Loading...
2001-722-Minutes for Meeting September 12,2001 Recorded 9/27/2001Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were George Read, Chris Schmoyer, Kevin Harrison, Steve Jorgensen, Catherine Morrow, Dave Leslie, Damian Syrnyk and Doreen Blome', Community Development; Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Media Representatives Barney Lerten of bend. com, Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio, and .Teff Pesznecker of the Bulletin; and approximately fifteen citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf introduced the Atta Boy group at 9:35 a.m. 2. Before the Board was a Presentation of the "Atta Boy 300 - Oregon World Cup Sled Dog Race" Event Planned for Central Oregon during January 5 through 13, 2002. Race Administrator Roxie Thornton Todoroff of COVA (Central Oregon Visitors Association) stated that, on behalf of the Atta Boy Dog Food Company, Jerry and Rachel Scdoris, and COVA, this would be the first time a world cup sled dog racing event will be coming to Central Oregon. She explained that this would be the first of three world cup sled dog races held and, among other things, it will boost winter tourism in the area and enhance awareness of the visually impaired, since Rachel Scdoris is legally blind. Jerry Scdoris, Race Director, explained the evolution of the race, which was originally presented to Bill Healy in 1987. At that time Mr. Healy, as well as Senator Mark Hatfield, strongly supported bringing the race to this area. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 23 Pages Mr. Scdoris said it was obvious that from the age of three years his daughter would be a racer. She raced in the Wyoming 500 this year, and the Atta Boy Company followed the race and asked about the possibility of having a race take place in Oregon. The media has been following her career as well. He then showed the Board a copy of the front page of the Oregonian, featuring his daughter. He then showed a video to the audience featuring Ms. Scdoris' Wyoming race experience, which will be televised by PBS this month. At this time, Ms. Scdoris spoke briefly about her experiences. Commissioner Daly asked how this world-class event, with racers from all over, would be funded. Jerry Scdoris said that Atta Boy has provided some funding, but donations are being solicited from agencies and other sponsors. Ms. Todoroff said that 28 competitors from the U.S. and other countries have contacted COVA, expressing an interest in the Central Oregon race. Mr. Scdoris said he has been contacted by five Iditarod winners, including the current record holder, as well as four or five other racers from within Oregon. Sisters previously hosted this race in the 1950's before the snow levels changed. The seven stages required for the race are all at elevation in Central Oregon, so there should be adequate snow for all phases of the event. Commissioner Daly explained that this is a big deal for Deschutes County, and he and Commissioner DeWolf indicated they are going to present a check for $3,000 to help fund the event. These funds will be taken from discretionary lottery grant funds meant to target economic development, to help fund this event. Mr. Scdoris thanked the Commissioners, and stated that Atta Boy wants to emphasize the abilities of the visually challenged, and had printed a million Atta Boy bags with Rachel's photo on them. A portion of the proceeds was given to the United States Association of Blind Athletes. He then presented signed copies of the bags with Ms. Scdoris' autograph to Board members. Chair DeWolf then requested a brief recess, after which he opened the formal meeting at 10:10 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Chair DeWolf explained to the audience that, as a result of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania, the County does have an emergency plan in place. No drastic steps have been taken, but the public needs to be aware that local authorities are alert and prepared, and wish to lend support and prayers to people across the nation. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Declaring Deschutes County's Support of American Red Cross Blood Drive Efforts. The reading of this Proclamation was requested by NACo (National Association of Counties) in response to the terrorist acts of Tuesday, September 11. Commissioner DeWolf read the Proclamation (copy attached as Exhibit A), and said that as of tomorrow, donations will be taken at U.S. Bank to help with relief efforts. LUKE: I move approval of signature of this Proclamation. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeWolf then said this is not "business as usual"; these acts change the face of the world forever. However, the Board will proceed with handling the activities of the County. 3. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation declaring September "National Food Safety Education Month". Chair DeWolf read the Proclamation (copy attached as Exhibit B). LUKE: I move approval of signature of this Proclamation. