2010-81-Minutes for Meeting February 03,2010 Recorded 2/16/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2010~8i
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Yd
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/16/2010 11;47;02 AM
I II II~IIIIIIIIIIIIII III
-8i
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 at the request of
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book _
or as Fee Number
to correct
and Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney;
Dave Kanner, Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and,
during various portions of the meeting, Tom Anderson, George Read, Nick Lelack,
Todd Cleveland, Peter Gutowsky, Kevin Harrison, Dan Haldeman and Will
Groves, Community Development, Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and
approximately twenty other citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Update.
Cheryl Howard said the last time the County awarded the Big Chainring was in
2004.
The group has revised its by-laws, its annual goals, and will bring back the Big
Chainring award to the Board in 2010. They also have a "Safe Sidewalk"
award now; for those businesses that are not just complying but exceeding
requirements in keeping snow cleared, etc.
The revised by-laws are meant to clarify and strengthen the relationship with
the Board. They want to know how to integrate into County processes, not just
with the Road Department but in other ways as well. This document is meant
to establish the true core values of the Committee.
Jim Stowe talked about the scenic bikeway concept, with a focus on linking the
cities in a non-motorized way. There is an opportunity to apply for a grant
through the State. This work will enhance quality of life and tourism.
He discussed the upcoming race schedule and tourism-creating events, several
being large ones that create multi-day stays for contestants and their families.
These generate a great deal of revenue in overnight stays and restaurants.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 1 of 8 Pages
Matthew Martin advises governmental bodies of a new group of people on the
Committee with a newfound focus and goals. He provided information on
projects they have been involved in, including federal, state, county and
nonprofit. They want to have more impact and be more involved in the process
from the beginning, especially concerning safety, Code amendments, road
projects and development in general. They want to know how to be more
involved in these processes on a formal basis.
Commissioner Unger encouraged the group to be more proactive. There is a
network of people actively working on bicycle issues.
Ms. Howard said she wants the committee to be more available to be a part of
the process. Commissioner Luke stated that much of the work is done by staff,
so close contact with them is a good idea. Commissioner Baney added that
there could be more communication. Commissioner Luke said that it is a good
idea for them to keep in touch with Nick Lelack and Peter Russell of
Community Development.
Kevin Tanski said that he is new to the group and wants to see more
interagency involvement. He has been involved with federal agencies, ODOT
and citizen groups, and wants BPAC to be considered a resource for all of them.
They served in an advisory capacity when working with the City of Sisters,
helping them shorten the process when developing planning to benefit all
involved. He noted that Peter Russell has been especially helpful in this regard.
Commissioner Luke asked if they had been in touch with COIC.
Projects achieved and planned focus on the livability of the County, especially
in regard to health and safety.
Peter Russell said that the transportation system plan documents include input
from this group.
2. Update on Sunriver Sewer Feasibility Study.
Tom Anderson said that this process has been ongoing. They are very close to
a finished product. He wanted to discuss this today, in advance of a meeting
with DEQ later this week.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 2 of 8 Pages
Steve Runner of Sunriver pointed out the relevant areas on an oversized map.
The DEQ mandated upgrades of the Sunriver sewer system, and Sunriver was
asked by the DEQ if they could look at incorporating some of the outlying areas
into the system. They have worked closely with the County's GIS mapping.
They looked all the way to State Recreation Road, and divided the area into
smaller sections. The area north and west is closest to Sunriver and has the
densest lots.
They also looked at the secondary area to see if that is feasible. A total of about
4,000 lots might be served, and that is the basis of the numbers developed.
They met with the DEQ and agreed that was the criteria to be used. They then
compared costs of the system, trying to be complete and conservative. This
includes construction costs, design and engineering, project management and
legal costs, and contingencies of 15 to 20%. They feel this is realistic and
conservative.
For a collection system feasibility study, they need to make decision early on
how to approach the need. They used W&H Pacific for help with this. It would
be a low-pressure sewer system since the area is relatively flat. This seems to
be the best fit. This includes grinder pumps at each lot, going to a centralized
location. Liquids go into the STEP system, but because of customers bringing a
full load to the system already, they did not want to differentiate. Each lot
would need to have its own pump, at a cost of about $5,400 per lot. This cost is
the same regardless where it is. The other cost comes in when it is connected.
The next component is the collection system - piping. Dense areas with a lot of
development and closer to Sunriver are less expensive. The cost for that is
$6,700 per lot, including the pump.
Further south, where the lots are farther apart and the population is less dense,
the cost comes in at about $7,900 each lot. This averages out the cost, borne by
everyone.
Cost was computed based on the existing system and client base. If they were
only serving the northern part of the area, the total cost would be at about
$6,600 per lot. Adding in the southern lots, the cost would be about $5,800 per
lot due to more customers.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 3 of 8 Pages
If they are only talking about the 2,000 lots in the north, it would be about
$18,700 per lot. Including the other area, it would be about $9,000 per lot.
Commissioner Baney asked about a monthly charge. Mr. Runner said it is a
huge variable. If low-interest money is involved, it would be less. If it depends
on private funding, the cost would be more. It would cost about $125 to $175
per month. The average cost in Sunriver now is about $63 per month. These
costs seem to be reasonable based on what was found in other areas.
Commissioner Luke asked about gravity flow. He was advised that non-
pressurized would get a lot more infiltration.
Commissioner Baney noted that they are going to bump up against the $125 per
month issue. Laurie Craghead said that a local improvement district is allowed
for a public facility, but she is not sure if a public-private partnership is
possible. Commissioner Unger noted that there are bond payback and other
considerations. Commissioner Baney said that even the $63 might be an issue
for some. Commissioner Luke stated that there are maintenance costs on septic
systems anyway, and when they do not work, it gets expensive. Also, more lots
might be developed this way.
Ms. Craghead said that the grant was to look at factoring the cost of a Goal 11
exception. Jim Front of W&H Pacific said that there has to be a health hazard
declared by DEQ and nothing else feasible for the area. DEQ requirements are
continually changing and are more stringent. It is easier to change treatment
capabilities at a centralized facility than at individual sites.
