work session, and second reading and adoption of Ordinance 2008-022, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) requested a review of other county codes that allow temporary medical hardship dwellings. The Board expressed concerns about the current code that allows manufactured homes as temporary medical hardship dwellings. Their specific concerns are the length of time a manufactured home can remain on a property, removing a manufactured home following the temporary use, as well as the perception that many temporary manufactured homes become permanent second dwellings. Staff reviewed five temporary medical hardship dwelling codes. They are summarized below and outlined in a table. Excerpts of the codes are also attached to this memorandum. As noted below, some counties require deed restrictions stating that the RV or manufactured home is temporary and the permit is not transferable when the property is conveyed to another party. Others require time limits on the temporary medical hardship dwelling. Clackamas County Clackamas County places numerous requirements on temporary medical hardship dwellings and then qualifies them with an exception process, provided the applicant can provide adequate findings. Their code clearly states that temporary dwellings shall not be used for rental income. They require the applicant to explore a reasonable alternative care provider including other adults that live with the care recipient. Also, there must be a need for care and a statement from a licensed healthcare provider within 90 days preceding the date of the application that address the definition of care for the recipient. Clackamas County grants temporary medical hardship dwellings for a period of two years in resource zones and three years in all other zoning districts. In addition, Clackamas County requires the applicant to provide proof that reasonable housing is not an alternative by showing the size and floor plan of the permanent dwelling and the ability to maintain a degree of privacy and independence for both the care recipient and the care provider. Italicized below are relevant temporary medical hardship dwelling requirements. Quality Services Performed with Pride Medical Hardship Code Review Table "Care" means assistance, required as a result of age and/or poor health, that is given to a specific person in the activities of daily living, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, bathing, grooming, eating, medication management, ambulation and transportation, and/or "care" means daily supervision of a specific person when such supervision required due to cognitive impairment. As used in this subsection, "care" does not include assistance with improvement or maintenance of property in the absence of a documented need for assistance with personal activities or a need for personal supervision due to cognitive impairment. "Care" does not include financial hardship alone. Utilities Services: All water, electricity, natural gas and/or sanitary sewer service for the temporary dwelling shall be extended from the permanent dwelling services. No separate meters for the temporary dwelling shall be allowed. An exception may be granted if the utility provider substantiates that separate service is required or if more than one legally established service exists on the subject lot, parcel or tract. Driveway Entrance: The temporary dwelling shall use the same driveway entrance as the permanent dwelling although the driveway may be extended. An exception may be granted if more than one legally established driveway entrance to the subject lot, parcel or tract exists. Deed Statement: A written statement shall be recorded in the County Deed of Records recognizing that a dwelling approved pursuant to this Subsection is temporary and that the temporary permit is not transferable when the property is conveyed to another party. Separation Distance: The temporary dwelling shall be located within 100 feet of the permanent dwelling. This distance shall be measured from the closest portion of each structure. This distance may be increased if the applicant provides evidence substantiating that steep slopes, significant natural features, significant existing landscaping, existing structures, other physical improvements or other similar constraints prevent compliance with the separation distance standard. The increase shall be the minimum necessary to avoid the constraint. Lane County Lane County has similar code requirements as Deschutes County except with the application. An applicant must have a medical physician sign a Physicians Certificate. Lane County permits a temporary medical hardship dwelling for a two year period with the ability to renew for successive two year periods. All permits expire December 31. Lane County also allows only one permanent dwelling or manufactured dwelling, guest house or other accessory residential structure. Sewage disposal for the medical hardship dwelling must be connected to the same onsite sewage disposal system and the same electrical circuit box as the existing dwelling. Finally, the structure shall not have an address. Marion County Marion County differs from Deschutes County's temporary medical hardship code only in that those providing the care must show that they are available and have the skills to provide the primary care. . Similar to Lane and Clackamas County sewage disposal shall be connected to the existing system if feasible. An annual review is required which meets the criteria of the code. 2 Medical Hardship Code Review Table Douglas County Douglas County allows for a temporary medical hardship dwelling for a two year time period. It also requires the temporary dwelling be hooked up to the existing sewage disposal system. They require that the applicant record a restrictive covenant for the temporary placement of a family hardship dwelling. Jackson County Jackson County requires two written statements, one from a primary care doctor and a second opinion from a licensed doctor, physician's assistant or nurse practitioner. The dwelling must meet all setback requirements for the zone, not have any additional driveway, access roads or permanent accessory structure, be hooked up to the existing sewage disposal system if it is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling, and the structure shall be located within 300 feet of the existing residence on the property. Renewal of the two year permit requires a written statement from a doctor Renewals are sent out January 31 and give the applicant 30 days to respond or revocation will take place. 3 G1 H GJ O V x e~ V 41 N V + L O O (0 c0 Q N O - N N> c p ` C -O w a) fl -ffi 1= C f0 > O a) a) V Q o 'N uL O i c' j E N N m 7 C O a> > .U i o •y ca C C N U 0 Q C ° C m N ° O a c C U N - m m E L - C 'c j X w L a a) Q a) E -0 N ° ai ~ E a) N U N a) O E C ° U a)~ o a o a~E 3° ° ~ v 'a mN~~ °D La o.c Z'E (D E ma; om o° ~ ~ ~ N co ~o~ E N C Q f° a) a o a) > ~ N N O lC V cn "W Q U p ~ E N ~ vi ~ L O - L N +O. (1) N O U p) a 0) M a) o Q E c. d a) = L L + N U a) T L. ca 0 0,02 c0 5 CL U> O L C a) C .C N 0 co 3: E U C- - O C: a O O Q) o c CC E. L c a) a) m > ca c N N a) E p a) H~ o° C: o~c- 3 U N a O a) a) a 0' N O O M O X m ° E 0 ~ 3 c p) C a a) a) N° o a) E rn p U o c° o a) - > (U D m c m -0 Ear ~ .0•E c c a) N W N U (D 'a N o N cn a) L O a) O cn a) a) o m p z- E ca cn ° c a) uoi ~ E =m c'ei ° co a E~ cm vi Z'= caa (n a can rnQ a) cn E -r- a) (D V p a) E f°a o > a i 3 E-0 ccL L c ca O o m co o CO a U) N j O m cn a N N m U r_ Co p i N w °oU ' c C ~cn ' Ecmmc . moo` a) CA c a o A2 ~ in- L c > 3 0 c S? a) Q a U w Q Q Q ~ o 4) c (D E O CD a) ' 'V 'a CC cn -0 NL" MN - O a) E°N a) a) 00)0 ~ asp a U Upa) + O-0 o E >N„o C > N ° •C ° V E m O a D a) N co f0 N cu m a) N N N C a) CC v) C j > c 3 ~ c~oNS~m N Ea U E °a;-E~ u, Q a)m~ a E.~0ao cn E va c ON N N a) O ~ p U p _ a i C N C } C c i o N O aj N n c > U rn 0)-00) , C a) Z'.N o as O L ~ = 3 a) co V »2 Q E.m m (~cO . o o~ D 3 c ,c~u E ua), Q_ o o c°) ` o ° c °)rnv) J o 3 o T Q E ac 1 0 x ca o N E 3 E 3 a Q. E~ m c a) ~i N 3.~ Q 1 - 2•u a m H o . m a (x) Q aa) E ca ° = a)- o CU a o c N - a) ° ° ` c m 4- 0 3 (D E - oc M.C o c~m- o.T N CM 'o (D r m 3 cn E ` ' E o m m,0- o_ 0 c M ca 0 Nd cco` N~ w a (D0)M c (D ~ N E N • - -a)_"°j O N N ~a)0 a N Xcn .O N Q. N N CU 0a,~3U o N N .V nE c a) D m~a ° L NC,N m a) 0)°~ L E °N 0 vaoa)cn Z' - ' . ° a Y U O C _ M N U M N a) -a 2 7 C> c` U N v O- O N a) cn a c~~>, a as L 3 °3cna)a) M ° N a) C~ t U ca o a) p co°-:n•E p a) (n E V 3 ° >v M H c o ac) c> c E =3 a ~_n E 0 w o c =3- Q (6 O O Q Qrn a) N c0 O CL Q X N C o oy O cn cn >1 U (n CU m V a - m a) _ ~c r° > 0 2 N cn3 a) > cn e O ~o m a) E a 'O a) O a) a) > a) a3 ca 0) c 7 C 3 CA E ' E N ~ Y a a) L O i E (D E a) a' n - ° ° a a) p c 0-0 o V O ~p E m (D U) [2 m 2E fl co v - ) °0)(va) ai42 cfl 0 c o m f o a) ca r a) o o c ~ o~ o mE. u) Z•E Q s ° n c CL 3 ° a) N o E~~~ c c °L° ~o c s c n ip a a c a ) F- AN ~ 3 ~ 0 3 0 c v • 0 > W ~ N ~ 0 (D c o ° Q a) G Q O d U Q C N d 3 Y t0 N d c0 a) y ~-aE O oa, d > V a > E °c C1 N w o o d 0 d , 3 3 CL E 0 H (D a 0NO a It v H v v 0 V x r--1 u r. G1 N V N O 6 a ` 6 N Y C N cn N N O N V O z V z m = c c O U~ E N E es O U N :3 a) } N 0 ° o 0 O z z m a cn w o U m m c co > E O z v o 0 z O z m o v ~ o a- o z 0 z U = o z J 0 N a) cn C V N .Q 3 Q N N N V C>, co E E°? E N Nd 3: L N E O >-a N } a Y U 3 a~ N cr v m E c - O (D (D ~ ~ Z U Q O x O Z d V O U ~ c a~ E a) z N O t Z 0 N d O d > N d t5 d ~ Q y Q LO CLACKAMAS COUNTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 1204.03 TEMPORARY DWELLING FOR CARE A. The Planning Director, or authorized designee, may approve a temporary permit, subject to the provisions of Subsection 1305.02, for a period not to exceed two (2) years in an EFU, TBR or AG/F zoning district or three (3) years in any other zoning district, for the use of a manufactured dwelling, residential trailer or recreational vehicle for residential purposes when the applicant provides evidence substantiating the following: 1. The temporary dwelling will be occupied by a person or persons who require(s) care or who will provide care. This provision shall not prevent persons in addition to the care recipient(s) or the care provider(s) from occupying the temporary dwelling provided such occupancy is consistent with the remaining provisions of this Subsection; and 2. The temporary dwelling will be located on the same lot, parcel or tract as a legally established permanent dwelling. The permanent dwelling will be occupied by the person(s) receiving care from the occupant(s) of the temporary dwelling or by the person(s) providing care to the occupant(s) of the temporary dwelling. This provision shall not prevent persons in addition to the care recipient(s) or the care provider(s) from occupying the permanent dwelling provided such occupancy is consistent with the remaining provisions of this Subsection; and 3. There exists a need for care. The need shall be documented by a signed statement from a licensed healthcare provider. The statement shall be dated within 90 days preceding the date the application is submitted and shall identify the care recipient, generally indicate that an age-related and/or medical condition results in a need for care, and substantiate that the type of assistance required by the patient is consistent with the type of assistance identified in the definition of "care" in Subsection 1204.0313; and 4. There exists no reasonable housing alternative in the form of adequate housing on the subject lot, parcel or tract. A determination regarding the reasonableness of the care recipient and the care provider occupying the permanent dwelling together shall be made based on the size and floor plan of the permanent dwelling with consideration for maintaining a degree of privacy and independence for both the care recipient and the care provider; and 5. There exists no reasonable alternative care provider. Alternative care providers that shall be considered include: a. Other adults who live with the care recipient; and 1204-3 Last Test Revision 3/24/05 CLACKAMAS COUNTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE b. Other relatives of the care recipient who live nearby. This alternative shall only be considered in cases where the care recipient currently resides on the subject lot, parcel or tract; and There is no other temporary dwelling for care on the subject lot, parcel or tract. B. As used in this Subsection, "care" means assistance, required as a result of age and/or poor health, that is given to a specific person in the activities of daily living, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, bathing, grooming, eating, medication management, ambulation and transportation, and/or "care" means daily supervision of a specific person when such supervision is required due to cognitive impairment. As used in this Subsection, "care" does not include assistance with improvement or maintenance of property in the absence of a documented need for assistance with personal activities or a need for personal supervision due to cognitive impairment. "Care" does not include financial hardship alone. C. A permit approved pursuant to this Subsection shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: SEWAGE DISPOSAL: The temporary dwelling shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system or to an on-site sewage disposal system approved by the Soils Section of the County Department of Transportation and Development. The temporary dwelling shall use the same on-site sewage disposal system used by the permanent dwelling if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling as determined by the Soils Section of the County Department of Transportation and Development. An exception may also be granted if more than one legally established on-site sewage disposal system exists on the subject lot, parcel or tract. 2. SETBACKS: The temporary dwelling shall comply with the primary structure setback standards of the underlying zoning district. 3. UTILITIES/SERVICES: All water, electricity, natural gas and/or sanitary sewer service for the temporary dwelling shall be extended from the permanent dwelling services. No separate meters for the temporary dwelling shall be allowed. An exception may be granted if the utility provider substantiates that separate service is required or if more than one legally established service exists on the subject lot, parcel or tract. 1204-4 Last Test Revision 3/24/05 CLACKAMAS COUNTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 4. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE: The temporary dwelling shall use the same driveway entrance as the permanent dwelling although the driveway may be extended. An exception may be granted if more than one legally established driveway entrance to the subject lot, parcel or tract exists. 5. SEPARATION DISTANCE: The temporary dwelling shall be located within 100 feet of the permanent dwelling. This distance shall be measured from the closest portion of each structure. This distance may be increased if the applicant provides evidence substantiating that steep slopes, significant natural features, significant existing landscaping, existing structures, other physical improvements or other similar constraints prevent compliance with the separation distance standard. The increase shall be the minimum necessary to avoid the constraint. An exception may also be granted if the temporary dwelling will be sited in the same or substantially similar location as a previous, legally established temporary dwelling for care. 6. DEED STATEMENT: A written statement shall be recorded in the County Deed Records recognizing that a dwelling approved pursuant to this Subsection is temporary and that the temporary permit is not transferable when the property is conveyed to another party. 7. RENTAL INCOME: The temporary dwelling shall not be a source of rental income. 8. REMOVAUSTORAGE: A manufactured dwelling or residential trailer approved pursuant to this Subsection shall be removed from the subject lot, parcel or tract when the permit expires or the need for care ceases, whichever first occurs. An exception to this provision may be granted if a temporary manufactured dwelling is converted to a permanent dwelling. Such a conversion shall only be allowed if the temporary dwelling complies with all applicable requirements for a permanent dwelling, and if the conversion will not result in the subject lot, parcel or tract's violating the density standards of the underlying zone. A recreational vehicle approved pursuant to this Subsection shall be removed from the subject lot, parcel or tract or placed in a stored condition when the permit expires or the need for care ceases, whichever first occurs. For the purpose of this provision, a recreational vehicle shall be deemed to be placed in a stored condition when it ceases to be used for residential purposes and is disconnected from any on-site sewage disposal system and all utilities other than temporary electrical connections for heating necessary to avoid physical deterioration. Storage of a recreational vehicle shall comply with all other applicable requirements of this Ordinance. 1204-5 Last Test Revision 3/24/05 CLACKAMAS COUNTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 9. OTHER: Other conditions may be applied as authorized by Subsection 1201.03. D. A permit approved pursuant to this Subsection may be renewed, subject to the provisions of Subsection 1305.02, for a period not to exceed two (2) years in an EFU, TBR or AG/F zoning district or three (3) years in any other zoning district when the applicant provides evidence substantiating the following: 1. The circumstances that provided the basis on which the previous permit was granted remain substantially similar. A renewal application shall be accompanied by a signed statement from a licensed healthcare provider. The statement shall be dated within 90 days preceding the date the application is submitted and shall identify the care recipient and substantiate that the level of assistance required is substantially similar to, or greater than, the level required when the previous permit was granted. E. An application shall be evaluated under the approval criterion for a renewal application rather than the criteria for a new application if the permit is requested for the same lot, parcel or tract and the same care recipient as the previous permit. A temporary permit for care may be renewed an unlimited number of times subject to Subsection 1204.03D. However, an application received after the expiration of the previous permit shall be charged the same fee as a new application. 