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing, and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-034, Correcting an Error in Zoning Surface Mining Site No. 274 and Rezoning of the Property to Exclusive Farm Use (Cloverdale Subzone). Dave Leslie of Community Development stated that this Ordinance intends to correct a past error. (He referred to an oversized map at this time.) He explained that this property, which is adjacent to the Fryrear Transfer Station and is part of larger 320 -acre piece, was subject to a geotechnical study conducted in the mid -1980's. A subsequent review of the 1990 Goal 5 zoning decisions completed in 1992 demonstrated that the subject property was zoned SM in error. Mr. Leslie further explained that there is some mineral resource material available, but it is very limited. Notice has been sent to several agencies that indicate there is no problem with this correction. Notices were also sent to area property owners, and no comment has been received from them. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Leslie replied that it is dry land with no water and very shallow soil; and that the surrounding area is zoned the same. The County needs to stay with the resource zone, as the property does not fit for forest zoning. He further explained that it is affected by new legislation, allowing the creation of non-farm parcels from non-farm parcels. There will probably be changes to the Code by the first of year, based on recent court rulings in Douglas and Crook Counties. At this time it can't be partitioned into less than 80 acres. Chair De Wolf then opened public hearing. No response was received from the audience, so Chair De Wolf then closed the public hearing. LUKE: I move first reading by title only. DALY: Second. Chair De Wolf then conducted the first reading, by title only. The second reading and consideration of adoption of this Ordinance is scheduled for September 26, 2001. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinances Nos. 2001-036, 2001-037 and 2001-041, Adopting a Zone Change and Plan Amendment for the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. Catherine Morrow stated that all three Ordinances deal with Neighborhood Planning. Ordinance No. 2001-036 amends the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - La Pine Unincorporated Community; Ordinance No. 2001-037 amends the zoning map and adopts specific standards; and Ordinance No. 2001-041 amends the subdivision code and establishes street standards. A policy has been added policy regarding phasing; some further changes to Ordinance No. 2001-037 will occur. This also adds home occupations to some of the zones. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinances No. 2001-036 and 2001-037; they were aware of the road standards, but these had to be included in a separate Ordinance, No. 2001-041. Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing. An unidentified member of the audience asked, while not on the microphone, whether the property is zoned separately for subdivisions. Ms. Morrow replied that zoning and standards have been applied to the established residential area, the neighborhood commercial area and the park area. Lot size, density and so on are all established in the zones, and any subdivision would have to comply with those zones. Ms. Morrow also stated that a woman did testify at the La Pine meeting, and her major concern was since the County owns the land, would the County provide for individual builders to have the opportunity to develop lots. The Planning Commission has considered issues related to design guidelines and diversity, and relayed its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Lots should be available to a variety of purchasers. Being no further input offered, Chair De Wolf then closed the public hearing. DALY: I move first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-036, by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: DALY: DEWOLF Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first reading, by title only. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DALY: I move first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-037, by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first reading, by title only. DALY: I move first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-041, by title only. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first reading, by title only. The second reading and consideration of adoption of all three Ordinances is scheduled for September 26, 2001. 6. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-017, Relating to Measure 7. George Read explained that the courts received oral arguments on this controversial issue earlier in the week, and a Supreme Court decision is forthcoming. He said that since notice has already been provided, this should be continued to a time certain. Chair De Wolf continued the hearing until November 28, 2001, at 10: 00 a. m. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Petition to Include County -owned Property within the Boundaries of the Proposed Deschutes River Recreation Homesites Unit 6 (Parts I and II) No -Shooting District. Doreen Blome' referred to an oversized wall map showing the proposed no - shooting district. She said that Deschutes County owns contiguous property within the district, and it would need to be included. Petitions are being circulated in the area at this time, and the district can be formed upon receipt of 60% of signatures from the property owners. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DALY: I move approval of the Board signing this petition on behalf of Deschutes County. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was a Discussion of Scheduling a Public Hearing on the LUBA Remand of Board Decisions regarding the Barclay Meadows Business Park and Sisters School District. Chris Schmoyer said that the purpose of his visit is to inform the Board of the need to schedule a hearing regarding a matter on remand of the County's decision on two requests to expand the urban growth boundary of the City of Sisters. The decision was remanded by LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) on August 31, 2001, on one assignment of error pertaining to the Administrative Rule that would address the transportation planning rule. The County has 90 days to make a final decision on this matter, from August 31. This computes to November 29. A hearing will need to be scheduled, and the Board needs to decide how it would like to hear it, either on the record or de novo. Laurie Craghead explained that there is enough information contained within the record to hear this issue on the record and not de novo. Commissioners Luke and Daly stated that they would be happy to hear it on the record. Chair DeWolf said that is his feeling as well. Ms. Craghead said that the County allows for the written submission of information; no oral testimony would be allowed. Commissioner Luke stated that after the Board made a decision on this issue, various people then appealed to LUBA on 27 different topics. Chris Schmoyer explained that three were dismissed, and LUBA heard 24 and found a deficiency in only one. Ms. Craghead said LUBA felt the County misinterpreted an Administrative Rule, but also said they didn't know how to interpret it either, which is of no help to the County. They want the County to reinterpret it and make the necessary findings to support what the County's interpretation would be. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Commissioner Luke stated that out of the 27, only one came back, so the Board would be dealing with just the one on the record. Mr. Schmoyer confirmed this. Chair DeWolf said that the County needs to send out proper notice to the parties, advising them that they have until a certain date to submit information to the Board. He asked if the parties have until the date of the hearing to submit information, or whether there is a date prior to that hearing date for them to submit their information. Ms. Craghead replied that they have until the hearing date and time. The Board can take some time after that to consider the information and make a timely decision. She said the Board needs to set a date and time certain, to be reflected in the notice. Chair DeWolf indicated that if information is presented at that time, he feels it is obvious that the Board will not be making a decision then. Commissioner Luke asked if this is being done on the record, how can they submit written testimony. Ms. Craghead replied that the County rules allow written legal argument, but no introduction of new facts. Commissioner Daly asked if the Board could require that the information be submitted prior to the hearing. Ms. Craghead said that she would examine the exact wording of the Code. Chair DeWolf then set the public hearing for October 24, 2001, with the time to be determined within ten days, at which time the notice needs to be sent out. 9. Before the Board was an Oral Decision of an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Denial of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in Sunriver Business Park. Damian Syrnyk gave a brief overview of the issue. This is an application made by SBA Communications to establish a wireless telecommunications facility, including a proposed 120 -foot monopole tower, in the Sunriver Business Park. A hearing was conducted on August 22, and the record is now closed. The Board has copies of all the documentation that was submitted. Chair DeWolf then called for a five-minute break to be able to retrieve some of his paperwork. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 SYRNYK: I want to point out that Commissioner Daly asked me to bring the two oversized photos (referring to the photos at this time) that were originally submitted into the record by Sunriver Resort. These were also submitted at the public hearing held in April before the Hearings Officer, and were before the Board's hearing conducted on August 22. LUKE: Were these photos taken from the parking lot of the condos? SYRNYK: I believe that's correct. The photograph to the left oriented north and south. Both of these are photographic simulations that were prepared by an engineer at the request of Sunriver Resort. DALY: Damian and I talked about comparing this photograph to the actual site plan. Do you think that photograph accurately depicts the site plan for the location of that tower? SYRNYK: (Referring to the applicant's site plan) The applicant submitted a site plan that is part of Exhibit C of their application. The proposed location of the tower is in the northwest corner of the site, approximately 35 feet from the northern property line. DALY: Northwest or northeast? SYRNYK: Excuse me. Northeast. It's about 32 feet, 6 inches from the eastern property line. I'm not sure where they took that photograph, as it appears that in the simulation the tower would be behind the building. LUKE: Not from the parking lot it wouldn't be. I drove in there. The building would not shield it, I believe. DEWOLF: I can tell you where they took it; right between the two buildings there is kind of an indentation. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 LUKE: And in the simulation I think the pole looks closer to the fence than it actually is. The pole would be back there a ways. The relationship, height -wise, to the building and fence is probably pretty close. DALY: Have the other two Commissioners seen the photo I took? CRAGHEAD: The photo would be additional evidence, and the record was closed. DALY: This was submitted into the record with my original comments after my tour. SYRNYK: It was submitted in time. DEWOLF: Was this submitted to us? LUKE: I don't think I've seen anything from anybody's tour. DALY: I submitted it, along with my written comments. Anyway, this basically is my opinion. I took photographs of the same area from a lot of different locations just to try to compare them with the evidence in the record. I observed that this oversized photo was obviously taken in between a whole line of trees along that fence. In other words, you have to be in this exact location in order to see the tower. Anyplace else in the parking lot would probably have other trees between you and the tower itself. DEWOLF: My observation leads me to believe that all those trees are about sixty feet tall, and this tower is twice as tall. You may not see the bottom of it, but you'd sure see the top. DALY: I understand. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DEWOLF: So, what we are doing today is making an oral decision, and then staff will be developing the specific follow-up to that decision. Does somebody want to make a motion, or do we each want to say where we're at? DALY: I think we ought to discuss it a little bit. In talking with staff and legal counsel, there are a couple of issues we have to decide on this. I think that on this particular one we have to first decide not whether it is considered a wireless telecommunications facility, but we have to first decide whether they met the criteria that are required. DEWOLF: First is whether it is ... CRAGHEAD: You do decide whether they are a wireless telecommunications facility; and if they aren't, can they get there with conditions of approval. From there you evaluate the conditional use criteria to see if they can get there. DALY: That's only on this one; it's different from the one in La Pine. CRAGHEAD: Somewhat different from the one in La Pine, because the one in La Pine is in a different zone. I recommend that if you have any preliminary thoughts on the other one, remember we need to be able to distinguish them to have consistency. DEWOLF: That's really unfair, since that public hearing is still open, and we're still accepting testimony. I think it would be unethical for me to draw conclusions not having all the information that I may have later. DALY: We have to make a decision on this one today. DEWOLF: Correct. An oral decision; we don't have to have all of our findings concluded. That happens when we have the final document. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DALY: I don't know if you remember at the last hearing, the cell tower proponents had a display of circles on their map and the criteria they used to try to find the only available site. Damian, apparently you were not able to find that. SYRNYK: I couldn't find it in our office. I think the only one submitted into the record was the La Pine one. RECORDING SECRETARY: (Off the microphone.) I just checked the minutes of that hearing, and Mr. Martin did refer to an overhead of the search ring, but obviously did not submit it into the record. SYRNYK: The applicant might have taken it with him instead of formally submitting it to the County as part of the record. LUKE: Can I read this? Maybe it will help. I have something written. DALY: I have something written, too. LUKE: Do you want to read yours first? DALY: Counsel thought it might be inappropriate to read it. LUKE: The first item I will address is if this application meets the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility. I do not believe that they have provided substantial evidence that they are a wireless telecommunications facility. The chief reason for that belief is because they do not have a provider. I've got some comments that I believe fall under the conditional use criteria. have some statements on that. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 LUKE: 1) I do not believe the applicant has met the criteria for the proposed use. There is considerable detail missing from the application. 2) The applicant, in my opinion, has not met the burden of proof for the need to have the height at 125 feet. It may need to be 125 feet, but I don't believe they have provided the proof that it's necessary. If you look what they did at the Tumalo Irrigation property, Cellular One showed extensive evidence on why the tower needed to be a certain height. 