No one can control what people put down the drain. The centralized system can
handle it or at least detect a problem. There is a practicability issue with sewer
systems.
Tom Anderson stated that once the study has been released, in terms of doing
anything with is, he is not sure if the neighborhood would want to charge
forward. They would have to go through the Goal 11 process. The DEQ is
trying to find a solution, broadly stated for that area. Or in another route, the
DEQ could declare a management area for the area and mandate a sewer
system. In that case, the rules are different in terms of Goal 11. Sunriver is not
necessarily advocating this. This is in response to a request from the DEQ as
part of their relicensing efforts.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 4 of 8 Pages
Mr. Runner said that Sunriver's system is okay for now, but he is not sure how
long it can be deferred. Terry Penhollow added that the DEQ also has to accept
the feasibility study if the County does. It is always possible that the DEQ
could reject.
Mr. Anderson stated that it is a difficult process to determine which lots might
be developed if a sewer were available. Every lot was factored in. The DEQ
limits funding to $6 million a year, so it would have to be phased in over time
using public subsidized funding. And it is unknown if undeveloped lot costs
can be deferred. There are some complications. They may or may not have to
pay the monthly fee.
Ms. Craghead said that a decision needs to be made as to whether this is
possible before ever trying to form a district. Then a decision on whether to
phase it in or move forward needs to be made as well.
Commissioner Luke stated that perhaps staff can say that the assumptions look
reasonable, or not, and then pass it on to the DEQ. Mr. Anderson said that they
worked with them through the process. It won't take long. The
recommendation will be to accept or not accept it.
Commissioner Baney said that it may not work in this case. It is predicated on
what the DEQ wants to do. What will be shared with them? Care needs to be
taken about throwing out numbers. What strategy would be used to convey this
information, allowing some flexibility? Commissioner Luke said that they
could indicate there is a draft study, staff is reviewing it, and it will go to the
DEQ. The cost depends on the type of system and how the costs can be
handled. Hard costs will not be known until the facilities report is done. This
goes to whether on onsite system is more or less expensive.
Commissioner Baney said that if it is feasible, a pressurized system makes more
sense. This needs to be kept vague for now. The question was whether it could
be done. Based on the size and scope, she expected it to be more expensive
than it seems to be.
Laura Harvey asked if there would be a permit cost for a hookup. Mr.
Anderson said that Oregon Water Wonderland converted to a sewer system,
based on an agreement with the Sewer District and what they would do with the
old and new systems. Typically, work like this requires a permit.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 5 of 8 Pages
Ms. Harvey asked if Mr. Runner could give a presentation to others. Ms.
Craghead said that this is a draft document, and the study has not yet been
released. The numbers are not yet set. They are not ready to give the study to
the County.
3. Discussion of Board Hearing on Appeal of Hearings Officer's Denial of a
Proposal for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
Will Groves said there is a public hearing on this scheduled for Monday,
February 8.
COmissioner Luke said that Kathy Deggendorfer wanted more information, and
he referred her to staff.
Mr. Groves gave background information on the issue. The protection of
resource lands are the foundation of land use. (He referred to an oversized map
of the area.) At this time, he discussed the proposed tower location on Bradley
Butte and the zoning in the area.
These facilities are regulated as utilities necessary for public service. (He
referred to the staff report at this time.) The applicant feels that the alternatives
do not meet requirements. AT&T relied on towers built and owned by RCC
Atlantic. However, the lease period is ending and will not be renewed. The
Hearings Office found that one alternative was ruled out in error and two others
were not ruled out, which was the basis for denial.
Some locations were found to be not appropriate due to existing CCR's. He
anticpates this might be a debated point at the hearing as not all of the
subdivisions have active CCR's.
State rules and Code do not protect view sheds of historic structures.
Commissioner Baney asked about the decision points in the de novo hearing.
Mr. Groves then explained them. The applicant has to analyze reasonable
alternatives. If the public says that a certain place might work, the applicant
will have to show that it can't. The policy issue would be whether multiple
towers are a good solution. The Board has to decide what is reasonable.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 6 of 8 Pages
Ms. Craghead said she would look at case law. Based on Statute, the decision
of the Board will not be given deference on appeal. This cannot be decided
based on health reasons, and must be based on their business model under the
Federal Telecommunications Act.
Mr. Groves noted that it is somewhat of a guessing game. Court cases require
the applicant to guess which are best. At one time, these applications were for
spec towers.
Ms. Craghead stated that they have to show the service they are going to
provide. You can't force them to co-locate or operate on the same frequencies.
4. Pre-meeting Planning for February 4 DEQ Public Involvement Session in
La Pine.
Regarding the joint meeting with the DEQ, Commissioners Luke and Baney
and one Klamath Commissioner will be there, plus the public. Dick Pederson
of the DEQ will be there.
Commissioner Baney said her approach is to hear from the DEQ and the
residents. She does not want to talk about where we have been as much as
where we are heading. It's not a County meeting.
Mr. Anderson stated that as noted in Mr. Pederson's letter, they support the
science as being valid. But he also says there is time. One central point of the
science is that there is not necessarily time. As more pollution enters the
groundwater from the existing systems, the cost will go up. He does not want
to raise animosity, but this is a fundamental point.
Mr. Anderson asked who from the County might be on the committee.
Commissioner Luke said it depends on the purpose of the committee, and it is
up to the DEQ.
Commissioner Baney said that they are finally trying to be somewhat
responsive. Things need to keep moving forward. Six months between
meetings is not that great. Nick Lelack noted that Ed Criss, the Planning
Commissioner from that area, said that south County residents want to move
forward but have run into resistance from some DEQ staff. He feels that many
residents are frustrated with this as well. They want to know about potential
health hazards, whether sewers are an option, and so on.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 7 of 8 Pages
Commissioner Luke noted that it is the DEQ's meeting and they need provide
direction. The County will not answer questions regarding the science or
anything else; that is up to the DEQ.
Peter Gutowsky said that at some point, residents would need to hear the Board
affirm or clarify the County's role in this whole thing.
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
None were offered.