1204.04 TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER A. The Planning Director may approve a temporary permit for emergency shelter in any zoning district, subject to Subsection 104.01(A), for the use of a manufactured dwelling, residential trailer, or recreational vehicle for residential purposes or a commercial office trailer for business purposes when the applicant provides evidence substantiating that a lawfully established dwelling or business located on the subject lot, parcel, or tract has been destroyed, substantially damaged, or rendered unsafe to occupy due to fire or natural disaster. (3/24/05) 1204-6 Last Test Revision 3/24/05 APPROVAL CRITERIA Lane Code 16.290(2) Permitted Uses. The following uses and activities are allowed subject to the general provisions and exceptions specified by this chapter of Lane Code: (d) Not more than one manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle on a lot or parcel, in addition to an existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex allowed by LC 16.290(2)(a) through (c) above, as a temporary use for the term of a medical hardship suffered by a resident of the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex, or a relative of the resident, subject to compliance with these requirements: (i) The property owner or authorized representative of the property owner shall submit to the Direct an application on the form provided by the Director. This application is required. (ii) A resident of the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex has a medical hardship and needs care for daily living from a resident of the temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle; or Have you attached the "Physician's Certification" that shows the person who will live in the existing dwelling or the temporary dwelling has a medical hardship? Yes No (iii) A resident of the temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle is a relative of a resident of the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex, has a medical hardship and needs care for daily living which will be provided by a relative living in the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex. 'Relative' means grandparent, step grandparent, grandchild, parent, stepparent, child, brother, sister, step sibling, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew or first cousin of a resident of the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex. Relation to existing residents (circle the answer): Child Step grandparent Parent Sibling Stepparent Stepsibling Grandchild Niece Grandparent Nephew (iv) Evidence of the medical hardship and a description of the family relationship and assistance with the daily living that will be provided shall be furnished and shall consist of: (aa) A written statement from a medical physician disclosing the existence and general nature of the medical hardship; This refers to the "Physicians Certification". Attach it to this application form. (bb) Any family relationship between the person with the hardship and the person who will provide care; and The person with the hardship must be related to the caregiver. Temporary Hardship Dwelling: Rural Residential Zone Page 3 (cc) The general nature of the care that will be provided. Give a general description of the type of care that will be provided. (v) The temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex. Will the temporary dwelling be located on the same lot or parcel as the existing dwelling? Yes No If No, explain: (vi) The temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle shall be connected to the same on-site sewage disposal system serving the existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex. If that sewage disposal system is not adequate for the connection, as determined by the Lane County Sanitarian, to accommodate the addition of the temporary dwelling, then that sewage disposal system shall be improved to meet the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements in order to accommodate the addition of the temporary dwelling. A separate on-site sewage disposal system meeting DEQ requirements for the temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle may be used, when in the opinion of the Lane County Sanitarian, connecting the temporary dwelling to the existing sewage disposal system would be impracticable because of the physical conditions of the subject property. The use of the separate sewage disposal system by the temporary dwelling shall be discontinued when the hardship ceases and shall not be used for other purposes unless in compliance with LC Chapter 16. This will be a condition of approval. (vii) The temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle shall comply with applicable Oregon Department of Environmental Quality review and removal requirements. Contact the Sanitation department to determine if the existing system is adequate to serve the new connection. Their number is 682-3754. (viii) The temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle shall not be allowed if there is an accessory living structure, as defined by LC 16.290(2)(t), on the same lot or parcel. LC 16.290(2)(t): "An accessory residential structure is a structure that contains area for residential use or occupancy, a toilet or bathroom and that shall comply with these requirements: (i) The total floor area of the structure shall not contain more than 850 square feet, (ii) The structure shall not contain a kitchen. 1 cnlNvi-y nurusnip uweiiing: Rural Residential Zone Page 4 (iii) The structure shall be located on a lot or parcel that has a lawfully existing dwelling, manufactured dwelling or duplex on it and that does not have two or more permanent dwellings or manufactured dwellings, a guest house or another accessory residential structure on it, (iv) Sewage disposal for the structure shall be connected to the same onsite sewage disposal system, or community or public sewer connection, and the same electrical circuit box as the existing dwelling or manufactured dwelling on the same lot or parcel, and (v) The structure shall not have an address." Does the property contain an accessory residential structure? Yes No If Yes, explain: (ix) Except as provided in LC 16.290(2)(d)(x) below, approval of a temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle permit shall be valid until December 31 of the year following the year of original permit approval and may be renewed once every two years until the hardship situation ceases or unless in the opinion of the Lane County Sanitarian the on- site sewage disposal system no longer meets DEQ requirements. This will be a condition of approval. (x) Within 90 days of the expiration date of the temporary hardship permit, the end of the hardship, or the care provider no longer residing in the temporary manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle, the manufactured dwelling or park model recreation vehicle shall be removed from the property or demolished. This will be a condition of approval. Temporary Hardship Dwelling: Rural Residential Zone Page 5 SITING CRITERIA Lane Code 16.290(7) Property Development Standards. All uses or development permitted by LC 16.290(2) through (4) above, except as may be provided therein, shall comply with the following development standards: (a) Property Line Setbacks. Structures other than a fence or sign shall be located: (i) At least 20 feet from the right-of-way of a State road, County road or a local access public road specified in LC Chapter 15, (ii) At least 10 feet from all other property lines; and (ii) Notwithstanding LC 16.290(7)(a)(ii) above, a structure that contains less than 120 square feet of floor area and that is located more than 10 feet from other structures may be located in the 10 foot setback otherwise required by LC 16.290(7)(a)(ii) above provided it complies with LC 16.290(7)(d) below. Refer to the handout entitled "Setbacks from the Right of Way". (b) The setback for property lines other than front yard shall be five feet, except as provided below, for any lot or parcel containing less than 1 acre and created prior to March 30,1984. Does the parcel contain less than one acre? Yes No Was it created prior to March 30,1984? Yes No (d) Riparian Setback Area. Except for property located between the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Boundary and the Eugene and Springfield Urban Growth Boundaries, where setbacks are provided for in LC 16.253(6), the riparian setback area shall be the area between a line 50 feet above and parallel to the ordinary high water of a Class I stream designated for riparian vegetation protection in the Rural Comprehensive Plan. No structure other than a fence shall be located closer than 50 feet from the ordinary high water of a Class I stream designated for riparian vegetation protection by the Rural Comprehensive Plan. A modification to the riparian setback standard for a structure may be allowed provided the requirements of LC 16.253(3) or LC 16.253(6), as applicable, are met. Is there a water body on the property? Yes No If so, it must be indicated on the site plan. The dwelling must be at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a Class I stream. The location of the ordinary high water mark is determined by planning staff. A "Riparian Declaration" application is required if the dwelling is within 75 feet of the water. You will be notified if a riparian declaration is required. 1-1 F%n ai y na, uu llp uwelling: Rural Residential Zone Page 6 LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION PHYSICIAN'S CERTIFICATE rUBL1L WURKS DEPARTMENT 125 E SrhAVENUE, EUGENE OR 97401 PLANNING: 682-3807 r ius rorm must De completed and signed by your physician, therapist or professional counselor and submitted with your application for a Temporary Medical Hardship Dwelling. TEMPORARY USE OF A MOBILE HOME DURING A MEDICAL HARDSHIP. The use of a mobile home on a temporary basis during a medical hardship may be allowed. A permit may be granted for a period of not more than two years and may be renewed for successive periods of two years, (2 years) if evidence is provided that the hardship condition continues to exist. In considering this request, it must be found that the hardship condition relates to the aged, the infirm, or to persons otherwise incapable of maintaining a complete, separate and detached residence, and also whether the requested use will be relatively temporary in nature. It is not the intent of this provision to subvert the intent of the zoning laws by permitting more than one permanent residence on each property. In granting the request for temporary use of a mobile home, conditions may be imposed that will preclude the possibility of such a temporary use becoming permanent. Below is the form that shows the physician, therapist or professional counselor is convinced the person with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises. TO BE COMPLETED BY PHYSICIAN, THERAPIST OR PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR This is to certify that the person listed below is my patient: (Please print or type name of patient) It is my opinion that this person has a medical or physical hardship that requires care and attention in the fashion described above, and the named patient should be permitted to reside near a caretaker in order to facilitate proper care. Physician Signature: Date Physician Name: ID/License # (Please Print or Type) Address: Phone # MORROW COUNTY SECTION 4.130. MANUFACTURED OR MOBILE HOME AUTHORIZED AS TEMPORARY RESIDENCE FOR CARE OF A RELATIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE. A. Pumose and intent. It is the intent of the temporary use permit section to provide a set Of procedures and standards for temporary use of structures which, because of personal hardship needs require social consideration for temporary usage after demonstration of temporary need and a finding of no adverse impact to the welfare of adjacent properties and the community as a whole. The provisions of this section are to apply when the proposed use does not qualify as a continuation of a nonconforming use, not permitted by right, nor permitted through the operations of other more pertinent procedures and provisions of this zoning ordinance. Provided however, temporary use permits are not to be construed., permitted nor utilized as a means to abrogate the intent, purpose or procedures of the County's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance regulations. No temporary permit shall be granted which would have the effect of creating a permanent zoning or result in a hardship when the use Is not permitted to continue at the expiration of the permit periods. Further, no temporary permit may be granted which has the effect of conferring a special privilege for which other property within the same zone may not be equally eligible. B. As a temporary use In every zone, the Commission may allow one accessory manufactured or mobile home dwelling complying with the standards of 4.140 except (a) and (c), and providing that no additions to the mobile home shall be permitted in conjunction with a primary dwelling with the following findings., 11- That an accessory dwelling is necessary to care for or provide custody of an elderly, mentally handicapped, or infirm relative who a medical doctor certifies Is In need of this kind of care or custody. 2. Residential utilities and facilities can be provided. Septic feasibility is required prior to approval. C. A temporary use permit granted under this section Is void when the elderly, mentally handicapped, or infirm relative who.ls the subject of the permit moves to another residence or is absent from the residence for more than 120 days or leaves the residence with no likelihood of returning for continued residency of at least 30 days. Exception to the 120-day limit can be provided for because of extraordinary circumstances such as extended hospitalization. D. Within 30 days of the permit becoming void or revoked, the accessory dwelling shall be removed by the owner of the real property unless otherwise approved by the Commission. E. The County Planning Director or designee may review permits Issued under this section at any time and may revoke permits when they are found to be not In compliance. Article 4 - Page 19 of 33 F Any accessory dwelling placed undera permit authorized by this section must be located as dose as possible to the primary dwelling. Unless there are physical limitations of the land this should be within 100 feet of the primary dwelling. MARION COUNTY 120.440 TEAf &ARY USE OF MOBILE HOW OR RECREA110NAL VEHICLE DGTWNG CERTAIN HARDSHIP CONDITIONS. Use of a temporary mobile home or recreational vehicle for the rare of someone with a hardship may be approved as a conditional use subject to meeting the following criteria: (a) For the purposes of this subsection "hardship" means a medical hardship or hardship for the care of an aged or infirm person or persons. (b) A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the hardship from providing the basic self care needed to live on a separate lot. The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the hardship must be provided the care so frequently or in such a manner that the caretaker must reside on the same premises. (c) Those providing the needed assistance shall be related by blood, marriage or legal guardianship and reside in another residence on the property. If eesdence is presented that there is no family member able to provide the needed care the caretaker may be someone else: provided the property is located in a zone other than the EFU, SA, FT or TC zones. In the EF Q. SA, FT and TC zones, occupancy of the hardship mobile home or recreational vehicle is limited to the term of the hardship suffered by the existing resident or a relative as. defined in ORS 215.283. (d) Those providing the care must show that they will be available and have the skills to provide the primary care required by the doctor or psychologist. (e) One of the residences shall be removed from the property within AQ days of the date the person(s) with the hardship or the care provider no longer reside on the property. In the case of a recreational vehicle it shalt be rendered uninhabitable by disconnection from services. An agreement to comply with this requirement shall be signed by the property owner and the care providers. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality removal requirements also apply. (0 The mobile home or recreational vehicle shall to the extent permitted by the nature of the property and existing development- (1) Be located as near as possible to other residences on the property, (2) On EFI ; SA.; FT and TC zoned property, be located on the portion of the property that is least suitable for farmu or forest use, if it is not feasible to locate it near an existing residence; (3) Not require new driveway access to the street; (4) Be connected to the existing uwasteuvater disposal system if feasible. The disposal system shall be approved by the County Sanitarian. (g) The use is intended to be temporary, shall be subject to review every year, and shall continue to meet the above criteria in order to qualify for renewal. Signs, pursuant to the sign provisions set forth in Section 1006; Residential home; [Added 3/19/98; ord. 543] K. Propagation and harvesting of forest products; [Added 12/05/02; ord. 720] 502.03 Conditional Uses. In the VLDR Districts, pursuant to the-Type B application procedure set forth in Section 1301, and subject to the conditional use review criteria listed in Section 1202, and any other applicable criteria established by this ordinance, the following uses may be allowed conditionally; A. One manufactured dwelling or recreational vehicle, or the temporary use of an existing building, in conjunction with as existing dwelling as a temporary use for the term of a hardship suffered by the existing resident or relative, as defined in ORS 215, of the resident, subject to the following: 1. The resident or relative of the resident is aged, infirm, or for health-related reasons, is incapable of maintaining a complete separate residence. 2. The permit for the manufactured dwelling for the term of hardship shall be valid for a period of two years or a shorter period as determined appropriate by the Director or hearings body. A permit may be revoked by the Director at any time, if any of the reasons for which the permit was granted are no longer applicable, or if any imposed condition is violated. 3. The permit for the temporary dwelling for the term of hardship shall be granted to the applicant only and shall not be deemed to run with the land. 4. The temporary dwelling shall use the same subsurface sewage disposal system as the existing dwelling, if that disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling. 5. When a recreational vehicle is allowed to be used as a temporary structure the recreational vehicle site shall have services, inspected and approved by the building department which includes, electricity, plumbing and connection to an approved septic system. 