6. Other Items.
The Board then went into Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(d),
Labor Negotiations
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
DATED this 3rd Day of February 2010 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
a.,, &(Ilk
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, Conr*nissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Page 8 of 8 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010
1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Update - Cheryl Howard
2. Update on Sunriver Sewer Feasibility Study - Nick Lelack
3. Discussion of Board Hearing on Appeal of Hearings Officer's Denial of a
Proposal for a Wireless T elecommunications Facility - William Groves
4. Pre-meeting Planning for February 4 DEQ Public Involvement Session in La
Pine
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
6. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(d), Labor Negotiations
Note: This meeting could include a possible quorum of Planning Commissioners.
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
lfyou have questions 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.
C
+
t
S
f
J
cY
N
y
j
cJ'
L
t
o V
O
.n
'E
n
v
,a
Q)
N
N
c
-r-
CV
6-
QA
M
\
Y
O
S.
d
02
O'
\
C
N
A
r
J
4
Ix I
J
CO '
1
C
~J
w
-
-
I
a
M
a
-2
t
~j
a
Q)
I
WORK SESSION - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SIGN-IN SHEET
Date: February 3, 2010
Name (Please Print)
A
Department
o a sG~ ~ ~a 1~~14 c-
ot t4 0
D
r___
Z
,A X
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
BPAC ADVISORY ROLE
As indicated in the adopted bylaws for the committee:
"The purpose of the BPAC is to advise the incorporated cities and other
governmental bodies of Deschutes County on bicycle and pedestrian issues, assist
in the development and maintenance of local and county wide pedestrian plans..."
The committee has a renewed commitment to provide valuable feedback in the
development of programs and projects throughout Deschutes County. This
commitment is expressed throughout the recently updated goals there are objects and
action items specific to this advisory role.
Advisory Highlights
BLM
-Cline Butte Recreation Area Plan
ODOT
-Highway 97 Bend North Corridor
-Hwy 20/97 Interchange
-Century Drive Improvement Project
-Tumalo-Highway 20 pedestrian
crossing
Deschutes County
-Old Bend-Redmond Highway
improvements
-Annual road improvement schedule
-TSP Update
-Comprehensive Plan Update-
-Recreational Assets Committee
City of Redmond
-6th Street improvements
City of Bend
-Galveston Street improvements
-Road Users Task Force funded
improvements
-Trails Master Plan
Bend Parks and Recreation
Trails Master Plan
City of Sisters
-TSP Update
-Development Code Update
-Several Road improvement Projects
Commute Options
-Safe Routes to School
-Bike Education Program
Quality Services Performed With Pride
Bike and Pedestrian Plan
Here you will find information on pedestrian and bicycle opportunities, as well as
news and issues here in Deschutes County. This site is brought to you through the
support of Deschutes County and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
The Committee's mission is to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking
as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County. Its goals include:
• The development of a coordinated system of safe and convenient bikeways
and walkways
• The stimulation of public awareness, and
• The examination of current and future financing options and budget
strategies for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Committee work presently includes the development of bicycle and pedestrian
safety programs and reviewing bicycle and pedestrian project prioritization.
To view complete committee adopted bylaws, click here.
The Committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the Cities of Bend, Redmond
and Sisters, and ODOT in bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and matters
pertaining to existing and proposed road construction and signing. The
Committee is a source of current information relating to the use of bicycle and
walking as a means of transportation, and strives to support them as a viable
means of transportation in Deschutes County.
Members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and serve a term
of three years.
Members are comprised of individuals whose primary residence is in Deschutes
County and who specify an interest in the stated goals of the Committee.
Members recommend individuals to the Board of County Commissioners for
appointment when vacancies occur.
Meetings are generally held on the 1St Thursday of each month from 12 noon to
1:30pm. The meetings are located at the Bend City Hall at 710 NW Wall St. in
Bend. The public is invited to attend. Agenda & Minutes are available online.
Staff liaison to the Bike and Pedestrian Committee is Peter Russell, Deschutes
County Senior Transportation Planner, (541) 383-6718, or peterr@deschutes.o[g
Bike Parking Guidelines
Deschutes County provides a brochure on the proper types of bike parking
facilities to choose, as well as their correct installation. This is the link to an
electronic version of the Bike Parking Guide.
Reporting Problems
To report debris, potholes or a problem with a bike facility in the unincorporated
areas of the County please call the Road Department at (541) 388-6581 or send
an email to: roaddept@co.deschutes.or.us
To report problems on other roads please contact the following:
State of Oregon, ODOT - (541) 388-6232
Bend Public Works Dept - (541) 388-5540
Redmond Public Works Dept - (541) 504-2000
City of Sisters- (541) 549-6022
Deschutes County Bike Guide
The Deschutes County Bike Guide is now online. When printed, it's a 24" by 40"
map (.pdf file) that shows County roads and 23 suggested bike rides throughout
Deschutes County. It's a work in progress, and available initially online, then it will
be available as a new hard copy.
We've tried to include a variety of features including ride direction, parks,
campgrounds and historic attractions. By clicking on the map route number, you'll
bring up an individual 8.5x11 pdf map that you can print out for ease of carrying
along on your ride. Included with those route maps is a route elevation profile so
you can see what you're getting yourself into.
Hard copy versions of the County map will be available at local bike shops in Bend
and Redmond, local chambers of commerce and the Bend Visitor Center. If you'd
like one of the older, partially outdated maps mailed to you, contact Peter Russell.
The entire County is on one side, with enlarged urban areas on the other.
Awards and Recognition
The Committee recognizes individuals, businesses, and public agencies that
significantly support bicycling and pedestrian in Central Oregon Since 1996, the
annual Big Chainring Award has recognized individuals, businesses, and public
agencies that make important contributions toward improving bicycling and
walking conditions, encouraging children or adults to walk and ride their bikes,
and making Deschutes County communities healthier and happier In 2006, the
Peter Hanson Memorial Award was introduced to honor those that have excelled
in bicycle and pedestrian volunteering efforts Peter was a BPAC member who lost
his battle with cancer in 2005 For current award information and application, click
here.
Since 2006, the annual Safe Sidewalks Campaign has recognized businesses that
have made an extra effort keeping their sidewalks clear of snow and ice in the
winter Many people are unaware that cities in Deschutes County require by code
that sidewalks be cleared after a snow storm to ensure public safety Sisters,
Redmond, and Bend all have such ordinances The Safe Sidewalks Campaign is
BPAC's way of reminding county business and property owners of their
responsibility to maintain clear sidewalks These codes not only help make
sidewalks safer, but encourage the good business practice of making it easier for a
customer to arrive at their doors To nominate a business through this process,
please click here for information and the nomination form.
Cl)
c
c
~
c
W
$
c
CO)
Q
0
Q
s
.r
U
Q
(D
E
c
cu
S
O
O
O
c
O
Z
Z
s
co
Fa
r
co
U
u
s
>
0
N
u
C
0
CU
0)
m
)
a)
cu
U
E
L
Q
Q
Q
E
c
E
a)
Y
O
tm
c
0
00
a)
+r
o
_
n
0
o
N
N
c
C
w
a0
c
c
0
~c
Ri
N
(n
cn
° s
U
o
o
U
N
a)
a)
~a U
Y
ns
°
d
•
G
CO
V/
L m
co
m
y,
L
U
n~
W
E
O
C
O
U
E
Q
U
°
Cl)
Q
° Co
A E
'
.c N
•
0
:L-
=
U
a)
U
a) L
v
c
E
co c
O O
E o
. a)
0-0
O
CO
N
-C 0)
Q
o
0c
c()
Oc
c
E
ON
co
~.g
U)
0M
•cn U
m~
.r U
0
c
E
:3
Eu)
a)
_0
c
co
0
U)
m
=3
a)
E
=
(D
c/)
0)
c E
+L+
m
Cc
of
U) c
E c
C
$
E
co
c
0
~
0
O
°
_0
$c
m
°
0
a)
Co
s -0
0 0E
L°
m
cV
0
U
U)
c
D)o
c
~
V C
E
C •C
E
U
N "0
L-
U
U
C
Q
0
_
L 0
°
A
U
0
E
•
0 cn
a
°
°
U
0
-0 C
_
Y
E
°
Z
Q
M
Z
O
0
c ~
0
W
Q
0
N
a
m
U
a ,C
0)
Y
(B
O
O)
? 0
0) O
c
cn
c
to M N
d
C
a)
.L CO
s •L
O
a)
°
° a)
ca
w
-a (D
I a)
c L
a .S o
o
w
c
°
vUi a) a)
00
U~
s
a)
o
U)
U)
m
V
N
U
~
N N
c
rn~
U
s
v
uvi
a)
~
0
Q
o
?
w
( D
0
O
O
.
0
0
m
c n
c n
m z
U m m
cn
Z
Q
cn
o
Q
Z
co
:3 a)
E °
co E
L
a)
3
n
E
a
v
z
E
LL
2
Q
m
n
---j
Q
~
O
z
a
Q Z w
BPAC Board Bio's
Cheryl Howard, Chair: I am a lifelong Oregonian, having resided in Bend since the early 1980's.
Appointed to the Deschutes County Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee in early 2004 (Chair 2007 -
present). Championed and/or coordinated numerous events that improve safety for students walking
and/or biking to school and around the community. These include: Central Oregon Safe Kids, Event
Coordinator (2000-2006), Coordinated CO's first participation in the International Walk to School Day
(2003-2005), Coordinated CO's first community bike rodeos (2003-current) (Both of these programs
have now evolved into yearlong projects with Commute Options), Founder of the Good Samaritan snow
removal program for seniors and disabled. My other volunteer affiliations include serving on the board
of the Deschutes County Weed Advisory Board, Event Coordinator for the Lets Pull Together event, the
Orchard District Neighborhood Association Board of Directors (Founding member and Chair, 2001-2010)
and have most recently joined the board of the United Way of Deschutes County. Graduate of
Leadership Bend and both the Bend Police and Deschutes County Sheriffs Department Citizens
Academy.
Chuck Humphrey, Vice Chair: Resident near Sisters for over 6 years. Serious recreational and
commuter cyclist for 25 years. Treasurer of the Sisters Trails Alliance and the Edgington Road District.
Member of the Sisters Planning Commission. Served on Citizens Advisory Committees for the Sisters
Transportation System Plan Update, the revision of the Sisters Development Code, and the Deschutes
County Sheriff's Office Public Finance Advisory Committee. Retired from career in economic
development with the World Bank in Washington, DC, working mostly in Africa and the Middle East.
Ph.D. in economics.
Matt Martin, Secretary: A native Oregonian and a ten year resident of Deschutes County. Matt worked
for five years with the Deschutes County current planning division followed by 4 years with the City of
Bend current planning division. Matt enjoys music, snowboarding, camping, and experiencing the world
through the eyes of his two year old daughter. Matt has been a member of the BPAC since 2006.
Michelle Sims: Michele Sims is a professional land surveyor and certified water rights examiner. She
holds a degree in biology from Indiana University. A resident of the Sisters community, she has served
on the board of Sisters Habitat for Humanity and is a member of the Sisters Trails Alliance. She believes
that small communities benefit in many ways when their residents may safely walk or bike when
shopping, running errands or traveling to and from school.
Eli Ashley: A five year resident of Deschutes County, Ashley has worked primarily in the public and non-
profit sectors including 19 years with the City of Tacoma. He has managed several performing arts
facilities including most recently the Tower Theatre Foundation in Bend as Executive Director, a position
that he retired from in 2008. He has chaired and served on the board of directors of numerous non-
profit organizations in Washington and is currently on the board of directors as development committee
chair of the Tower Theatre Foundation. He is committed to building a healthy, and safe, community
through enhanced use of bicycles and walking.
Jim Stone: Owner of Sunriver Sports, a Bicycle and Snowsport Retailer in Sunriver, Avid Bicyclist, BPAC
Member 2"d year, South County Rep., Member of the Three Sisters Scenic Bikeway Committee.