6. Within three months of the end of the hardship, the-manufactured dwelling shall be removed or demolished or, in the case of an existing building, the building shall be removed, demolished or returned to an allowed nonresidential use. In the case of a recreational vehicle, within three months of the end of the hardship, it shall be removed, demolished or may remain on the property and used in accordance with Section 501.06(H). A temporary residence approved under this paragraph is not eligible for replacement. [Amended 07/29/04; Ord. 7431 B. Home occupation, as defined by this ordinance, subject to the standards and limitations set forth in Section 1004. Yamhill County Zoning Ordinance Page 502-2 3.46.000 3.46.000 ARTICLE 46 Administrative Variance SECTION 3.46.000 Temporary Use of a Manufactured Structure or Existing Building (Family Hardship) During a family hardship condition where the condition relates to the aged, infirm or to persons otherwise incapable of maintaining a separate residence, the Director may authorize, as a permitted use in all zones (subject to ORS provisions in resource zones), the placement of a manufactured structure or the temporary residential use of an existing building on a lot or parcel if the following criteria are met: a. The request for the additional dwelling is submitted in writing. Such request shall state the nature of the hardship; the names of the persons who will occupy such dwelling; the relationship of the occupants of such dwelling to the residents; and, the estimated period of time the dwelling will remain on the property. b. The additional dwelling will use the same subsurface sewage disposal system used by the existing dwelling and that said sewage disposal system is adequate to accommodate the additional dwelling. If the additional dwelling is to utilize a public sanitary sewer system, such condition will not be required. C. The additional dwelling may be either a manufactured structure as defined in Chapter 1, or the temporary residential use of an existing building. d. The location and use of the additional dwelling otherwise conforms to the provisions established for the zone district. 2. Temporary use of an additional dwelling shall be granted for the time period specified by the Director but may be renewable upon expiration if all applicable conditions can be met. In no case shall a temporary use be authorized for a period exceeding two (2) years, unless the temporary use is renewed. 3. The Director shall determine whether or not the conditions described in this article warrant approval of the request to place or convert an additional dwelling on the property. He may require the applicant to provide other such evidence as he deems necessary to make that determination. 4. Upon expiration of the time period for which the temporary use was authorized, the property owner shall have ninety (90) days in which to remove or demolish the additional dwelling or convert it to an allowed non-residential use, unless an extension is granted as prescribed above. 3-279 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) FOR TEMPORARY FAMILY HARDSHIP * ("Covenantors"), are the owners of real property legally described as follows: Deed Reference Number (Tax Lot(s) in Section , T S, R W, W.M.; Property ID No(s). In accordance with the promotion of public safety under the Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance and the approval of Planning Department Worksheet No. dated approving a recreational vehicle as a temporary family hardship structure for the above-described property, and in consideration of such approval, Covenantors promise and covenant as follows: 1. The Covenantors do hereby acknowledge that a recreational vehicle is not considered a manufactured dwelling under the Uniform Building Code and other associated codes, statutes, and ordinances (hereinafter all referred to as the UBC) and therefore is not eligible for a placement permit as a permanent dwelling. The recreational vehicle will not be inspected for safety or UBC compliance by the Douglas County Building Department. 2. The Covenantors do hereby acknowledge that they have been made aware that the recreational vehicle cannot be placed as a permanent dwelling and that using the recreational vehicle as a temporary living facility creates safety risks. The Covenantors do further acknowledge that they are fully and completely aware of the potential danger related to increased fire risk, reduced emergency exiting capabilities, electric shock, falling, and other safety hazards in using this recreational vehicle as a temporary hardship structure. 3. Covenantors declare they wish to occupy the above-mentioned recreational vehicle as a temporary family hardship structure. 4. Covenantors declare that they will maintain the recreational vehicle in a "road ready" condition. A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions. 5. In consideration of the approval of Worksheet No. for themselves and their heirs, successors, executors and assigns, Covenantors agree as follows: 5.1 Covenantors are not officers, employees or agents of Douglas County ('Covenantee'), as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. 5.2 Covenantors, and their heirs, successors, executors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Douglas County and its respective officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, damages, court costs, judgments, penalties, fines, and other expenses ("claims"), including claims for property loss and personal injury (including death) that may be prosecuted, asserted, or charged resulting from injury related to use of the recreational vehicle as a temporary living facility. 6. Covenantors intend that this covenant be perpetual and run with the land and shall bind the heirs, successors, executors and assigns of Covenantors and shall endure for the benefit of Covenantee. 7. This covenant applies only to the following described recreational vehicle: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Covenantors have executed this covenant on day of ,200-. Covenantor Covenantor STATE OF OREGON County of Douglas This instrument was acknowledged before me on by and Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires H:\PlaninfolG ETS\RVHardshipcovGET.wpd .03/04 .-r . N O v7 x u "LY aJ c c M a) U) ° c u U c 0)rn o C ai C co O a) C C - , Q 'a to a :3 O ~ N > p N p o c c ` 0 C L m U .a O. U- o w (B a ° c E C X N 2:, v cu C ~C U m E 0 0 6 ~ O . N ca c° c ° N ° cn N L N a) "J o O(6 O C U Q O N E N o a) o Q- ` C O co u > .0 a ) to O C> N V E O a fII . E O a) . L 6 2 L a) E U Q) a) a) >N E -5 c: Q O° C Qcvc % ca 3 -°~cna , a) O E C O C `°W `;W ~ ` E~ o C (v N `°a)°)~' -C N ~C: ~ ~ O ~o`°m o v U a a i (D CU >1 CL E ~ c~ u a i 7 > ~ _0 U) O N N 0) N -0 m>rn ` c m ~ ° ° i (L) a ` C r CU (L) to U O C a) a) C O U) o Z' O C m N - O 0) O C.) d ° U C (U O O E C N p N V 3 E t .c vi c (C a~ O c 0,,-- -p a) U) 0 0 O a~i aEi cu o - m cu ~n ° ° L- ` o o 0 a a a N 19 U o E ` E Q Q cn N U c N E "Fa E (D a) cu o N Q . i a) a '0. Q O ` CL E Im 3 Q p ° CL C m Co E- (n m N U ` Q) cn CD O Z E._m-0:Co 3._ om_ p F-a)°.-'~p 0 Q O F-a`-E ocn (D F- > cn rn E N C a , ° C ~ Q o(u > ova)ocn ~_0 cn Q) N>+J N cUcC) c'a)~ ocuE ` O d O~ a) N (Q C m _ 0 cn -F- -O a) w w ° U O O O C C 2 a) ( U O (6 N N c6 :t::: L • O U E U O O O U Q) > ffl O a) ' .C C C u Q L 0 C O V r? N E c ) , N `U U E > Q a) C C C -0 O Q) fp Q D C O Q O (U a) E O- E U p -r p a) U ` Q ca ~ 0) Q~ CD Q U) C E p cu p N N m o U) U) E ~ a. N O Q) a) 0 Q N Q ~ a) M O o L cu 0) L ca Q r + ° a) Q) N ° a) Q 3: Co a) 0 - U a) U O oC (0 EU v,c Q) ~;_~U•~M N ~G AEU S3 U m -0a) ~ U ~ (0 a) Np`-° a) C O > C C O c " . p 4) C Q` C s p t0 ~ , ~p O E o cn Q) N C c a ° o a) ~ c cn' E ~ E ~ a) ~ a ~ ~ E N n N N- " c m ~ °I-_ 8 co 3 E cu vv > a) U > }r L ° ° cn v- O-C ~ o oo O.~ U to cn ~ ~ ~ cn cn f O Q a) Q c o Cl) E aaU f0 E a a) a) ~ c ~ . ° ° o QQ N~ a) co a] m C Q C C a~ Q E -p C U < 4-- O ry cu N N O L- 0 cu .C N (D o c 0) a) _ C a) a) a) a) _ c -C 0 a) E c: 3°vi cn p ` ° oa)~c ~E cn a)oc~ -o cu U U c-p o > c° m~ cu CL - c-` m E ~ m 0 ~ ovi ioa) c a N4) c ~ 3 ~ 4-mac cn.~3L--0 °E -0 . ca a) cu L ma) m ~ a N a0y a) >~_0a)cncv c -om- o;~can E o o v a? c° E N a) `U C n(n c ~ C: CU a) E'> cn~ oa u Y _ Q 7 o cu (D u C E-C- . Cl) - o C ' C a) p c > 0) a) Q N U 0 O N 0 0 E 7 V C O 0 O - CL p O N cn ` c C Z) a C L U w ° a~ N V CU 0 ca L N N a) C U U Q cu Q N C a) O 0 c (n 0) M a) cu "a a) a) 0 V 0 3 E p (D U cn = 7 w a) C ca - v Q Rf fSf N a) a) m ~ O a) a) N c a) U p O Z, 3 U O U N E L °-0 L a) C t 0 0 O O 0 p 3 a) M C~~ ma)>;'- co ` c~ -0rn - m ~"a)QL- U 0 23 M 07 c -0 tarn ` C a) s o t a i *Z a~ ~ "J c ° 0 m O•C > C U~ N o ai ` ai ° (D c E E E 3 E= °c a ) a~i n a) o ° M F- c D -a d) o t. ° o a Q" E r.. O U 'O N C V) L~Ca~ 0 O a) ~ ~d E 3 LD Y ~ R > m o Q 'C E N ~ O ° m m Z~W as o~ w 4) Cl) a U Q E a) L C ~ a ~ 3L..c)a >O a) ? a) V y ov i~ a ) N c C 0 c N O O C cn _0 cn ca E a) L O z O V C cn U E a) 3 V E O a) a) Y V C' X co ( O a) cn 3 a) a) N to c cD Q O N U U) N z z C) cv A C c N C V a 3 ocn3 ~ E a) a) a U c cn c> C p X N a) O Ix U 0 z z p) o v) C c o . a) E U 'v m N a) ~ O L C ` c.- 0 a z 3 a) > a a) ) U U) z L U a) E N L a) a c z z o n c,) C 0) a N a) m c o 3 U~ ~ o J ~ aa)j V D z = L a) B O N 0 4) O ~`tE c 3=3 )a) a) U o vii ~ > > E m U -0 Q,-o L E0 V a)coa)a) 3.N~aa))a) } O .9 C rn Q) M U a) cn > N a? C to N a) w O Ucn3= a) o~3>,~ o U aa)) N a Z m E Z cc c ~~o~ c a) L) ~0m C a) N _ C C E a) O cn 4N O a U c)= O L - cn ° L F+ ~ Z Q) v a c a) a) a ) os ¢ G z o v w d t4 N N > N m C C 3 CL ~ v d y a co a Q Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM September 10, 2008 To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners From: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner Subject: Appeal of Hearings Officer's Approval of AD-08-5, US Cellular BACKGROUND The applicant, US Cellular, filed an application for an Administrative Determination (AD-08-5) for a 62-foot-tall wireless telecommunication facility (faux pine tree) and equipment shelter. The project was referred to the Hearings Officer, with the initial public hearing on June 3, 2008. Due to a noticing error, the hearing was continued to July 22, 2008. The Hearings Officer issued the decision on August 27, 2008 (attached). A timely appeal was filed on September 8, 2008 by various neighbors, all represented by Bruce White. The appeal identifies eight (8) errors in the Hearings Officer decision and six (6) reasons why the Board should hear the appeal (see attached appeal). Finally, the appellants request that the Board hear the appeal on the record. APPEAL The notice of appeal describes relevant background facts and the reasons for appeal. As noted above, the appellants request an on the record review of the proposed telecommunications facility. The Board should review the notice of appeal to determine that it is sufficiently specific so that the Board is able to respond to and resolve each issue in dispute (see DCC 22.32.020(A)). If the Board decides to hear the appeal, the review shall be on the record unless the Board, under its own motion, decides to hear the appeal de novo (see DCC 22.32.027(B)(1) and (3)). The Board, may, at its discretion, determine that it will limit the issues on appeal to those listed in the notice of appeal or to one or more specific issues from among those listed on the notice of appeal (see: 22.32.027(6)(4)). DECLINING REVIEW If the Board of County Commissioners decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the County, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing Quality Services Performed zvith Pride may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use application becomes final upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review. In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider only: 1) The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2) The notice of appeal; and 3) Recommendations of staff (see DCC 22.32.035(8) and (D)). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the Hearings Officer decision and agrees with the approval. Staff does not believe the decision presents a policy issue for the county. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Board not hear the appeal. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK Deschutes County Code Section 22.24.140 governs continuances or extensions, and the effect a continucance or extension has on the 150-day land use clock. Subsection (E) states, A continuance or record extension granted under 22.24.140 shall be subject to the 150- day time limit unless the continuance or extension is requested or otherwise agreed to by the applicant. When the record is left open or a continuance is granted after a request by an applicant, the time period during which the 150-day clock is suspended shall in clude the time period made available to the applicant and any time period given to parties to resond to the applicant's submittal. As indicated in the Hearings Officer decision, the 150-day land use clock ends on October 14, 2008. Specifically, the decision states, The Hearings Officer left the written evidentiary record open through August 5, 2008 and allowed the applicant through August 12, 2008 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant agreed to these record extensions, under Section 22.24.140(E) of the county's procedures ordinance the 150-day period was tolled for 22 days (from July 22 through August 12) and now expires on October 14, 2008. After receiving the decision, the applicant's legal counsel contacted staff concerned that an error was made with regard to the land use clock. The applicant's legal counsel referred staff to DCC 22.24.130(D) which states, An applicant shall be allowed, unless waived, to submit final written arguments in support of its application after the record has closed within such time limits as the Hearings Body shall set. The Hearings Body shall allow applicant at least seven days to submit its argument, which time shall be counted against the 150-day clock. [Emphasis added] Based on DCC 22.24.130(D), the applicant's legal counsel argued that the seven-day final argument period should count against the 150-day land use clock, and that the clock should end on October 7, 2008 and not October 14. As detailed above, the Hearings Officer references Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.763 with regard to the seven-day final argument period. Staff notes that ORS 197.763(6)(e) states the seven-day final argument period, ..shall not be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.427... Oregon Revised Statute 215.427 provides the 150-day limit for final action on land use decisions for counties. Staff's reading the Hearings Officer decision, ORS 197.763(6)(e), and ORS 215.427 together indicate that the seven-day final argument period is not subject to the 150-day land use clock and, therefore, the clock for AD-08-5 expires on October 14, 2008. However, staff also recognizes that the language of DCC 22.24.130(D) appears to conflict with the statutes identified above. The Board should be aware that the applicant may challenge the expiration of the 150-day land use clock. SCHEDULE Staff requests that this item be scheduled for the Board's regular meeting on Septebmer 17, 2008. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Attachments DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: AD-08-5 APPLICANT: United States Cellular Operating Company of Medford 8410 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Suite 700 2g 031 ` Chicago, Illinois 60631-3486 `W lam, PROPERTY OWNERS: Albert and Susan Gonzalez P.O. Box 8298 Bend, Oregon 97708 APPLICANT'S AGENT: Dan MacKinney Wireless Site Technology, LLC 9323 N. Government Way, #220 Hayden, Idaho 83835 APPLICANT'S T 60, N POGO w© ALL9LSd :V~ ATTORNEY: Erik Glatte Kellington, Krack, Richmond, Blackhurst & Glatte, LLP 23 Newtown Street P.O. Box 1583 Medford, Oregon 97501 REQUEST: The applicant requests an administrative determination authori zing it to establish a wireless communication facility, consisting of a 62-foot-tall monopine, 12-foot by 20-foot equipment shelter, back- up power generator and propane tank, perimeter security fence, and access driveway on an approximately 79-acre parcel zoned EFU-TRB and located on Arnold Market Road east of Bend. STAFF REVIEWER: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner HEARING DATES: June 3 and July 22, 2008 RECORD CLOSED: August 12, 2008 1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions * Section 18.04.030, Definitions 2. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 1 of 29 * Section 18.16.025. Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions under DCC Section 18.16.038 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 for Items C through M * Section 18.16.038, Special Conditions for Certain Uses Listed under DCC 18.16.025 * Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards * Section 18.16.070, Yards B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance 1. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings * Section 22.24.030, Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action * Section 22.24.140, Continuances or Record Extensions C. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 1. Chapter 215, County Planning * ORS 215.275, Siting Standards for Utility Facilities in EFU Zones * ORS 215.283, Uses Permitted in Exclusive Farm Use Zones in Nonmarginal Lands Counties H. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Location: The subject property is located at 60316 Arnold Market Road, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 106 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 18-13-19. B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use- Tumalo/RedmondBend Subzone (EFU-TRB), and is designated Agriculture on the comprehensive plan map. C. Site Description: The subject property is 79.02 acres in size and rectangular in shape. Topography varies from level to gently rolling. Vegetation consists of scattered mature juniper trees up to approximately 35 feet in height and native brush and grasses. The property is developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structure and barn located in the northern half of the property. There is an Arnold Irrigation District lateral canal traversing the northern half of the property from southwest to northeast. The property has access from Arnold Market Road via a private driveway with a gated entrance. The property is not engaged in farm use and is not receiving farm tax deferral. The proposed site for the wireless communication facility is a 360-square-foot leased area near the US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 2 of 29 eastern property boundary northeast of the existing dwelling and barn. D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: The subject property is surrounded by land zoned EFU-TRB, some of which is engaged in farm use. The majority of surrounding properties have dwellings. Land further to the north and east is zoned EFU-Alfalfa Subzone (EFU- AL) and Rural Residential (RR-10). Further to the southeast is land zoned EFU-Horse Ridge Subzone (EFU-HR) and RR-10. Further to the south is land zoned EFU-AL, RR- 10 and Forest Use (F-1). Further to the west is land zoned EFU-TRB. The surrounding RR-10 zoned lands are developed with small-scale farms, rural residences, and rural subdivisions including Sundance Meadows and Conestoga Hills. A private airstrip owned and operated by Sundance Meadows, Inc. is located south of the subject property, however there is no Airport Safety Combining (AS) Zone for this private airstrip. E. Procedural History: The subject application was filed on March 24, 2008. By a letter dated April 3, 2008 the Planning Division advised the applicant that the application was incomplete and gave the applicant 30 days to submit the missing information. The applicant submitted supplemental information (hereafter supplemental burden of proof) on April 15, 2008, and the county accepted the application as complete on April 23, 2008. Therefore, the 150-day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS 215.477 would have expired on September 22, 2008. The initial public hearing on the application was held on June 3, 2008. At the hearing, Senior Planner Anthony Raguine advised the Hearings Officer and the parties that the county had failed to provide the required mailed notice of hearing to all property owners entitled to such notice. The Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence and continued the hearing to a date to be determined in order to allow sufficient time for the county to mail the required hearing notice. Subsequently, July 22, 2008 was selected as the date for the continued public hearing, and on June 9, 2008 the county mailed notice of the continued hearing. On June 13, 2008 the Hearings Officer conducted a site visit to the subject property and vicinity accompanied by Anthony Raguine. At the continued public hearing on July 22, 2008, the Hearings Officer disclosed her observations and impressions from the site visit and again received testimony and evidence. The Hearings Officer left the written evidentiary record open through August 5, 2008 and allowed the applicant through August 12, 2008 to submit final argument pursuant to ORS 197.763. Because the applicant agreed to these record extensions, under Section 22.24.140(E) of the county's procedures ordinance the 150-day period was tolled for 22 days (from July 22 through August 12) and now expires on October 14, 2008. As of the date of this decision there remain 49 days in the extended 150-day period. F. Proposal: The applicant proposes to establish a wireless communication facility on a 360-square-foot leased area on the subject property to serve a geographic area bounded by Rickard Road on the north, Windsong Lane on the west, and Calgary Drive on the south, and including land east of Gosney Road, east of Horse Butte, and southwest of US Highway 20 East. The proposed facility would have the following components: US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 3 of 29 • A 62-foot-tall tower consisting of a "monopine" (artificial pine tree) on a concrete foundation;' • cellular telephone antennas painted to blend with the color of the monopine and mounted at the 42- and 57-foot levels on the monopine;2 • a 12' by 20' prefabricated concrete equipment shelter on a concrete slab foundation and with a brown exterior finish that would have a remote monitoring system for fire and security; • a back-up power generator and propane tank; • a 6-foot-tall chain link fence around the leased area with a locked gate; • a gravel-surfaced vehicle parking area within the security fence; and • a gravel-surfaced access driveway extending from the existing driveway to the dwelling from Arnold Market Road.3 The proposed monopine would have the following setbacks from the north, east, south and west property boundaries, respectively: 693 feet, 77 feet, 1,946 feet, and 1,243 feet. The proposed monopine would be approximately 920 feet from the nearest existing residence outside the subject property.4 Access to the proposed facility would be restricted through use of a locked gate in the perimeter security fence. Following construction of the facility, vehicle traffic would consist of occasional visits to the site by the applicant's staff. The applicant does not propose to light the monopine. G. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division sent notice of the applicant's ' The applicant's burden of proof narrative states the monopine would be 60 feet tall. However, at the initial public hearing the applicant's representative Dan MacKinney testified, and the design drawing attached to the applicant's burden of proof (Drawing A2) shows, that the tower portion of the monopine would be 60 feet tall but the highest "branches" of the monopine would. be 62 feet tall. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed monopine height is 62 feet. 2 The applicant's own antennas would be placed at the 57-foot level, and the 42-foot level would be reserved for co-location of another utility's antennas. The diagram labeled "Al" and attached to the applicant's burden of proof also shows a location for a "future carrier" tower east of the applicant's proposed monopine. However, the applicant has not requested, and the Hearings Officer does not approve, a location for a second tower on the subject property. 3 The applicant's burden of proof states the access driveway extending from the dwelling's driveway to the leased area consists of existing dirt roads on the subject property on which gravel would be placed. 4 The record indicates the county has issued conditional use permits for additional dwellings in the area surrounding the subject property, and at least one of these dwellings when built would be located closer than 920 feet to the applicant's proposed facility. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 4 of 29 proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from: the Deschutes County Assessor, Building Division, and Environmental Health Division; the Bend Fire Department; and the Arnold Irrigation District. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 2-3 of the staff report and/or are included in the record. H. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located within 2,250 feet of the subject property. This extended notice area (750 is the typical notice area for land use proposals on EFU-zoned land) was required by Section 22.24.030(A)(4) of the county's procedures ordinance. That provision requires expanded notice areas for structures exceeding 30 feet in height, calculated by adding 750 feet of notice area for every 30 feet of proposed structure height above 30 feet or increment thereof - in this case, for a 62-foot-tall tower, 1,500 additional feet of notice area. In addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the Bend `Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject. property was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in this matter closed, the county had received 36 letters in response to these notices. In addition, 17 members of the public testified at the two public hearings. Public comments are addressed in the findings below. I. Lot of Record: The subject property is a legal lot of record having been created as Parcel 3 of Partition Plat 1995-38. M. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Preliminary Issues: FINDINGS: Opponents raised four issues that do not relate directly to any applicable approval criteria and are addressed in the findings below. 1. Inadequate Notice. Opponent Steve Helland, President of Sundance Meadows, Inc., argued notice of the applicant's proposal was not adequate because it did not include individual mailed notice to each of the corporation's approximately 600 members who own a share of the corporation's approximately 900 acres of land located within the expanded notice area. Section 22.24.030 requires the county to provide individual written notice of the public hearing to the "owners of record of property as shown on the most recent property tax assessment roll of property located." The record indicates the Assessor's tax assessment roll does not show the individual share owners of the corporation's property. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the county did not err in failing to mail individual written notice to each share owner. 2. Conditional Use/Compatibility Considerations. Opponents argue the applicant's proposal should be treated as a conditional use so that Hearings Officer can consider compatibility issues such as impacts to scenic views, wildlife, property values, and human health from radio frequency (RF) radiation. As discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal is a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone subject only to the special standards for utility facilities discussed in detail in those findings. Therefore, I have no authority to review the applicant's proposal as a conditional use or to consider conditional use US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 5 of 29 compatibility factors.5 3. Conflict with Private Airstrip. Opponents argue the applicant's proposal should be denied because the proposed 62-foot-tall monopine would interfere with operations at and near Sundance Meadows' private airstrip. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the county has not adopted an AS Zone to protect this airstrip. In addition, the record includes as Hearing Exhibit 1 (July 22, 2008) a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) June 18, 2008 "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" for the applicant's proposed facility, concluding that the proposed monopine at a height of 70 feet would not be a hazard to air navigation and that neither marking nor lighting the monopine is necessary for aviation safety. The Hearings Officer finds that even if there were evidence in this record that the applicant's proposed monopine would interfere with aircraft operating at or near the private airstrip, the FAA's "no hazard" determination preempts a conflicting determination by the county. US Cellular v. Klamath County, 53 Or LUBA 442 (2007). Therefore, I find no merit to this argument. 4. County Conflict of Interest. Opponents Mel and Judy Getz appear to argue the county cannot fairly consider this application because: "the County has an existing business relationship with the applicant which may influence said application; as an example the County has shown no sensitivity to the environment allowing a stark cell tower just off 27`h Street near the County landfill (see attached photograph) which does and will effect [sic] property owners view from the east as well as an eyesore from 27`h Street and beyond. " Mr. and Mrs. Getz offered no evidence of an actual conflict of interest on the part of the Hearings Officer or members of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (board). And no opponent objected to my qualifications to act as the hearings officer in this matter when given the opportunity to do so at both the initial and continued public hearings. Therefore, I find no merit to this argument. B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones a. Section 18.16.025, Uses Permitted Subject to the Special Provisions Under DCC Section 18.16.038 and a Review Under DCC Chapter 18.124 for Items C through M. I. Utility facilities necessary for public service, including wetland s In any case, the county is preempted by federal law - the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from denying or conditioning approval of a proposed wireless communication facility on the basis of impacts from RF radiation. Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 LUBA 192 (2004). US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 6 of 29 waste treatment systems, but not including commercial facilities for the purpose of generating electrical power for public use by sale and transmission towers over 200 feet in height. (Emphasis added.) FINDINGS: At the outset, this section states the permitted uses listed Paragraphs C through M, including "utility facilities necessary for public service," are subject to site plan review under Chapter 18.124. However, the county does not require site plan approval for such facilities because Sections 18.16.025 and 18.16.038 were adopted to implement the provisions of ORS 215.283 and 215.275, respectively, which allow transmission towers less than 200 feet tall in the EFU Zones as long as the applicant demonstrates such facilities are "necessary for public service." For this reason, the county cannot apply additional local criteria such as those for site plan or conditional use approval. Brentmar v. Jackson County, 321 Or 481, 496, 900 P2d 1030 (1995); GCC Bend, LLC(AD-06-13). UTILITY FACILITY Opponents argue the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility does not constitute a "utility facility," defined in Section 18.04.030 as follows: "Utility facility" means any major structures, excluding hydroelectric facilities, owned or operated by a public, private or cooperative electric, fuel, communications, sewage or water company for the generation, transmission, distribution or processing of its products or for the disposal of cooling water, waste or by-products, and including power transmission lines, major trunk pipelines, power substations, telecommunications facilities, water towers, 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 telecommunications facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a zone. (Emphasis added.) In this Hearings Officer's decision in HGB (AD-07-12), I held an AM radio broadcaster was a "utility facility" under this definition because it was licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), based on the following findings: "The Hearings Officer fords the ordinary definition of 'communication' - i.e., 'transmitting; giving or exchanging of information A3 - clearly encompasses the applicant's proposed transmission of AM radio signals. In addition, as noted in the staff report, in previous decisions the county has found radio transmitting facilities including towers to constitute "utility facilities' under this definition.4 3 Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition. 4 E.g., GCC Bend, LLC (AD-06-13). " The Hearings Officer adheres to these findings. The record indicates the applicant is a private US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 7 of 29 i wireless telecommunications company that is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless telecommunications service. (Hearing Exhibit 2 (July 22, 2008)). Opponent Arnold Market Gosney Rickard Neighbors (AMGRN) questions whether the applicant's proposed access driveway constitutes a "utility facility" under Section 18.04.030. Opponents do not question whether the back-up power generator, propane tank, and security fence proposed for the lease area are part of the proposed utility. The Hearings Officer finds the proposed access driveway probably cannot be considered a "similar facility" under that definition because it bears no resemblance to the listed facilities included in the "utility facility" definition. An access driveway arguably falls under the definition of "accessory use" in Section 18.04.030 - "a use or structure incidental and subordinate to the main use of the property, and located on the same lot as the main use." However, Section 18.16.025 does not include "accessory uses" in the list of uses permitted subject to the special provisions in Section 18.16.038.6 The remaining question, then, is whether the applicant's proposed access driveway is a separate use that requires approval in order to site on the subject property. It is clear from Section 18.16.038 that many of the uses permitted in the EFU Zone under this section would require some type of access driveway even though such a use is not specifically listed as permitted in the zone - e.g., farm-related dwellings, churches, and schools. Section 18.16.038 requires site plan approval for churches and schools, and the Hearings Officer is aware that access driveways to such facilities have been subjected to site plan review in conjunction with the primary use even though none of the special standards in Section 18.16.038 addresses or establishes standards for access driveways. I also am aware the county reviews access driveways in conjunction with its review of farm-related dwellings, suggesting the county considers the driveways to be part of those proposed residential uses. Thus, it appears from the provisions of Section 18.16.038 and the county's practice that access driveways to uses permitted under Section 18.16.038 - including utility facilities are considered and reviewed as part of the permitted use, in essentially the same manner as accessory uses are reviewed. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's entire proposal, including the access driveway, back-up power generator, propane tank, and security fence, is a "utility facility" under Section 18.04.030. NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE The remaining question under Section 18.16.025 is whether the applicant's proposal satisfies the requirements of Paragraph (I) of this section, which establishes two requirements: • if the "utility facility" includes towers, they must not be over 200 feet in height; and • the utility facility must be "necessary for public service." 6 This is in contrast to Section 18.16.020 that includes "accessory uses" in the uses permitted outright in the EFU Zone, and Section 18.16.030 which includes "accessory uses" as part of some permitted uses - e.g., nonfarm dwellings. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 8 of 29 The applicant's proposal includes a monopine less than 200 feet tall, therefore satisfying the first requirement. Compliance with the second requirement is addressed in the findings immediately below under Section 18.16.038. b. Section 18.16.038, Special Conditions for Certain Uses Listed Under DCC 18.16.025 A. A utility facility necessary for public use allowed under DCC 18.16.025(C) shall be one that is necessary to be situated in an agricultural zone in order for service to be provided. To demonstrate that a utility facility is necessary. an annlicant must show that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that the facility must be sited in an exclusive farm use zone due to one or more of the following factors: 1. Technical and engineering feasibility; 2. The proposed facility is locationally dependent. A utility facility is locationally dependent if it must cross land in one or more areas zoned for exclusive farm use in order to achieve a reasonably direct route or to meet unique geographical needs that cannot be satisfied on other lands. 