Sami Fournier: Appointed to BPAC in Fall, 2008. She holds a Masters Degree in Public and International
Affairs from Columbia University, and spent 10 years as a policy analyst in Washington DC think tanks.
Her work at the Director of Education at the League of American Bicyclists, starting in 2003, involved her
in helping to lobby for the $600 million in federal transportation funds that comprise the National Safe
Routes to Schools program created in 2005. This program, through ODOT, currently funds her work with
Commute Options as a Bicycle Safety Instructor. By the end of this year, Sami and her team will have
taught over 1,000 students in Deschutes County how to commute safely by bike and on foot. Sami also
serves as a CASA volunteer, and on the Leadership Committee of Bend's Community Bike Shed, as well
as helping lead a local Road User Safety Campaign. Sami is a League of American Bicyclists Certified
Instructor (LCI #1111), an ACE certified personal trainer, and she teaches youth mountain biking with
MBSEF in the summers. Additionally, Sami has twice participated in the Cascade Cycling Classic, and she
is a former National Cyclocross Champion in the Masters 40+ women's division.
Kevin Tanski: Moved from Colorado to Bend, Oregon with his wife, Debby, in 2007. In Colorado, Kevin
served for seven years as Education Director of the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs, and
ten years as Parks Coordinator for the Teller County government, whom he represented on the Pikes
Peak Area Council of Governments Transportation Enhancements Subcommittee. Prior to their move,
Kevin was the Executive Director of Colorado Springs-based Palmer Land Trust, overseeing land
conservation in a nine-county region. He established a successful consulting business, Sage Grant
Writing, in Bend in 2008, and also works part-time and seasonally as an alpine ski instructor and
whitewater rafting guide. Kevin and his wife enjoy music and the wealth of outdoor recreation
opportunities in Central Oregon, including bicycling, kayaking, Nordic skiing and bird-watching. He was
appointed to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee in 2008.
Glen Bates: Career Experience: Management and executive positions with Boeing and ITT. Formed US
subsidiary of UK computing services and software company and served as president. Founded software
development company and was involved with several other software and technology companies in
executive or consulting roles. Participation on other Boards and/or Committees: Board member of the
newly formed Central Oregon Velo, a bicycle advocacy group. Member of the bicycle sub-committee of
Senator Wyden's Central Oregon Recreation Initiative. This sub-committee initiated the Three Sisters
Scenic Bikeway concept. Board member of the Awbrey Glen Golf Club (3 years). Board member of the
Awbrey Glen Homeowners Association (4 years). President, Treasurer and board member of West
Mountain Estates Homeowners Association in Ridgefield, CT which maintained a recreation area
including swimming pool, tennis courts, volleyball facility and play field for use by the families of around
140 home owners. Member of Bellevue (Washington) Citizen Advisory Committee charged with
determining the use of school and open space in the Wilberton Hill area of Bellevue for the city council.
This is now a botanical garden and park.
N
N
U
O
7
N
N
N
N
N
a7
0
m
7
c
c
m
v
a)
N
d
3
N
O
m
C
BD O
N
C
O
C
7
O
N
t
Y
L 7
d
c
CL
~ 9)0
'
-0
U
p
Z
N
O
C L
yjg oU
w
L
aw S?
w
Z
o
o ZO y
EU
m
m
:3 m E
t E
°
U
O
m m L
0()
Y
-C ca U
E
V
06
E
_
W
L
7
7 O mLL
a
U
t
N
C
m L~
E
'
(
p
U (n
U
U
E
E U) U cn H
c
$
U U
U
t
o
U
O
U
0
co
w
~
7Q E
oa o
E
Q
a
Q
a._
-
)
Q'
a0
co jQQ
-:as
QQ
-
Q
a
QV
V Q
Q~
a Ea -
~
Q'O
a a)
Q 7
a o
0m
03
L
m<n
mw
¢
m~m~
¢
m~
mU
Q
¢ ¢
¢
c
P
y
v
c
U y N
a
c
'O
m
cm
m
o
E
f0
m
a
°
N
o
C
0
m
o
C
Z
m m
N
0 7
v,
N C
cm - fa
)
0
3
w m
O
p
fa
fa N
~
C
C O
U
r
,F
O
E dC
O
-0
m
0)
a)
m
=
N
N
N
L
C
N
O
-O 'O
7a
L E w
N
C
O)~
N
L
00
N
N
m
C
N
c~.m
U
L
m
N
*u
U)
wd
N
E
mr r- m
m
nE C
V
im
tN
)
E
U
pca
rn7•g
3
m
o
N
y
E
4)
w
to
a
O;
a
7 y
oU
m
rna
v
c
y
N
7L
pw
3
c
m
'
wQ
>
f0
U
v
o
a
w
o
as
to
I
0
E-E
c
o
aD
c
a~
m
o
E
m'
_
T
_
C
m
m
C cl, d
N
N
7
r
Q 7
U E
aim N
m O O
;
N
0
N
CD
N
E C
m
'
COO -0 :3
m
a) L
r? N
°
O
p
E
d
C
a)
E Q G
Om mw
•
E m
.6
wC+
0 a)
UL
d 7 7
U
co
L
m
m
O
N>
N
m0
0
N
Q.m.U
d m
m
L:
m
Q
CL
C
N
U
N N
° ,
t O
c
?