3. Lack of available urban and nonresource lands; 4. Availability of existing rights of way 5. Public health and safety; and 6. Other requirements of state and federal agencies; 7. Costs associated with any of the factors listed in 1-6 above may be considered, but cost alone may not be the only consideration in determining that a utility facility is necessary for public service. Land costs shall not be included when considering alternative locations for substantially similar utility facilities that are not substantially similar. 8. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 9 of 29 subsection shall prevent the owner of the facility from requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise imposing on a contractor the responsibility for restoration. 9. In addition to the provisions of 1-6 above, the establishment or extension of a sewer system as defined in OAR 660-011-0060(1)(1) in an exclusive farm use zone shall be subject to the provisions of OAR 660-011- 0060. 10. The provisions above do not apply to interstate gas pipelines and associated facilities authorized by and subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FINDINGS: This section is identical to, and implements, the provisions of ORS 215.275. It establishes two requirements the applicant must meet to demonstrate a proposed utility facility is "necessary for public service:" • the applicant considered reasonable alternatives to siting the facility on the EFU-zoned subject property; and • the proposed facility must be sited on EFU-zoned land to satisfy "one or more" of the seven locational factors. 1. Interpretation of Statutory Requirements. The meaning of these requirements has been the subject of several LUBA and court decisions. The most comprehensive discussion is found in Sprint PCS v. Washington County, 42 Or LUBA 512 (2002), and the Court of Appeal's decision affirming LUBA's decision (186 Or App 470, 63 P.3d 1261 (2003)). LUBA's decision remanded the county's decision to deny an application for a wireless telecommunication facility on EFU land. On appeal, after a lengthy discussion of the text, context and legislative history of the language in ORS 215.275, the Court of Appeals held the term "reasonable alternative" refers to a site not on EFU land, and that when deciding whether it is necessary to site a public utility facility on EFU-zoned land local governments must analyze any alternative sites based on ORS 215.275. The court also considered whether and to what degree local governments may defer to the applicant's stated service and business objectives in determining whether there are reasonable alternatives to siting the proposed facility on EFU-zoned land. The court held that local governments may consider the utility applicant's service and business objectives in evaluating the reasonableness of alternative sites, and that there is nothing in ORS 215.275 that requires a utility applicant to consider a different methodology for providing the utility service in order to place its facility on non-EFU land. However, the court also held ORS 215.275 implies an obligation on the part of a utility to consider different facility designs in order to adapt the applicant's chosen methodology to non-EFU alternative sites. The court agreed with LUBA that US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 10 of 29 at some point the difference between the applicant's proposed design and an alternative design that would permit siting on non-EFU land could become so great that a non-EFU site could not be considered a "reasonable alternative." Finally, the court held that in determining what constitutes a "reasonable alternative," local governments should be guided by the overarching statutory goal i.e., the provision of public utility service - and if the utility's objectives can be met by siting a facility with a different design on non-EFU land, the local government cannot find the proposed facility must be sited on EFU-zoned land to provide the public utility service. 2. Applicant's Obiectives. The applicant's burden of proof states it determined its existing network and facilities in Deschutes County do not provide adequate wireless service in the area southeast of Bend bounded by Rickard Road on the north; Windsong Lane on the west, and Calgary Drive on the south, and including land east of Gosney Road, east of Horse Butte, and southwest of US Highway 20 East. This targeted coverage area is depicted on Figure 1 attached to the applicant's burden of proof. At the initial public hearing the applicant's representative Dan MacKinney testified the applicant recognized the need for better service southeast of Bend because of the increase in population density in this area. At the continued public hearing, Melinda Hogan, manager of the applicant's Bend store, testified that for the last two years she had received increasing complaints from US Cellular customers in southeast Bend about no service or poor service and dropped calls in that area.7 For these reasons, the applicant engaged in a process to identify sites for a new cellular facility that would provide coverage in this area. The applicant identified a "search ring" based on computer modeling of existing and desired wireless signal coverage in the geographic area described above, and taking into account the applicant's existing wireless telecommunications facility network in Bend. Based on this modeling, the applicant determined that antennas mounted on a 60-foot-tall tower on the subject property would provide the desired signal strength and coverage. The applicant submitted into the record as Hearing Exhibit 2 (June 3, 2008) a map depicting this enhanced coverage with the proposed new facility. The applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof identify the following key service and business objectives for siting the proposed wireless communication facility: • providing signal coverage in the geographic area described above; • providing an opportunity for co-location for another user in accordance with the applicant's business policies and practices;' • providing a location that does not create overlapping coverage or interference with the applicant's other wireless communication facilities; and 7 At the continued public hearing Jerry Millard and Mark Ernst, US Cellular customers who live east and north of the subject property, respectively, testified their cellular telephone coverage at and near their homes is very poor with dropped calls being a common occurrence. Co-location also appears to be the county's policy, indicated by co-location requirements in the conditional use approval criteria for wireless telecommunication facilities in Section 18.128.340(B). US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 11 of 29 • consisting of a tower no taller than necessary to achieve the above objectives. The applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof state the applicant determined antennas mounted on a 60-foot-tall tower on the subject property would achieve these objectives, would fully utilize the site's potential, and would be economically feasible. The applicant's representative Dan MacKinney testified at the initial public hearing that the applicant chose a monopine rather than a monopole or lattice tower because of the presence of mature ponderosa pines in the area surrounding the subject property and because the applicant believed a monopine would have fewer visual impacts than a monopole or lattice tower. Opponents argue the applicant has not demonstrated its proposed facility is "necessary" at all. They assert cellular telephone service is a "luxury" that need not be accommodated by the county. The Hearings Officer finds Congress determined through enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that wireless communication service is sufficiently important to the country's economy and welfare to justify legislation to encourage and protect its development.9 Several opponents who live in the area surrounding the subject property testified they have adequate cellular telephone service from US Cellular and other service providers. Opponent Deborah McMahon argued the applicant's own website service coverage maps show it has adequate service coverage in this part of the Bend area. Copies of these maps are included in the record at pages 1-4 of Ms. McMahon's July 23, 2008 submission. In its July 28, 2008 response, the applicant pointed out that the website information submitted by Ms. McMahon omitted the following important disclaimer language: "The map shows an approximation of service coverage. Actual coverage may vary." The applicant also argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the fact there is some coverage in the area - either from the applicant's facilities or another utility's facilities does not preclude approval of a facility intended and designed to improve that service. T-Mobile v. Yamhill County, _ Or LUBA (LUBA No. 2007-105, October, 2007). Opponents also dispute the evidence submitted by the applicant showing the level of actual signal strength and coverage in the area to be served by the proposed facility. In particular, opponents assert the applicant's "drive tests" conducted to determine signal strength, coverage, and service gaps were unrealistic and did not produce reliable or credible coverage data. The applicant's RF engineer Doug Briedwell testified at the continued public hearing that in late June, 2008 he conducted two "drive tests" in the geographic area surrounding the subject property in order to test the applicant's signal strength and coverage. During these tests, calls were made between two US Cellular telephones, one placed on the car's dashboard and the other on the car's passenger seat. Mr. Briedwell stated these calls were made using the applicant's existing network and that no alterations were made to the power or signal from existing facilities, and in particular to the applicant's existing facility at the intersection of Ward and Rastovich Roads in southeast Bend. 9 The record includes as Hearing Exhibit 6 (July 22, 2008) an electronic mail message from Rick Silbaugh, Public Safety Systems Coordinator for the Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District, stating that in the first half of 2008, 64% of all calls to 9-1-1 weremade from cellular phones. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 12 of 29 Mr. Briedwell submitted drawings depicting the results of his June "drive tests," included in the record as Hearing Exhibits 3 and 4 (July 22, 2008), as well as a narrative describing the tests and included in the record as Hearing Exhibit 5 (July 22, 2008). These exhibits and Mr. Briedwell's hearing testimony indicated the "drive tests" revealed that while there are a few areas southeast of Bend where the applicant's signal is strong (depicted on the maps by green marks), there are significant areas in which its signal is too weak to provide adequate in-vehicle and/or in-building coverage (depicted on the maps by yellow and orange marks), and in which calls are dropped or cannot be completed (depicted on the maps by small black telephone symbols). In response to questioning by the Hearings Officer, Mr. Briedwell acknowledged that many cellular telephone calls are made to or from land lines rather than between cell phones, and that he would expect there to be fewer dropped or missed calls and somewhat better signal strength and coverage with calls between a cellular phone and a land line. Nevertheless, Mr. Briedwell stated that in his opinion the June "drive tests" accurately simulated "real world" conditions. In its July 29, 2008 memorandum the applicant submitted the results of a third "drive test" conducted on July 28, 2008 in the area surrounding the subject property, again using the applicant's existing facility network without modifications. However, this test involved calls made between a cellular phone on the car's passenger seat and a land line located in Bend. The results of this drive test, depicted in a narrative and map attached to the applicant's July 29, 2008 memorandum, show a larger area of adequate in-vehicle and in-building signal, particularly near the applicant's existing facility at the intersection of Ward and Rastovich Roads (depicted in green), and fewer dropped calls. However, the map shows there are still significant areas in which the signal strength was too weak for adequate in-vehicle and in-building coverage (depicted in yellow and orange). The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's "drive test" evidence reliably and credibly establishes the basis for the applicant's conclusion that it is necessary to improve its existing wireless communication service in the area surrounding the subject property by increasing signal strength and coverage area and reducing the number of dropped calls. The remaining question is whether the applicant's proposed facility must be sited on the EFU- zoned subject property to provide the public utility service that would achieve the applicant's business and service objectives. As discussed above, to meet this requirement the applicant must demonstrate both that it considered "reasonable alternatives" and that the facility must be sited in an EFU Zone due to "one or more" of the seven locational factors in Section 18.16.038(A). 3. Reasonable Alternatives Analysis. The applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof state its "reasonable alternatives" analysis looked for non-EFU sites within the search ring that could meet the service and business objectives identified above, and described that process as including the following components: • identifying non-EFU zoned land in the vicinity of the subject property; • identifying existing structures (power poles, other towers, etc.) outside the EFU-zoned land for possible co-location of the applicant's antennas; US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 13 of 29 • reviewing the non-EFU lands for elevation, topography, existing development, and tree heights; • performing computer modeling to determine the tower height necessary to provide the desired signal strength and coverage in the identified geographic area, including the height necessary to clear topography, structures, and trees; and • evaluating potential non-EFU sites for their ability to meet conditional use approval criteria, if applicable, for the siting of a wireless telecommunications facility. a. Sites Not Considered The applicant's alternative sites analysis did not include other EFU- zoned land. Opponent AMGRN's consulting planner Ted Kreines of Kreines & Kreines, Inc., argued in his July 29, 2008 report, attached to AMGRN's July 29, 2008 submission, that the analysis should have included other EFU-zoned land. That argument ignores the plain language of Section 18.16.038 that clearly identifies the object of the required alternative sites analysis as determining if there are reasonable alternative sites on non-EFU land and not finding more suitable EFU-zoned sites. The applicant's initial alternative sites analysis did not include federal land in the vicinity of the subject property. These lands are owned and managed by either the United States Forest Service (USFS) or the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Technically these lands are not zoned because the county does not have jurisdiction over federal land, although the Hearings Officer is aware the county considers federal land surrounding Bend to be "resource land." I find including federal land in alternative site analyses is at best problematic inasmuch as federal approvals for wireless communications facilities are not as easily issued as they are for such facilities on private land. See, Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 LUBA 129 (2004). This fact is demonstrated by the lengthy and complex federal regulations - 43 CFR Part 2800 governing the granting of rights-of-way on federal land for uses such as the applicant's proposed facility, a copy of which is included in the applicant's July 28, 2008 submission. Although Dan MacKinney testified the applicant has obtained permits to site its facilities on federal land, I find it is not appropriate to consider sites on federal land as "reasonable" alternatives to EFU-zoned land given their significant resource values and the difficulty of obtaining federal rights-of-way. The applicant's alternative sites analysis also did not include its existing facility located northwest of the subject property at the intersection of Ward and Rastovich Roads on land zoned EFU-TRB. At the continued public hearing Doug Briedwell testified the applicant did not consider this site a reasonable alternative because its 2007 request to increase the height of the Ward/Rastovich Road monopole from 35 to 60 feet was denied by Deschutes County Hearings Officer Kenneth Helm (AD-07-13). A copy of that decision is included in this record. The decision notes the existing Ward/Rastovich Road facility was approved in 2004 (CU-04-22),10 on the basis that alternative co-location sites had been considered and found unsuitable. Hearings Officer Helm's decision includes the following pertinent findings: 10 Hearings Officer Helm noted it was not clear why the county treated the applicant's 2004 proposal as a conditional use in light of Section 18.16.038. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 14 of 29 "US Cellular's current application attempts to rely on the alternative site analysis from CU-4-22 to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.16038. That analysis only examined the option of co-locating with other providers in accordance with DCC 18.128.340(B)(2).However, that prior analysis is not sufficient to comply with either DCC 18.16038 or ORS 215.275 because these provisions enforce a more rigorous standard for considering alternative sites. Because this application relies on the alternative sites analysis of CU-04-22, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that non-EFU lands have been considered For these reasons, I find that this application does not sufficiently consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed facility location. " Hearings Officer Helm's decision went on to ford that the applicant had adequately demonstrated there was a "technical and engineering feasibility" justification for siting the proposed taller monopole at the Ward/Rastovich Road site to comply with Section 18.16.038(A)(1). Opponents argue that given the basis for the denial in AD-07-13 the applicant was not justified in excluding this facility from consideration as a "reasonable alternative." I agree with opponents that there is no reason to conclude from the decision in AD-07-13 that the applicant could not conduct an alternative sites analysis for the Ward/Rastovich Road facility that demonstrates there are no reasonable alternatives on EFU-zoned land. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the purpose of the alternative sites analysis is to identify non-EFU sites - not other EFU sites that are preferable to the subject property. Because the applicant's existing Ward/Rastovich Road site is on EFU- zoned land the applicant was not required to consider it." Finally, the applicant's alternative sites analysis does not include any existing utility poles. The applicant's original burden of proof states there were no existing utility poles within the search ring suitable for the co-location of its wireless antennas. Opponents Katherine Stuckey and AMGRN stated such poles do exist, but did not identify their locations so that they could be reviewed and evaluated in this proceeding. Moreover, in objecting to the applicant's proposed 60-foot-tall tower, many opponents asserted such a tall facility should not be approved on the subject property because they were required to install their utilities underground. The Hearings Officer fords from the evidence in the record that the applicant did not err in failing to consider existing utility poles. b. Sues Considered The applicant's alternative sites analysis resulted in the identification of five alternative sites located between 0.8 and 2.4 miles from the subject property, and depicted on the map included in the record as Hearing Exhibit 1 (July 22, 2008). All of these sites are located on 11 The applicant's final argument states its existing Ward/Rastovich Road facility is "not in the right location to provide good quality cell phone service for the entire target area." While that may be the case, the record does not include any evidence supporting that statement. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 15 of 29 RR-10-zoned land within the search ring, and are further described as follows: Alternative Site 1: Located northwest of the subject property at 22143 Rickard Road (Tax Lot 300 on Assessor's Map 18-13-19). Alternative Site 2: Located northeast of the subject property at 22648 Rickard Road (Tax Lot 1101 on Assessor's Map 18-13-17). Alternative Site 3: Located east of the subject property on Tax Lot 600 on Assessor's Map 18- 13-28A (no assigned address.) Alternative Site 4: Located south of the subject property at 59633 Jasper Place (Tax Lot 1200 on Assessor's Map 18-13-32C). Alternative Site 5: Located south of the subject property at 22541 Calgary Drive (Tax Lot 3200 on Assessor's Map 18-13-32B). In addition to these five sites, the applicant's analysis also considered two sites suggested by opponents, 12 and described as follows: Alternative Site 6: Located south of the subject property on land zoned F-1.13 BLM Site: Located southeast of the subject property near Ford Road. 14 As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the applicant was not required to consider sites on federal land because of their status as "resource" lands and because of the significant hurdles an applicant must surmount to obtain federal approval for wireless facilities on such lands. Nevertheless, because the applicant did consider a BLM site, it is included in the discussion of locational factors in the findings below. 4. Locational Factors. As discussed above, this section requires that the applicant demonstrate it must site its proposed wireless communication facility on EFU-zoned land "due to one or more" of seven locational factors. Opponent AMGRN's consulting planner Ted Kreines argued in his July 29, 2008 report that the applicant is required to demonstrate its proposal satisfies all seven 12 In her July 28, 2008 testimony opponent Jane Strell suggested another alternative site on private property at 60865 Biladeau Road owned by Hoisington. The applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that it did not need to consider this alternative site because the record indicates it is zoned EFU- TRB. 13 The record indicates this site also may be federal land managed by the USFS 14 The applicant's July 28, 2008 submission addresses siting the proposed facility on BLM land, and notes that Mr. Helland, representing Sundance Meadows Inc., did not identify a specific alternative facility site on BLM land but rather a general area. Consequently, the applicant identified in its alternative sites analysis a specific site on the BLM parcel that was at the highest elevation, adjacent to an existing road and its associated disturbed ground and vegetation, and further from the nearest dwellings. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 16 of 29 locational factors. That argument also ignores the plain language of Section 18.16.038 and ORS 215.275 on which the county's provision is based. Accordingly, I find the applicant need only demonstrate that due to one of the six factors its proposed facility must be sited on the EFU- zoned subject property. The applicant's burden of proof states its proposal satisfies three of these factors -1, 2, and 3 - and these are discussed in the findings below. a. Technical and Engineering Feasibility. The applicant's supplemental burden of proof describes its wireless telecommunications network as follows: "The design of a wireless communication network with multiple transmit/receive stations requires the balancing of many dynamic variables including topography, signal strength, antenna wave patterns, transmission location, radio capacity, population density, etc. PPI [pilot pollution interference] is a situation where the volume and strength of signals from a carrier's communication sites within its network received at a given location results in degradation of service to the end user at that location. In the operation of a wireless network signals from adjacent sites coordinate with each other to transmit/receive calls and transfer calls from one site to the next as a user travels through the area. Signal overlap occurs to facilitate this activity, however, the degree of overlap and signal strength from adjacent sites determines whether these incoming signals are `interference. ' In the operation of a wireless network, signals from adjacent sites coordinate with each other to transmit/receive calls and transfer calls from one site to the next as a user travels through the area. Signal overlap occurs to facilitate this activity; however, the degree of overlap and signal strength from adjacent sites determines whether these incoming signals are `interference. ' In CDMA systems (the technology platform which the applicant utilizes for its network operation), mobile stations (phones) have the capability to communicate with multiple base stations (antenna/radio sites) whenever the phone is located in the areas covered by overlapping base stations. However, the existence of a large number of strong site signals received at a given phone location is undesirable. This would create PPI and has the influence of overloading the phone's receiver with an excessive amount of signaling on control channels - it raises the `noise' (interference) level. The ability of a receiver (phone) to handle this noise is limited This condition erodes the signal dramatically, and the system suffers from dropping of ongoing calls, blocking of originating fresh calls, coverage shortage/gaps and a decrease in system capacity. " The applicant's existing network includes facility sites at the Bend Golf and Country Club in southeast Bend and at the intersection of Ward and Rastovich Roads. The applicant's materials explain that cellular signals are broadcast 360 degrees from the tower, resulting in a "honeycomb of circles intersecting as tangents to each other," which when they work together minimize "the quantity of transmitter locations while maximizing the signal coverage achieved." (1) Proposed Site. The applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof state the proposed US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 17 of 29 facility on the subject property, utilizing a 62-foot-tall monopine, would provide adequate signal strength and coverage for the targeted geographic area and would provide an opportunity for co- location of another utility's antennas. The applicant also argues its proposed facility would not create overlapping coverage with its other facilities serving southeast Bend which would interfere with these other facilities. As discussed in the findings above, the applicant's RF engineer conducted three "drive tests" showing the areas of deficiency in signal strength and coverage. In addition, the applicant's burdens of proof include maps showing coverage within the targeted geographic area with and without and proposed facility, and depict significantly better coverage with the proposed facility. Opponents argue the applicant's evidence is inadequate to show the technical and engineering feasibility of the proposed facility site. Specifically, AMGRN's July 29, 2008 memorandum states the applicant should have included the following information: "1. The exact proposed height needed and the effect of radiated power to show that the need can be demonstrated 2. A signal strength analysis study that can be analyzed by a reviewing or peer RF engineer to verify the applicant's claim that the tower is actually needed in the proposed location as compared to other locations that are non-resource lands. [Footnote omitted.] 3. Antennae cut sheets and detail data to support applicant's claim that there is indeed signal interference and a need to minimize interference to other towers in Bend. 4. Persuasive data showing that the system needs improvement to remedy the coverage issue. The applicant has stated that cell tower systems do not operate independently and rely upon the entire system and network to be effective. However, the statements are assumptions and not proven facts. A typical RF analysis for this type of use would include the studies and information listed above, albeit highly technical, to provide data proving that there is a need and that the alternative sites cannot be used to provide the operational characteristics necessary to solve the deficiency. " The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's evidence does in fact identify the exact height needed and signal coverage for the proposed facility at that height. In addition, the applicant submitted evidence including the results of three "drive tests" documenting coverage gaps using the applicant's existing facilities and network, as well as coverage maps showing gaps in coverage. AMGRN does not explain why such evidence does not fit within one or more of the categories of technical evidence they argued is required. In its August 5, 2008 submittal the applicant responded to AMGRN's arguments as follows: "The Opponents are wrong about what is required for submission. Drive tests, US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 18 of 29 expert testimony and testimony from customers about poor coverage is sufficient to demonstrate a need for the site. Three drive tests have been submitted into the record that test the signal strength in the target area. All drive test data demonstrate that the current coverage is deficient. The record is filled with both written and oral testimony about the need for the site. There is more than substantial evidence that the proposed site would improve service for in-vehicle and in-building coverage. Again, improving the system is a legitimate reason for erection of a cellular tower. See, T-Mobile v. Yamhill County, LUBA No. 1007- 105. It should also be noted that the Opponents have not presented any evidence from an expert stating that the current coverage is adequate for in-vehicle and in- building coverage or that RF studies somehow fall below acceptable standards. "(Underscored emphasis in original.) The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant's argument and finds the applicant submitted substantial evidence from which I can, and do, find its proposed facility on the subject property would significantly increase signal strength and coverage in the targeted geographic area. I appreciate the challenges facing opponents to wireless communication facilities who may not be able to present evidence from their own RF engineers evaluating and rebutting technical evidence presented by the applicant. 15 Nevertheless, the issue before me is whether opponents' lay testimony raises questions or issues that undermine or call into question the conclusions or supporting documentation presented by the applicant's experts. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Bend, 52 Or LUBA 261 (2006). I find opponents' evidence does not rise to that level. (2) Alternative Sites. The applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof state that in order to achieve the signal strength and coverage in the targeted geographic area equivalent to what would be achieved by the proposed facility, the poles would need to be at the following heights to clear topography, structures and vegetation and broadcast a signal in the targeted area: Site 1: 90 feet; Site 2: 150 feet; Site 3: 140 feet; Site 4: 120 feet; Site 5: 120 feet; Site 6 (F-1 Zone): 150 feet; and BLM site: over 200 feet. As discussed in detail in the findings below, the applicant argued in its original burden of proof that these required tower heights would preclude conditional use approval of these facilities because of the increased visual impacts from such tall towers. However, in its supplemental burden of proof, the applicant also addressed technical and engineering feasibility factors, and in particular the issue of interference - i.e., PPI as follows. Alternative Site 1 would be located approximately 2.25 miles from the applicant's existing " AMGRN's July 29, 2008 submission notes it hired an RF engineer but that he had to decline the work due to a conflict of interest. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 19 of 29 Ward/Rastovich Roads site and also is much closer to the Bend urban area. The applicant stated that because of Site 1's proximity to the Bend market, antennas on a 90-foot tower at this site would "flood the core Bend area with unwanted signal due to both its height and proximity to the market area." The applicant stated that in order to reduce this unwanted signal or PPI, the signal at a Site 1 facility would have to be "throttled back" so much that it "would be essentially useless," and would significantly underutilize the facility representing an unwise investment of the roughly $400,000 required to establish it. With respect to Alternative Sites 2-5, the applicant stated the interference issues would result from both the towers' heights and from their locations at the edge of the intended coverage area. Because of the much greater tower height required to provide equivalent signal strength and coverage from a more remote facility site, the signals would flood the Bend core area with unwanted signals, would actually overshoot some of the much closer targeted coverage area, and would broadcast signals to outlying areas - such as unpopulated private lands as well as BLM and USFS lands - located well outside the targeted service area. The applicant stated "current radio and antenna technology does not offer the applicant alternatives to manage the unwanted signals, other than reducing power to the antennas," which would reduce the signal for the targeted service area. The applicant estimated facilities on these more remote sites would be underutilized by a factor of 40 to 50 percent, therefore significantly reducing the facilities' technical and cost effectiveness. Although the applicant's supplemental burden of proof does not address the alternative sites located on F-1 land BLM land, the Hearings Officer finds from the above-described evidence that given their even more remote locations and higher tower heights they would present similar feasibility issues. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds facilities at Alternative Site 1-5 and the alternative sites on F-1 and BLM land do not constitute reasonable alternatives to the proposed facility on the subject property due to technical and engineering feasibility. In particular, I find that at the tower heights required to provide the signal strength and coverage equivalent to what would be provided at the proposed facility, cellular facilities on these alternative sites would create unacceptable levels of signal interference which could only be corrected by design measures that would significantly underutilize the facilities, resulting in the applicant's inability to provide the public utility service identified as needed in the targeted coverage area to achieve the applicant's service and business objectives. b. Locationally Dependent. This section provides that a utility facility is locationally dependent if it must "cross" EFU-zoned land in order to provide the public utility service or to meet "unique geographical needs." The applicant acknowledges its proposed facility - i.e., monopine, antennas, equipment shelter, etc. - does not "cross" EFU-zoned land, but argues its wireless signals must cross EFU-zoned land including the subject property in order to utilize the applicant's existing network, and therefore this factor is applicable. The Hearings Officer agrees with the applicant's interpretation of this factor and its applicability to its proposal. For the reasons set forth in the findings above concerning technical and engineering feasibility of the proposed facility site and the alternative sites, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 20 of 29 Officer also finds the applicant's proposed facility is locationally dependent because the applicant's evidence shows the subject property is the location within the search ring from which the applicant's signal strength and coverage area can be improved to the degree required to meet its business and service objectives without causing interference with other components of the applicant's wireless network, or requiring design modifications that would prevent the applicant from fully utilizing the facility and achieving its objectives. G Lack of Available Urban and Non Resource Land As discussed above, the applicant's alternative sites analysis considered five RR-10 zoned sites - Alternative Sites 1-5 within the search ring. Given that none of the search ring is located within the Bend city limits, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated there is no available "urban" land on which the proposed facility could be sited. The applicant argues none of the RR-10 sites constitutes a reasonable alternative at the required pole and antenna heights for four reasons, each of which is discussed below: (1) The alternative sites would not be feasible from a technical or engineering standpoint. As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer has found that at the tower heights required to provide the signal strength and coverage equivalent to what would be provided at the proposed facility on the subject property, cellular facilities on Alternative Sites 1-5 would create unacceptable levels of signal interference which could only be corrected by design measures that would significantly underutilize the facilities, resulting in the applicant's inability to provide the public utility service identified as needed in the targeted coverage area to achieve the applicant's service and business objectives. For these same reasons, I find these RR-10 sites are not "available" and therefore are not reasonable alternatives to the proposed facility considering technical and engineering feasibility. (2) The alternative sites could not receive conditional use approval due to the visual impacts from the required pole heights. Opponents argue it is not appropriate to consider conditional use approval criteria in the alternative sites analysis because such criteria are not applicable to the proposed facility on the EFU-zoned subject property, and therefore any analysis of the reasonableness of the alternative sites would not result in a comparison of like sites. The Hearings Officer disagrees. As discussed above, the purpose of the alternative site analysis is to locate non-EFU sites that have the potential to host a facility meeting the applicant's utility service objectives. Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate whether and to what extent its proposed facility can be sited on RR- 10 zoned land within the search ring, and that determination must take into account any applicable siting requirements in the RR-10 Zone. Under Section 18.60.020 "utility facilities necessary to serve the area" are permitted outright in the RR-10 Zone. However, Section 18.60.030 lists "wireless telecommunications facilities" except Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities as a conditional use in the RR-10 Zone. As noted in the findings above, the definition of "utility facility" under Section 18.04.030 states it "shall not include wireless telecommunications facilities where such facilities are listed as a separate use in a zone." Therefore, the applicant's proposed facility is a "wireless telecommunications facility" US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 21 of 29 in the RR-10 Zone a Tier 3 facility therefore requiring conditional use approval in the RR- 10 Zone subject to the approval criteria in Section 18.128.340.16 The remaining question is whether it is reasonable to assume, as the applicant does, that conditional use approval would not be granted for wireless communication facilities on Alternative Sites 1-5 due to the visual impacts from the poles ranging from 90 to 150 feet tall. The conditional use approval criteria for wireless telecommunications facilities are set forth in 18.128.340(B) as follows: An application for a wireless telecommunication facility will be approved upon findings that: 1. The facility will not be located on irrigated land, as defined by DCC 18.04.030. 2. The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to co- locate antennas on existing monopoles in the area to be served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co- location within the area to be served. 3. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences. 4. A tower or monopole located in and LM Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 5. In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. 6. Any tower or monopole is finished with natural wood colors or colors selected from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017. 7. Any required aviation lighting is shielded to the maximum extent allowed by 16 Under Section 18.116.250, Tier 1 facilities are those that include equipment shelters less than 120 square feet in area and towers less than 45 feet in height. Tier 2 facilities are allowed only in specific listed zoning districts not including the RR-10 Zone. Tier 3 facilities are facilities that do not qualify as Tier I or Tier 2 facilities. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 22 of 29 FAA and/or ODOT/Aeronautics regulations. 8. The form of lease for the site does not prevent the possibility of co-location of additional wireless telecommunication facilities at the site. 9. Any tower or monopole shall be designed in a manner that it can carry the antennas of at least one additional wireless carrier. This criterion may be satisfied by submitting the statement of a licensed structure engineer licensed in Oregon that the monopole or tower has been designed with sufficient strength to carry such an additional antenna array and by elevation drawings of the proposed tower or monopole that identifies an area designed to provide the required spacing between antenna arrays of different carriers. 10. Any approval of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include a condition that if the facility is left unused or is abandoned by all wireless providers location on the. facility for more than one year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. These approval criteria focus heavily on visual impacts from poles on nearby residences and LM corridor roads. They require the applicant to site poles where there is at least some vegetative, topographical or structural screening available, to use any existing features to screen the pole "to the maximum extent practicable," and to conduct an alternative sites analysis for "less [visually] intrusive" sites. The Hearings Officer finds this latter requirement likely would prevent conditional use approval of Alternative Sites 2-5 because at 120 to 150 feet tall the towers on those sites would be more visually intrusive than the 90-foot-tall tower proposed at Alternative Site 1. With regard to Alternative Site 1, the aerial photograph included in Hearing Exhibit 1 (June 3, 2008) shows there is some existing vegetation on this parcel along with some land that does not appear to be irrigated, and therefore this site would not be eliminated as a potential alternative under Section 18.128.340(B)(1) or (4). In addition, Rickard Road on which this site is located is not a designated LM corridor that would limit the pole height to 30 feet under Section 18.128.340(B)(4). The Hearings Officer finds none of the other conditional use approval criteria would appear to foreclose approval of Alternative Site 1 for a facility with a 90-foot-tall tower. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant that it is very unlikely wireless communication facilities on Alternative Sites 2-5 with towers at the required heights could receive conditional use approval under Section 18.128.340. I cannot make such a finding with regard to Alternative Site 1. However, as discussed above, I have found Site 1 is not a "reasonable alternative" to the proposed site on the subject property considering technical and engineering feasibility. (3) The alternative sites cannot be leased. The applicant's burden of proof and supplemental materials state none of the owners of Alternative Sites 1-5 was willing to allow the siting of the applicant's proposed facility on their US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 23 of 29 parcel and therefore they are not "available." Opponents respond that in determining availability the Hearings Officer must find the applicant made a good faith effort to obtain the property owners' approval. They assert the applicant did not do so because at the time the applicant's representative Dan MacKinney contacted the owners of Alternative Sites 1-5 the applicant already had executed a lease with the owners of the subject property, and therefore did not seriously pursue leasing another site. 17 In addition, they assert Mr. MacKinney did not tell the owners of Sites 1-5 - Dew, Fields, Sunridge Owners Association, Doolan, and Hardie, respectively that they would be paid for any facility lease or what that payment would be. In its supplemental burden of proof, the applicant stated Dan MacKinney spoke with the owners of each of these parcels between April 3 and 9, 2008, and that none of them was interested in leasing a site on their property for a wireless communication facility. At the continued public hearing on July 22, 2008, Mr. MacKinney testified that the owner of the each of the five alternative sites was aware he/she would be compensated for any wireless facility lease. In response, opponent Jane Strell stated in written and oral testimony that based on her conversations with some of these property owners she believed they had not been aware of lease opportunities or terms, and that at least one owner - Mr. Dew - was in fact willing to lease a site on his property (Alternative Site 1). However, only one of these property owners - Mr. Dew submitted oral or written testimony concerning their conversations and lease negotiations with the applicant. And the affidavit of Mr. Dew submitted by Ms. Strell with her July 28, 2008 letter, does not state Mr. Dew does agree or would have agreed to lease a site on his property to the applicant. Neither LUBA nor the appellate courts have found a "good faith" requirement in determining site availability under ORS 215.275 or local implementing regulations." A similar issue was raised in Sprint PCS v. Washington County, cited above. Opponents in that case argued the process used to identify alternative sites was flawed because the applicant treated a non-response to its queries about possible lease sites for a wireless communication facility as a refusal, and because no lease terms offered to prospective landlords were revealed to opponents or to the county. The county hearings officer's decision found the applicant should be required to disclose the lease terms discussed with property owners with whom it negotiated. However, because it was not clear to LUBA whether the hearings officer's denial of the proposed wireless communication facility was based on the applicant's failure to disclose the lease terms, LUBA did not address whether such disclosure was in fact required under ORS 215.275. This issue also was not addressed by the Court of Appeals. Assuming for purposes of discussion that "good faith" lease or purchase negotiating is a requirement for establishing that alternative sites are not "available" under Section 18.16.038 and ORS 215.275, the Hearings Officer finds the evidence in this record simply is not sufficient to show a lack of good faith on the part of the applicant. As the opposition to the applicant's proposal amply demonstrates, cellular telephone towers are not viewed favorably by the vast 17 The record includes a redacted copy of the applicant's lease with Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez that is dated January 25, 2008. '8 As set forth above, Section 18.128.340(B)(2) includes a "good faith" requirement for considering antenna co-location opportunities for wireless telecommunications facilities in the zones where they are conditional uses. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 24 of 29 majority of landowners. There is no evidence in this record from which I can find that the owners of Sites 1-5 would have agreed to lease their parcels for the applicant's proposed facility had they been offered monetary incentives. And where, as here, the record indicates the five alternative sites were inferior to the subject property from the standpoint of technical and engineering feasibility, it is understandable that the applicant might not pursue leases on these sites with the same vigor with which it negotiated with the owners of the subject property. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated Alternative Sites 1-5 were not available for lease for the proposed facility. (4) Cost Considerations. The applicant argues siting its proposed facility on Alternative Sites 1-5 would be considerably more expensive than siting a facility at the subject property, considering both the additional cost for the taller monopines required to achieve the desired signal strength and coverage and the inability to use the sites to their fullest potential. As discussed above, the applicant estimates the cost to establish the proposed wireless facility with a monopine would be $400,000, but that this cost would increase by amounts ranging from $34,000 to $105,000 with an increase in the height of the monopine. Opponents argue there would not be significant cost differentials between the proposed facility and the alternative sites if those sites were developed with monopoles instead of monopines. They also point out that on the subject property and most if not all of the alternative sites, juniper is the dominant tree species. Therefore, opponents argue that using a monopine may not be necessary to achieve the aesthetic results the applicant intends. The applicant acknowledged that monopoles are less expensive than monopines, such that a 90-foot-tall monopole at Alternative Site 1 would cost roughly the same as a 60-foot-tall monopine at the subject property. The applicant responded it should be allowed to compare like facilities in the alternative sites analysis, and that in any case monopines would be more suitable at the alternative sites because there are ponderosa pines in the area surrounding the subject property. The Hearings Officer observed during my site visit that there are some mature ponderosa pines in the surrounding area along with mature junipers, but that there are many parts of the surrounding area that have few trees. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with opponents that given the considerable variation in vegetative cover and tree species in the search ring, it is by no means certain that a monopine would have less visual impact than a monopole. In light of these considerations, the Hearings Officer finds that at least with respect to Alternative Site 1 which would require a 90-foot-tall pole, cost is not a critical factor in determining whether the site is a reasonable alternative. However, as discussed in the findings above, I have found a facility on Alternative Site 1 is not a reasonable alternative to a facility on the subject property considering technical and engineering feasibility. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant conducted an adequate and appropriate alternative sites analysis, and based on that analysis there are no "reasonable alternatives" to siting the proposed facility on the EFU-zoned subject property. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 25 of 29 8. The owner of a utility facility approved under this section shall be responsible for restoring, as nearly as possible, to its former condition any agricultural land and associated improvements that are damaged or otherwise disturbed by the siting, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of the facility. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the owner of the utility facility from requiring a bond or other security from a contractor or otherwise imposing on a contractor the responsibility for restoration. FINDINGS: Opponent AMGRN argues the Hearings Officer cannot adequately analyze this criterion without evidence from the applicant documenting "the full range of potential impacts to the agricultural land disturbed by the cell tower and its road/support facility." The Hearings Officer disagrees. As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the record indicates the subject property is not engaged in farm use and is not receiving farm tax deferral. And in any event, I find compliance with this section can be assured through imposition of a condition of approval requiring the applicant to restore the leased area on the subject property, as nearly as possible, to its former condition if it is damaged or otherwise disturbed during the siting of the wireless communications facility. I find the applicant also will be required as a condition of approval to satisfy all of Arnold Irrigation District's requirements concerning its irrigation lateral canal located on the subject property. 9. In addition to the provisions of 1-6 above, the establishment or extension of a sewer system as defined by OAR 660-011- 0060(1)(f) in an exclusive farm use zone shall be subject to the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060. 10. The provisions above do not apply to interstate gas pipelines and associated facilities authorized by and subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this criterion is not applicable to the applicant's proposal to establish a wireless telecommunications facility on the subject property. C. Section 18.16.060, Dimensional Standards D. Each lot shall have a minimum street frontage of 50 feet. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDINGS: The record indicates the subject property's entire southern boundary abuts Arnold Market Road and exceeds 50 feet in length. The Hearings Officer finds that in light of Brentmar and the county's previous cell tower decisions, cited above, this section does not preclude the US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 26 of 29 siting of structures over 30 feet in height in the EFU Zone if such structures constitute a "utility facility" under 200 feet tall permitted in the EFU Zones under Sections 18.16.025 and 18.16.038 as well as ORS 215.283 and 215.275. d. Section 18.16.070, Yards FINDINGS: This section requires minimum setbacks of 40 feet from a local road, 60 feet from a collector road, 100 feet from an arterial road, and 25 feet from side and rear property lines. The record indicates Arnold Market Road is a designated rural collector road, and therefore the proposed wireless communication facility including the monopine, equipment shelter, back-up generator and propane tank, and perimeter fence must be set back at least 60 feet from Arnold Market Road, as well as at least 25 feet from the front and rear yards. The applicant's submitted plot plan shows all components of the proposed facility would be located approximately 1,946 feet from Arnold Market Road and the front yard line, and approximately 693 feet from the rear yard line, as well as approximately 77 feet from the east property line and approximately 1,243 feet from the west property line, therefore satisfying this criterion. IV. DECISION: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicant's requested administrative determination to establish a wireless communication facility on the subject property, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. This approval is based on the applicant's original and supplemental burdens of proof and attachments. and exhibits, the applicant's submitted site plan dated January 4, 2008 and consisting of four sheets (A-1, A-2, C-1 and T-1), the applicant's submitted site survey dated February 20, 2008, and the applicant's written and oral testimony. Any substantial change to the approved use will require a new land use application and approval. 