O
co
v
N
L
N C a
C~D :3
A
c
m
E
a>>
v
o
u~
C m a)o
a
0)a
3 c °
°
m
y
a)
E
om
~C
m
of Em
mm~
-a)
w0
v
m
7
C
U
m
T
O
0
a
m•_o.~
06
m m
~v
o
~
=
m m
N
atf m
-14
y °O
y
o
E
° N N
°-+r
N
N
a~
0
N C
cc
N
N
a~
X
E
a)
CO N
ca N
N
N
m
7
C a)
7 U C
m m
in
m
C C
O O
m 0 L
a) y U C
N
C
c6 w C m
.2
Up p
Y
N
m E
E
N
N N
N
V E O
o0 y
N
U
C
U
o
0
7
L
'O
a)
'0U
C fa
8,:a
mtf L 7
-
N
U
>
p
p
c4 E
L
c
m
C
A
a
L HO
7 C 0
C
.0
m la C
m
V
O
N
9'7
c
c
€
fca
U
- `Uc0 c
°
rn
ca
m
oU E
m
c
E c a~i m
N o 0
o
c o
L a
o
Q
o
a°i
o
c
im
w
oC
-
mm
°
m
O
°
E
o° mE°
m
EO
E
M
N~C
`
$W
N
Ewc
c0
Y
C
:
N
C
a
a)
m
O m
L~ m
atf aJ U
0E
U m
-a)
y 8
Uy
Q a) a
E
y
2
Eo
a O O O
U 7
E
~ O 7
t/)
o
N>
N O O
U°w
a)
m U t
U
U
a)
Q fn
a
-
c
m
Y
°
E C
m
a)
N U 7
m
m
N
N
C m
°-v
N C
2 a) O
o
L
>
O
C a N
O O L
o =~S
m
U E
n~E
L7
o
O.-0 O
°
N
U
QL
m
O. U L
7OU
Q
m
U)
M
OC-4 -0 : C
f
m
o N
a=
v
mm
N E
u
7
C m >
a~Y
C N
i0c
~ m
m
~
c0 (Up
.0 7 7
v
C
m0 ~N
m s co CL "O
c0
U)
"O 7 U
c
co
°-._0
C
00
7
Nm
w a
-0
°cn~°
~Y
r-
0E
y
~
v
0c
n
70
Ea)=0m
L
o
M N 0
m
o
7C
U)w
c
rn
m
C N
ON
W Q (D 0)
ooc
_U .
3
c oc
0°
o
cva
22
0
co.c
o
. a
y
app
N
m
m
C O •O
caE
-
CL
L
U
oN
~N
m
C
'c
a)
ac
C= 0
0) C"
a~'3
p 0
dLn
O
yv
N
a) C
a'cmwc
p
C)L
N a r 0
w
CO O C
0
-
E
vc~
m m
~~7
c
7 a) C
~•c
~
O O m
w
m
>
a
coo
4) a a
_
a
7N
7
co a
CE
m d
7
o-2
0
o
a) m
C« C
E o m
°~a)
B
a
mC a)
m
7;-°a~mo
O
° E
O
a
ca
) omaD
N d E
D
r
0
O°
~
c
ago
~
cmc
m C
0)
M
~m
N N
E E
C
E C
L
m v a
ID
O
co N
E CO
d
N
QR
C m
a) 0
m CO C
m
9
E N
E
O
CO U O
r
7
E
p
.
U 06 to co
N
U a) O>
m
C C
c6
c
7
O
.
N L
m D
a
7 m
E
O O m
0
o
U
la a)
m
7 m> N
w
C
a)
m
7
O
N U
10 C
O
5.
C
'2 an
L) E
O
c)
d
U
C
N
O N
V
a) N
U N
La0
_ Y C
m
E A'
E
O
O
«
C a)
m (n N -O
a
L N
c4
U 'E
m
U
mm E O
L
N
OfL N
. Y
E
in
a
_
C
(D
'
a)
C
~
O) m N C
dccm
~ma)-
E
m
0
c
m c~
C
U
m
w
m a)
a)m
C° co
O a)
CL
m
>.~0
7 Q
Ua
c m
ma_
V
O
a0)
NLa2-2
m
v
U
-
)
aa> c
0 a;
0 o m
c
g
C
m
30
mrn p
a) w
07
E o
N 0
m w
Ein c
m
a)
wLa)
p
C N
E0
CD
N
~
L
a)
c ac
U
E
U
N
U
_
3
L
E
N~
7
_
mma~=
N>'
° as d o
L
co
o
ca
w
L
N a
C N
m to
y N (D
m m
m N N
c N N 0.c
.
EOE cc
'
-
> d-
Q a) ° m
m
C
c'C
\
C
. m
o
Ym
'O
E
UN
a)
mvi n
aJF
lb
c
L
N
a
oa o
a
O
c
=
° a)
mc
m
~mOci
0
2
7 0
m
0a (D ~
>Oa
w o' cm o
~
O
a0_IL(9
w
to 8
h
c
~a
19;~
am
c0aCr
) o 7
O
to
cc
a
i
OmU
m
a m
Ua
m ca o
O 2
N
w Q
-F c. E
~
5
n2
U)
JJ
~ ~
.
r-
mm
° ne
w
E
C
N
E
N
C
(D
"O
U
O
m a)
m
.L..
N
C
7
Y
m
m
T
E
S
d
w 0
d
N
o
E
p
GO
7
C U
N
o
C
N
O.
'
m
N
LD
la
.L.+
'O
N C 7
m
t
N
O
.0
m
•C
N
C
N
N
N
C
CL
a)
C
y
a N U
>
d
E
a)
C
a)
O
D
N
U
0
Y
a)
0 m
N
C
m _
~p
f/)
.
7
N Y N
.L.. 7 N
•N
m
N
E
7
O
U
a
O
•C
d
N
m
E
V)
O
ca •0
E
E
O.
~p
0
t
C N
O
'
~
C Q
C N C
d
R E
0)
N
U
Q
O
°
-D =
L
C
Z
a)
to
N a
O
U
0
O
C
L
-
) is C
-8- .2
L
m
.O
d E
Z (D
co
w
m
U
m
C
N
Y
m
p
N
y
CL
L
O N
N
>
cc
O
°
m 0
O N
m
C
E U
° _N
N
C
m
O
V
'O a O.
_
m C
L
d C
N
vo
~U
r
vE
pa;
cd
pm
m a gi
a
v
c
>
°
0
0
c
0
E
7
~m~
~~a
~y
m~
0)
m
w
w
cmC
9
pN
o
.
E N
E E
N
?v
rn
N
N
E
Y
t
°)•o
°
E
N
.3
a)00
N
y
c
°
0
c
m
c N
4) a)
0.o
w
5 C
a)
m
0
a)
N
ww
C N
E
V
n 0 a~i
Y C
a
C
2
E
c
y
o
L
i
' u
d
C
':5
0-0
> N
a)
m
a)
L
0
la
M
a) Z ~
p
ca C
N m
m
2
7
O
C
2
E
O
ME d
C N
m
0
0
L N
7
O
C N
.
CL U
N L
C
m
CD C
7
.n o
w to E
a)
N V
c_
>
o
ca
E
U
o
m
0
Do-O
C
O 'D
N
O N
C 7
Y O
a)
a)
Nn
O E
N
U
N :C O
C U
ca
L
a
(D
Cl
C
La m
'C m
r= C
O
°
(N~
0
p
N
U
C 7 C
E 0
0.1
7 O
°
E
L
O
U N
7
0 m
O
m
a7
O m
m f0
C
O
-
O
U
m
O
U co
-
V
m
p E 01
4
j)
N co
N N
7
E
0)
a)
a U
m 0
C N
=
C
L N
°
> N
~
N N
aw
c
C
N
o
m
m
c
•C a)
a
m
c
m
Y
m
w
0.
m 7
oo
E
c
E (D
c
C 7
O
>
U
C
om
L L
m
-
O>
a)
8
a
A N
t
Q
a
i
N m
N
0
2 m
E
E
a)
N
rn to
m o
p
~a.CN
moy
c
a
8
N
a~
d
m
$
a) c
0).0
m
`
02
m E 0.
E
m
>
m a
a)
a..
a
a
C
0
7 N
~
10
o
a)
(D
m 0
N
3
CD
> o
a
i
c
o f
m
to
'
y
~
)
y
2
c-
me
m
mE
m
C
•tq C
pp
C)
p
N
a m
C co >
N
V)
p
C 0
2
cu -6
8 m m
E
m p
9
o
E
.
N
m
C N
0
fa C
QC7
W
W - to O
E7
m~E
c
a
WC
E
WC`0
Q'O
Ov
a
5
C0
0E
mT
QaU
cn
U
U
Um
O
¢wE
ao
U
D
two
ii
> O
QOLm.U
m
ao~
N
Qm
rn
Um
O
DU
U
Qa
c
'
Co 'C CO
c
W
C p
s
m
;
mC
c
o NZco
ei0 m
2
0
~
O
..~0
0
c ~o°Q
H
, _ °0
to
~
c
o
V
C C
C
c
N
C'
c
m
t) U 1=
u d U al
~
w a 'a ca F'
C
Q
y N
o
i
O C) Q) a
oeCc °
y
V
vco -fib
e
t 1
Q~
a
OO
W-Ic ~o .2
to
0
V
Q. 7s
=m~rnag
>j
U
O
N
m
c
LL
y7
ca
O
0
Q
a
m
O_
O
N
O 2{
Deschutes County Board of Commissioner:,
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or~
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business M ruary 8, 2010
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: January 12, 2010
FROM: Will Groves CDD 388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Limited de novo hearing on an appeal (A-09-10) of a Hearings Officer denial of a proposal to establish
a wireless telecommunications facility on a parcel zoned EFU-SC located east of Sisters (AD-09-
02/MA-09-5)
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
New Cingular Wireless LP applied for a wireless telecommunications facility mounted on an 80-foot-
tall monopine. In a denial dated December 4, 2009, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant s
proposed facility did not satisfy all requirements for siting utility facilities in the EFU Zone.
Specifically, she found that the applicant failed to demonstrate its proposed facility must be sited on
EFU-zoned land in order to provide service meeting the applicant's business objectives. The hearings
officer found that the applicant was required, but failed, to show that alternate facility sites on non-
resource land are not available or technically feasible.
Furthermore, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant failed to demonstrate it must site the
proposed wireless facility on the EFU-zoned Bradley Butte site rather than on one or more non-1 -FU
zoned sites within the search rings that alone or in combination could provide the desired wireless
service. For this reason, the Hearings Officer could not find that the applicant's proposal is "necessary
for public service" under DCC 18.16.025 and 18.16.038.
The applicant filed a timely appeal on December 16, 2009 requesting a limited de novo review of this
matter by the Board. Specifically, the applicant requested that the Board limit the review to:
1)Whether the proposed site is necessary for public service, under DCC 18.16.025 and 18.16.03 3, and
2)Whether a two (or more) tower site design is a reasonable alternative to the Applicant's proposed
one-site design.
In Order 2010-007 the Board has agreed to hear this appeal limited de novo, in accordance with DCC
22.32.027(B)(4), limited to the questions stated in the appeal.
The 150-day decision clock was tolled for a period of 62 days and now expires on March 15, 21 10.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
0
Community Development Department
1 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
January 12, 2010
To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
From: Will Groves, Senior Planner
Subject: Limited de novo hearing on an appeal (A-09-10) of a Hearings Officer
denial of a proposal to establish a wireless telecommunications facility
consisting of an 80-foot-tall monopine, equipment cabinets, perimeter
fence and access driveway on a parcel zoned EFU-SC located east of
Sisters (AD-09-02/MA-09-5)
BACKGROUND
New Cingular Wireless LP applied for a wireless telecommunications facility mounted on
an 80-foot-tall monopine. In a denial dated December 4, 2009, the Hearings Officer
found that the applicant's proposed facility did not satisfy all requirements for siting utility
facilities in the EFU Zone. Specifically, she found that the applicant failed to demonstrate
its proposed facility must be sited on EFU-zoned land in order to provide service meeting
the applicant's business objectives. The applicant was required, but failed, to show that
alternate facility sites on non-resource land are not available or technically feasible.
Furthermore, the Hearings Officer found that the applicant failed to demonstrate it must
site the proposed wireless facility on the EFU-zoned Bradley Butte site rather than on
one or more non-EFU zoned sites within the search rings that alone or in combination
could provide the desired wireless service. For this reason, the Hearings Officer could
not find that the applicant's proposal is "necessary for public service" under DCC
18.16.025 and 18.16.038.
Opposition to the wireless telecommunications facility centered on visual impacts and
potential visual impacts to a nearby historic homestead. The Hearings Officer found that
the facility would be minimally visible from surrounding land and would blend well with
the natural and developed environment. The Hearings Officer concluded that state and
local historic preservation provisions also do not apply because the proposal would have
no direct impacts to the homestead and the proposal is not for demolition, removal or
alteration of the historic resource.