2. The facility approved by this decision consists of the following components located within the "lease area" identified on the applicant's submitted site survey: a. a 62-foot-tall monopine on a concrete foundation; b. side-mounted wireless telecommunication antennas mounted at the 42 and 57-foot levels on the monopine; C. a 12' by 20', 2,400-square-foot prefabricated concrete equipment shelter with a brown exterior finish; d. a back-up power generator and propane tank; e. a 6-foot-tall chain link security fence surrounding the entire leased area on the subject property with access control through a locked gate; and US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 27 of 29 f. a gravel-surfaced vehicle parking area within the perimeter fence. The facility approved by this decision also includes an access drive outside the "lease area" identified on the applicant's submitted site survey, consisting of existing dirt roads on the subject property that extend from the dwelling's driveway to the lease area and on which the applicant will place gravel. PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE APPROVED FACILITY: 3. The.applicant/owner shall obtain from the Deschutes County Community Development Department any required access permit for access from Arnold Market Road. 4. The applicant/owner shall construct the access driveway to the approved facility in accordance with the minimum standards for fire apparatus access roads as identified by the Bend Fire Department, and shall submit to the Planning Division written documentation from the fire department that the access driveway has been constructed to these standards. 5. The applicant/owner shall comply with all requirements of the Arnold Irrigation District concerning its irrigation facilities on the subject property. PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND/OR INSTALLATION OF THE APPROVED FACILITY: 6. The applicant/owner shall obtain any and all required building permit(s) from the Deschutes County Building Safety Division. 7. The applicant/owner shall obtain any and all required licenses and permits for the approved facility from the Federal Communications Commission. AT ALL TIlVIES/FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF APPROVED FACILITY: 8. The applicant/owner shall restore the leased area on the subject property, as nearly as possible, to its former condition if it is damaged or otherwise disturbed during the siting of the approved facility. DURATION OF APPROVAL: 9. The applicant/owner shall submit an application for building permit(s) for the approved facility, and/or construct the approved facility if no building permits are required, within two (2) years following the date this decision becomes final or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the Deschutes County Code, or this approval shall be void. Dated this o7 day of August, 2008. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 28 of 29 Mailed this day of August, 2008. ~ //15, - Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. US Cellular AD-08-5 Page 29 of 29 BRUCE W WHITE, ATTORNEY, LLC September 8, 2008 Hand Delivered Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Re: U.S. Cellular Tax Lot 18-13-19-106 AD-08-05 Enclosed please find applications for an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of the above-referenced application. Appellants have hired me to represent them in this appeal. Although Appellants have signed separate appeals forms, they are appealing this decision jointly. Accordingly, only a single appeal fee is submitted. Any response to this appeal should be directed to me at the contact information indicated on this letter. Appellants have requested and receive a copy of the CD disk of the hearings and are having the contents of the disk transcribed. A transcript of the hearing will be forwarded as soon as the transcript is completed. Sincerely, ~ kA-(- W - d~ Bruce W. White c. Clients SCANNED P.O. BOX 1298 - BEND, OR - 97709 SEP - 8 2008 PHONE: (541) 382-2085 Community Development Department Planning Division / 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 3BG6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.or,g/edd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the speck reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de norm review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must Include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Appellant's Name (print): _•d~____ f i__ Phone: 8-() Mailing Address:_ 22 o CKo~ City/Statelzip: D g r"f '7 O Z Land Use Application Being Appealed: AD-01--V- Property Description: Townnship_ _It~ Rangej_3 _ Section l 1 Tau Lot _ t6 b Appellant's Signature: _L- ) , X` ~ „ EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 388.5575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://www.dembutes.om/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1- A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must Include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be Included on the Notice of Appeal. Appellant's Name (print): 110-11 , t` Phone: ( Mailing Address: 2-2- 3 O f City p /State/Zi ~ Land Use Application Being Appealed: kD-0 S Property Description: To ( Range ~3 _ Section i Tax Lot 10 j Appellant's Signature EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1/07 A 11 Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://mm.deschuces.org/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth In Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. 1c Appellant's Name (print): /~`.I~C~` `N -M, Q' f1y(Vi''f- ~ fi~ Phone: (SVt) 3/8 q 22.'7 .Mailing Address:~(f 33 to ~XL jg (d M A*-K~ go AOl >G City/State/Zip: 6) 7 7 (JZ Land Use Application Being Appealed: AR- 01-Of Property Description: Township196 Range 13 Section l.q Tax Lot 10~ )CAppellant's EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1107 Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue. Bend, OR 97701-1925 . / (541) 388.6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschuces.org/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. 7 7 Appellant's Name (print): _ IZ t2/S C. tAA2r+a PhoneN) 3dF 1 J ~N TQ Mailing Address: Z z _ -3 i1 O K C.L~-CL4 City/State/Zip: ¢ , { 7 7c Z Land Use Application Being Appealed: o-b g'S` Property Description: Township-1- Range__ 13 Section l q Tax Lot_19 6 Appellant's Signature: ' ~~2~y~r•-~ EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1/07 2-~ Community Development Department Planning Division -Y 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/edd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be Included on the Notice of Appeal. j~ Appellant's Name (print): I CL,d 1*1'-6ee-- Phone: (~15 1) yJ6 J,3 ~ 7 Mailing Address:W-y A T nr /r``l 1'/-fey[ x City/State/Zip: _ye-6e0/ 9) C; _I Land Use Application Being Appealed: A L o b^ o s' Property Description: Township Range U Section (°t Tax Lot 14 A Appellant's Signature: j e, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1107 T k Community Development Department { Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701.1925 (541) 388-6575 - Fax [541) 385-1764 . http://www.deschutes.org/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be Included on the Notice of Appeal. Appellant's Name (print): Mailing Land Use Application Being Appealed: Property Description: Townshipf_ Appellant's v ~7 Section 11 Tax Lot (06 EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1/07 { Community Development Department Planning Division / 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 388.6575 - Fax (541) 305-1764 http://www.deschutes.or,g/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners Is the Hearings Body and ds novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22,32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Appellant's Name (print): I V t , Phone: J O - Mailing Address: 22 City/State/Zip: t7 '770 Z Land Use Application Being Appealed: SAD-&-r Property Description: Township [ Range-J3_ Section 1 _ Tax Lot (a Appellant's Signature: < a-f`_ S . ) 071P_ EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1/07 Community Development Department Planning Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, DR 97701-1925 (541) 388.6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/odd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It Is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth In Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Appellants Name (print):-4- A v, ki%, A vdus v , 4A~,, Phone; 0 / ?t,46 lLaid 9L- -Sgl~: Mailing Address: _ ~Za City/State2ip:~ 770 Land Use Application Being Appealed: Property Description: Townshi tb Range 13 Section 111 Tax Lot 10 Appellants Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1107 Community Development Department Planning DlvWm 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 38BB575 - Fax (541) 38&1764 hMp://www deschutes.arg/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners Is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It Is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. \All Appellant's Name (print): 1~k 913 Y Phone: O) 38 P` 3 97 Mailing Address: 6WY ( iqt-n uW I`AA' Pq X City/State/Zip: 9790 Z Land Use Application Being Appealed: _ A D-D X--0 S' Property Description: Township-LL Range,_ j3 Section )g Tax Lot l0 6 Appellant's Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1107 ES 4L -2-~ Community Development Department Planning Division r 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925 (541) 388 6575 Pax (541) 385-1764 http://www.deschutes.org/cdd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth In Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the Items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. /Appellant's Name (print):JAiAIZ- Phone: ( ) t 7 Mailing Address:-22 uCi ( Sk., ~i; zKI l,K + ¢ City/State/Zip: -yam Land Use Application Being Appealed: A9-06-0s- Property Description: Township Its Rangej3Section M Tax Lot 14 oAppellant's Sign EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEARING APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 1/07 Joint Supplement to Notice of Appeal of Anderson, Fiero, Getz, Martin, McGee, McMahon, Nathan, Pedigo and Strell File No. AD-08-05 1. General Background a) Description of Decision Being Appealed: A decision issued by Hearings Officer Karen Green on August 27, 2008, in File No. AD- 08-05 concerning a proposal by applicant United States Cellular Operating Company of Medford to site a 60-foot monopine cell tower and associated support facilities on property located at 60316 Arnold Market Road, identified as Tax Lot 106 on Assessor's Map 18-13-19, also known as Parcel 3 of partition plat PP-2002-47, owned by Albert Gonzales. b) Appellants' Standing: Appellants are the following, joining in a single appeal before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: Jon and Kathryn Fiero 22360 Rickard Rd. Bend, OR 97702 Mel and Judy Getz 60336 Arnold Market Loop Bend, OR 97702 Morris Martin 223 10 Rickard Road Bend, OR 97702 Todd and Shanda McGee 2422 Ravenwood Drive Bend, OR 97701 Robert and Deborah McMahon PO Box 902 Redmond, OR 97756 Calvin Nathan Audrey Anderson 22340 Rickard Rd. Bend, OR 97702 Richard and Joyce Pedigo 60341 Arnold Market Rd. Bend, OR 97702 Jane Strell 22401 Skyview Lane Bend, OR 97702 Appellants live or own property within sight and sound and within the notice area of the subject property and participated orally or in writing in the hearing below. C) 150-day timeclock: The 150-day time clock will expire on October 14, 2008. II. Specific Appeal Issues and Reasons for Hearing Appeal A. Issues on Appeal 1) The Hearings Officer erred in concluding that the proposed cell tower constitutes a "utility facility" as that term is used in DCC 18.16.025(I) and ORS 215.283(1)(d). The Hearings Officer's relied on a definition of "utility" from the Deschutes County zoning ordinance without determining whether that definition applies to uses in the EFU zone. . 2) The Hearings Officer erred in approving the subject application in that there was no evidence to support her conclusion that there were no alternative sites for siting the proposed cell tower on utility poles towers. She further erred in placing the burden of proof on the opponents to identify alternative sites where such facilities might be placed. 3) The Hearings Officer erred in relying upon biased, unsubstantiated and conclusory information to determine that there was a need for additional cell tower coverage and this cell tower in particular. 4) The Hearings Officer erred in finding under DCC 18.16.038(A) that there were no reasonable alternative sites, when applicant did not present evidence that all alternative sites on nearby non-resource lands had been considered. This is particularly true with regard to other properties located within the nearest block of RR-10 lands located to the northwest of the subject site within which alternative site No. 1 was identified. By not requiring the applicant to affirmatively show that all nearby non-resource lands had been considered as alternative sites, the Hearings Officer impermissibly shifted the burden of proof from the applicant to the opponents. 5) The Hearings Officer erred in relying upon an alternatives analysis provided by Applicant that was not conducted in good faith, given that the applicant had selected and put under contract its preferred site over two months before it contacted the owners of potential alternative sites and before it produced the engineering analysis purporting to show that the other sites were not feasible from a technical and engineering standpoint. Applicant's limited inquiry into the availability of alternative sites undermines the credibility of its alternative sites analysis and undercuts the Hearings Officer's reliance on Applicant's report. 6) The Hearings Officer erred in finding under DCC 18.16.038(A)(1) that it was not feasible from an engineering or a technical standpoint to site the proposed cell tower on alternative sites identified by applicant in the following particulars • She relied upon biased, unsubstantiated and conclusory evidence from the applicant's technical personnel; • Applicant's technical data was conclusory in that it did not establish what the performance standards were, if any, it used to judge the technical feasibility of the subject site and the alternative sites, which made it impossible to determine whether the analysis was valid. If the performance differences at the various alternative sites at various heights were only a matter of degree, there was no way for the Hearings Officer or the opponents to make an informed judgment on this issue. • The Hearings Officer erred in finding that Alternative Site 1 would locate the proposed tower "much closer" to the Bend market; in reality from the maps supplied by applicant, alternative Site No. 1 was less than one mile closer to the Bend market area than the subject site. • The Hearings Officer erred in finding credible the applicant's technical data relating to Site No. 1 that in all objective areas a 60-foot tower at Alternative Site No. 1 was viewed as being inadequate whereas the same height tower in located in an area that is located further away from some of the target areas was as providing better service. 7) The Hearings Officer erred in her interpretation that the proposed cell tower is "locationally dependent" as that term is used in DCC 18.16.038(A)(2) and therefore meets one of the exception criteria of DCC 18.16.038(A)(2). The facility itself is not required to cross EFU lands. Only the signals cross EFU lands and the wireless signals are not a part of the facility as that term is used in DCC 18.16.038(A)(2). 8) The Hearings Officer erred in that her finding that there was a lack of available urban and non-resource lands under DCC 18.16.028(A)(3) in the following respects: • The applicant presented only a limited range of alternative sites and did not present for examination all alternative sites in the nearest RR-10 exception area to the northwest of the subject site. The Hearings Officer allowed one particular site to represent the entirety of that block of RR-10 land, without regard to whether additional areas within that RR-10 block could host the proposed cell tower. • The Hearings Officer relied upon biased, conclusory and unsubstantiated evidence from Applicant's engineers regarding the technical feasibility of the alternative sites. • The Hearings Officer's determination that the alternative sites were unavailable rested upon an unwarranted assumption, without any specific factual basis, that cell towers on the alternative sites could not obtain zoning approval. • The Hearings Officer's determination that the alternative sites were not available was based upon a limited inquiry not conducted in good faith at a time when the applicant had contractually secured its preferred site. B. Reasons County Commissioners should hear this appeal There are good reasons why the Board should hear this appeal, as follows: 1) By allowing the Applicant to supply only conclusory technical information as to the feasibility of the proposed site versus the alternative sites on non-resource lands and by allowing applicant to submit evidence of the availability of alternative sites on non-resource lands and then relying upon that information to approve the subject cell tower, the Hearings Officer's analysis in effect consigns all future cell towers in the rural areas to EFU zones, in contravention to the policy underlying protection of EFU zones. The Board's, review of this case is required to give a more rigorous analysis and to set the tone for the Hearings Officer's in the level of detailed information that cell tower applicants should be required to provide. 2) The applicant provided only conclusory information as to the relative technical feasibility of the subject site and the alternative sites, and the Hearings Officer erred in relying upon such information. The subject application should not have been approved on the record presented. 3) By hearing this appeal, the Board can provide guidance to Hearings Officers on what degree of proof should be required of cell tower applicants in deciding upon future applications. 4) The Board is in a better position to review this application than is LUBA, because the Board has more latitude to determine which evidence it should rely upon between Applicants and the Opponents. 5) By hearing this appeal, the Board can correct the Hearings Officer's errors so that even if the decision is appealed further, any subsequent appeal is based upon a full and fair consideration of all the evidence that the Hearings Officer was required to consider. 6) The record is not voluminous and the Board can efficiently conduct an on the record hearing. M. Scope of Review Pursuant to DCC 22.32.027(B)(1), appellant requests a review on the record of their appeal.