Quality Services Perforined -with Pride
The applicant filed a timely appeal on December 16, 2009 requesting a limited de novo
review of this matter by the Board. Specifically, the applicant requested that the Board
limit the review to:
1) Whether the proposed site is necessary for public service, under DCC 18.16.025
and 18.16.038, and
2) Whether a two (or more) tower site design is a reasonable alternative to the
Applicant's proposed one-site design.
In Order 2010-007 the Board has agreed to hear this appeal limited de novo, in
accordance with DCC 22.32.027(8)(4), limited to the questions stated in the appeal.
The 150-day decision clock was tolled for a period of 62 days and now expires on March
15, 2010.
STAFF DISCUSSION
Based on the material presently available in the record, Staff concurs with the Hearing
Officer's denial of this application. Staff anticipates the applicant will provide additional
information relevant to the issues of appeal at or prior to the hearing. Staff recommends
the Board evaluate this new information to determine if the applicant has met the
burden-of-proof with regard to DCC 18.16.025 and 18.16.038.
DOCUMENTATION
A copy of the Hearings Officer decision and relevant, previously submitted documents
are attached for your review.
SCHEDULE
This item is scheduled for a work session on February 3, 2010 and for a hearing on
February 8, 2010. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
a Community Development Department
( Planning Division
a 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-1925
(541) 388-6575 - Fax (541) 385.1764
http://www.deschutes.org/cdd
APPEAL APPLICATION
0
FEE: /1 aJ
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 nova 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.
4.. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color
areas shall also be provided.
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.
Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010)
or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issu s.
4bA AT£T mobill'i
Appellant's Name (print): New Cingular Wireless' Peg, LLC phone: (541) 312-5464
Mailing Address: 550 Columbia City/State/Zip: Send, Oregon 97702
MA-09-5/AD-09-,V.1-
Land Use Application Being Appealed: Modification of Applic. for Wireless Telecom Facility
Property Description: To 15S Range 10E . Section 2 Tax Lot. 200 and 3 GO'; Map 15-10-02
Appellant's Signature:
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED AN SE5(-TION 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 LA WE
CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HI R
ON-THE-RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS.
DEC 16 2009
(over)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant hereby requests a limited de novo review of the following
issues by the Board:
1. Whether the proposed site, is necessary for public service, under
DCC Sections 18.16.025 and 18.16.038.
2. Whether the two (or more) site design is a reasonable alternative
to the Applicantls proposed one-site design.
The Appellant requests that the Board hold a.limited de novo review of
the Hearings officer's decision due to the significant policy question
of requiring the Applicant to analyze a multi-site design in. place of
the proposed single-site, stealth design.
(This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.)
peg®n
e . Theodore R Kulongoski Governor
December 30, 2009
Tammy Baney, Chair
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Commissioner Baney:
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
503-229-5696
TTY: 503-229-6993
Thank you for taking the time to speak with the Environmental Quality Commission during the Oct. 22-
23 meeting in Klamath Falls. The commission asked that I respond to your questions and concerns
regarding the protection of groundwater in south Deschutes County and northern Klamath County.
I think that it is important to acknowledge the difference in the definition of "public health hazard" as
used in my Jan. 4, 2008 letter as compared with other definitions in other regulations. I specifically used
the definition as it relates to the application of the Department of Land Conservation and Development's s
Goal 11 in South Deschutes County. This definition relies on the likelihood of exposure to inadequately
treated sewage as opposed to the actual exposure to inadequately treated sewage that is found in many
other definitions of "public health hazard." Taking this definition into consideration, the significant
decrease in development in the area over the past year, and the long history of efforts to solve this
problem, I believe it is important to take the time necessary to make decisions that have the appropriate
environmental outcome and fully engage the citizens of South Deschutes and Northern Klamath counties.
The groundwater contamination area extends south of the county line into Northern Klamath County and
we met with the Klamath County Board of Commissioners on December 23, 2009 to provide a summary
of the groundwater problems and invite commissioners, their staff and affected citizens to help us solve
the problem. We are meeting with DLCD to work on the Goal 11 challenges in the area as we believe
DLCD's participation will be an integral part of the solution.
Numerous questions were posed at the July 22, 2009 meeting in La Pine where you asked DEQ to take
the lead on the groundwater protection project in the South Deschutes County area. We have been
working with DLCD and Deschutes County on answering those questions and we have posted the
meeting notes and Q & A document on the following newly-created webpage:
http://rv~vw.deq.state.onus/wq/onsite/nitrate.htm
This webpage will be our primary source of information to the community and it will be updated
regularly so that all affected stakeholders and partners can stay informed. We believe that the best way to
distribute information and updates is through this webpage and broad e-mail distribution, rather than
directing the information to individuals, or providing information at one particular venue.
DE¢1 a
I understand your desire of securing stimulus funds to assist in the solution and your concern for moving
quickly. We will do our very best to address your and the County's concerns and work with you to create
a timeline that meets the needs of the environment and citizens. The first step in this direction will be a
public meeting at the La Pine Senior Center on February 4, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. All of our partner groups
including Klamath County will be invited to this meeting, which will focus on the formation of a steering
committee that will develop an outline for moving forward and identifying next steps. Additional details
of the meeting are posted on the newly-created webpage noted above.
The work to manage growth and wastewater impacts in South Deschutes County has been challenging. I
look forward, and am committed to working in partnership with Deschutes County and Klamath County,
in moving forward towards a solution.
Sincerely,
Dick Pedersen
Director
cc: Environmental Quality Commission
Klamath County Board of Commissioners
Robert Ray, Deschutes County Citizens Action Group
Richard Whitman, DLCD - Salem
Rob Hallyburton, DLCD - Salem
Joni Hammond, DEQ - Portland
Mitch Wolgamott, DEQ - Pendleton
Eric Nigg, DEQ - Bend
Bob Baggett, DEQ - Bend
Michael Kucinski, DEQ - Eugene