3) The applicant, in my opinion, is not able to show that the tower can be screened with natural vegetation. The trees that do screen the tower are on the neighboring property and may be removed by that property owner. While the existing building will screen some of the tower, a substantial amount of it will be clearly visible above the building. In my site visit, I noted that the tower would be clearly visible from Ventura Lane, which is the next one over. If the trees are removed from the neighboring lot, I believe the tower may also be visible from South Century Drive. It also may be visible without removal of the trees. There is no survey in the record that tells us one way or the other. So, there is nothing in the record that tells us whether you can see this from South Century Drive. 4) There is no evidence that the proposed antenna arrangement is better than any other antenna arrangement. They brought in their proposed arrangement, and again I'll speak of the one at Tumalo Irrigation's property. I think they did a good job of explaining why the antenna arrangement worked best for that site at that height. This applicant did not do that. 5) I believe there is a greater need than just showing that there are no co - location options available. There must also be, in my opinion, an alternative site analysis under County Code 18.128.340(b)(2). An example I would again site is the Tumalo Irrigation/Cellular One application. I also believe that Mericom has met the alternative site analysis, and also that Mericom met its burden under 215.275. Therefore, because they have not met their burden of proof on the alternative sites analysis, in my opinion the applicant cannot become a wireless telecommunications facility merely by adding a condition of approval requiring a lease before building permits are issued. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 LUKE: My motion, if we get that far, would be to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision and deny the application, with further findings. DALY: Obviously, I totally disagree with Commissioner Luke. Maybe I look at things a little bit differently. I remember the overhead, and remember them showing the different areas that they searched. I also remember them showing that the actual lot they finally decided on was basically the only one available within the whole area that they were searching. Frankly, on my site visit I drove around Sunriver and noted that this particular area, in the back corner, also has a big, heavy power line that goes along the side where this tower would sit, which nobody has ever brought up, and which would blend right in. I think they couldn't have picked a better spot to put this. There's a lot of testimony that if you can see it, well, it doesn't belong. Where is the evidence in the record or anywhere else that anybody has ever said that these things are ugly? At what point did somebody say that cell towers are so ugly we can't bear to look at them? Where did this come from? It's a high technology piece of equipment that needs to happen, for public safety, and for a variety of reasons. Without cell phones, in New York City right now there would be a lot of people still dying. That's a prime example, I guess. Everyone wants the technology. I think these people have met their burden as far as the location goes. I'm prepared as a matter of policy to vote in favor of the fact that with conditions, if they are a wireless facility, if they have a lease on that facility from a provider, I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind that it is going to be a cell tower and will provide needed cell phone service in the area. I totally disagree with Commissioner Luke and his findings. I think we need to move forward on this, because it is the wave of the future and needs to happen. I think we can all work together to find a common solution. LUKE: I have a question for legal counsel or staff. The provider was brought forward when it came to us, is that correct? When the Hearings Officer had the application, there was no written agreement originally from the provider. They weren't a co -applicant. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 CRAGHEAD: There was no co -applicant; just a letter of interest indicating VoiceStream "may consider" going on the tower. A copy was provided in your packet of information. DEWOLF: What their attorney said was, prior to the actual application we would have them as a co -applicant. But it is not part of the record that we've received to date, correct? CRAGHEAD: They have the letter from VoiceStream ... SYRNYK: When SBA submitted their application, they submitted a letter from VoiceStream Wireless that indicated their interest in possibly using the tower, and a copy of VoiceStream's FCC application. But there is nothing in the record that indicates there is a relationship between SBA and VoiceStream where SBA actually goes out and builds sites and then leases space on their towers for VoiceStream as a business partner, for example. LUKE: The other thing that was brought up in conversations with legal counsel was that the applicant's attorney was told that if VoiceStream wanted to be a co - applicant, they actually would have to file a new application. CRAGHEAD: They'd have to file a modification of an application, which is required prior to close of the record. They would have to pay an extra fee and agree to an extension of the 150 -day time limit. They chose not to do that. They do not believe this is a modification of the application. They didn't agree with the interpretation that this changes the application such that it was a substantive change that would have changed the outcome or the facts. LUKE: So at the time of the hearing before the Hearings Officer, and at the time of the hearing before the Board, they did not have an agreement with a provider to be a co -applicant. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 CRAGHEAD: They had a letter from a service provider that they did present to you at the last hearing that says the service provider would be willing to be a co -applicant. LUKE: But that would have changed the application, and they chose not to follow that procedure. CRAGHEAD: In our interpretation, yes. They disagreed with our interpretation. LUKE: One other thing. I'm not saying that they are ugly or pretty. My point was in the testimonies that I read into the record is that South Century Drive is a protected road, is that not true? SYRNYK: South Century Drive is one of our scenic roadways, protected by a landscape management combining zone. LUKE: My point is that there is nothing in the record to show that they did a survey, one way or the other - nobody did - that said that this might be or might not be visible from South Century. Based on my drive-by and my site visit, I think it would be. But there's nothing in the record to prove it either way. SYRNYK: What the applicant submitted were some photographic simulations that would give some kind of perspective of how the tower would appear above the treeline. In my original staff report, I concluded SBA had not demonstrated that they had done all they could to minimize any kind of visual impact as seen from that roadway. They had provided some photographs and some text with their burden of proof, but that by itself was not persuasive to show that where they wished to locate is the best spot and would minimize any kind of visual impact as seen from South Century Drive. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DALY: Do we have anything in the Code that says what a visual impact is? Is there any definition of adverse visual impact? Where did we come up with the idea that this tower is so ugly that is going to give a person a heart attack or something if they have to look at it. Where did that come from? Obviously it was before I got on the Commission. LUKE: The Code requires that as much as possible it be obscured by natural vegetation. The Planning Commission has done that, and re-emphasized that the last time they reviewed this thing. That's why we are waiting for Measure 7 to be decided on so we can take a look at what the Planning Commission brought up more than once. No one says you can't be able see them, because I agree that they need to be higher than the trees because they work better that way. I think it's the natural screening of the towers, as much as possible, that is very clear in the Ordinance. And there is no natural vegetation here, not on that lot. DEWOLF: So here's where I'm coming from. This does not fit within the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility under our Code. If this was the best location, why was it their second choice? Once they got denied on the location near the water tower, they quit working, according to the testimony that was not disputed, with the Sunriver folks to find a way to make the water tower location work. This was their first choice. They instead moved to this location and began to work on it. I don't think that they have demonstrated that the proposal meets the alternative sites analysis. This doesn't even begin to compare with the alternative sites analysis that was done on Laidlaw Butte by Tumalo Irrigation District and Cell One. And you all know I voted against that one; I disagreed with that one. I don't think it is compatible with surrounding land uses, and that's what this comes down to. It's not whether it is pretty or whether it is ugly; it is does it fit and is it compatible with surrounding land uses. If you've got an entire forest of green trees and you put up a giant pink house, forty stories above all of these green trees, is that pretty or ugly? Different people are going to have different interpretations. What I say is that it forever alters that view corridor, and in my opinion that is what this does. It doesn't fit. That's the way I am going to vote. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 17 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 LUKE: I would move that we uphold the Hearings Officer's ruling, with additional findings, and deny the application, subject to review of staffs written draft of the decision. DEWOLF: I'll second that. Any further discussion? DALY: Obviously I wholeheartedly disagree. I feel that Deschutes County will never attract high tech industry this way, if they come here and their cell phones won't even work. We need to find a way to work with these folks to see this happen. The cellular industry is the coming thing. We can hide our heads in a hole all we want and try to keep them out, but I think Deschutes County is going to be the loser because of it. DEWOLF: The thing that I would want to make clear is that we may disagree on this. But for you to characterize my position as hiding my head in the sand or whatever that may be, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I have a cell phone that I use, as do you and as do many people. Wanting to work with people, that is what I want to do. I don't believe that this applicant was willing to work with the people in Sunriver or with the County to try to find a suitable solution to this situation. That may be where we disagree, too. I might believe that what you are doing is just saying, "Come one, come all. Put up all the towers you want." From the testimony you've given this morning, some people could come to that conclusion. And I'm not going to make that charge, either. The fact is that we three are using our subjective opinions, based on research, the visits and the study that we do, to come to a conclusion and represent the people of this County the best we can. The same thing the Hearings Officer does in his or her position; that's the way the system works. That's what our staff does, and that's what our legal counsel does. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 18 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DEWOLF: I guess what I'm asking is that we not characterize each other in a way that denigrate the hard work that we are all doing, trying to make technology available to our citizens but doing it in a way that we all believe is responsive to people's needs. When we disagree, we're going to disagree. I respect the fact that you disagree with me; that's the way it goes. I lost the last time and I didn't abuse you guys too much over your mistake. We'll move forward. DALY: I want to apologize if you think that any of my comments were directed at you personally or to the way that you think. I guess I need to go back to my background. I think these cell towers saves lives, based on my State Police experience years ago. This technology saves lives. It is saving lives right now in New York City, and it is going to save lives in Deschutes County. That's an overriding thing to me. I look at that tower, and it's not ugly to me if it helps to save a hiker who is lost in the woods, or if it will save a lost child. That is not ugly to me. I think we ought to try to find every possibility we can to make this technology happen in Deschutes County. If it means changing our Code to try to accommodate it, that's what we ought to look at. DEWOLF: Or if it means hoping the applicants will work with us a little more closely to try to find something that works for everybody? DALY: With the attitude that we have on this Commission, I think that it is very hard for applicants to come in here. I realize there are probably some applicants that probably want to push their way through, but I don't think that is the case here. I think this is as good a site as any for this particular tower. I don't know where you would put it anywhere else in Sunriver that wouldn't affect somebody's view. There are some people in these condominiums that would look at it, but is it that ugly to those folks? I don't see any of them here now and very few at the other hearing. I haven't seen the people who actually live there complaining about it. Obviously that's the way I feel, and I've lost this one. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 19 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DEWOLF: Regarding the public safety issue, I agree with that. But, by the same token, but there were no public safety people here testifying in favor of this application, any more than you had people complaining about it because of the views. On balance, this wasn't all that controversial compared to Laidlaw Butte. And that's really not the issue here. You're right, you're not going to win this one today. But we'll move on and continue to find ways for the technology to be accessible. LUKE: I know you probably didn't mean it that way, Mike, but we have a good Ordinance, one of the better ones. Every time I drive by the one on Juniper Butte in Jefferson County, I think of it. The only notification those people got was when they saw it going up. These hearings have been tough on these cell tower companies, and there are a lot of people who have personal views on this, and express them at the hearings. Mike, you took a trip up on Pilot Butte, and that shows what the industry that is willing to work with a community can do to get the coverage without having something that stands out and detracts from the view. Regarding Laidlaw Butte, from my standpoint, they set a pretty high standard of showing how they are willing to work and why the other sites didn't work. And I didn't see that on this application at all. To me, it has nothing to do with being ugly, and I use cell phones and there is service there already. I think these people tried to shove this through without doing all the necessary paperwork. I don't think there is a big hole in coverage. I believe we have a good Ordinance. We have approved cell towers; Laidlaw Butte filled a gap in the Tumalo area. I think we do a pretty good job of covering this County. I don't think they followed the Ordinance. DEWOLF: We have high standards. Part of the reason for the high standards is that this is one gorgeous place to live. There are a lot of people who would like to see it stay a gorgeous place to live. LUKE: Although the Commissioners approved it, the high standards came from the citizens' committee, which included the Planning Commission, on writing the first Ordinance. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 20 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 DEWOLF: It included representatives from the wireless industry. LUKE: Hopefully we can make our Ordinance better after the Measure 7 decision has been made and we can move forward to get some things done. My bottom line is that I don't believe they met our Ordinance. DEWOLF: Any further discussion? DALY: I have some written stuff here that obviously was inappropriate for the hearing, but I'd be happy to give it to the media so that they'll know where I stand on these issues. (Copy attached, as Exhibit C.) LUKE: Actually, any Commissioner is allowed to give their statement. LUKE: I vote yes. DALY: I vote no. DEWOLF: The Chair votes yes. BEFORE THE BOARD WAS THE CONSENT AGENDA. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 10. Signature of an Amendment to the 2001-2002 "Together with Children" Contract between Deschutes County and the Crook Deschutes Education Service District. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 21 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11. Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the City of Bend for GIS Services. 12. Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Revenue for GIS Mapping Services. 13. Signature of Order No. 2001-090, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $209488.59. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $897,673.33. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 22 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 16. Before the Board was an Addition to the Agenda. Rick Isham explained that the Board of Commissioners should to consider and approve appointments to the Hospital Facility Authority Board. He said that these appointments need to be approved as soon as possible, as the HFA Board needs to handle some financial aspects. The appointees are Patti Moss, Arthur Johnson and John "Mac" Bosch of Bend; and Michael Daly and Nancy McClain of Redmond. The term date of all of these appointments would be August 31, 2005. LUKE: Move approval of these appointments. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. DATED this 12th Day of September 2001 for the Deschutes County oard of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tom De , Chair D is R. Luke, Comm' sioner Michael M. Daly ommissioner Exhibits Attached: Exhibit A - A Proclamation declaring Deschutes County's support of American Red Cross blood drive efforts. (2 pages). Exhibit B - A copy of a Proclamation declaring September "National Food Safety Education Month" (2 pages). Exhibit C - Commissioner Mike Daly's written opinion regarding the SBA cell tower appeal. (2 pages). Minutes of Board Meeting Page 23 of 23 Pages Wednesday, September 12, 2001 -r C c1 Commissioners _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ 1-" iom ue vvoir Dennis R. Luke Mike Daly OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON PROCLAMATION SUPPORT OFAMERICANRED CROSS BLOOD DRIVE EFFORTS WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the United States of America was suddenly and brutally attacked by terrorists; and WHEREAS, these terrorists hijacked and destroyed four civilian aircraft, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., and another was lost presumably en route to create additional destruction; and WHEREAS, thousands of innocent United States citizens were killed and injured as a result of these attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and bystanders in the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, these cowardly acts were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever launched against the United States; and, by targeting symbols of American strength and success, clearly were intended to intimidate our nation and weaken its resolve; and WHEREAS, these horrific events have affected all Americans, here and abroad, and civilized peoples throughout the world; it is important that we carry on with the regular activities of our lives. Terrorism cannot be allowed to break the spirit of the citizens of the United States, and the best way to show these cowards that they have truly failed is for the people of the United States to stand tall and proud; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners condemns the cowardly and deadly actions of these terrorists; and EXHIBIT A Quality Services Performed with Pride BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners supports the President of the United States as he works with the members of our country's National Security forces to defend against additional attacks and in locating the perpetrators to bring them to justice; and BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners recommends that its citizens support relief efforts by giving blood at the nearest available blood donation center. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS hereby sets its hand this 12'h Day of September 2001, the two hundred and twenty-sixth year of the independence of t e United States f America. _ I / Tom DeWialf Chair 2 6e6nis R. Luke, Commissioner l Michaef M. baly, Co missioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary iBoard of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1.947 L7/ (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS www.dTom De chDe oWoff Tom OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Da""'s k lake Mike Daly PROCLAMATION NATIONAL FOOD SAFETYEDUCATIONMONTH WHEREAS, `Be Cool - Chill Out! Refrigerate Promptly" is the theme for National Food Safety Education Month 2001; and WHEREAS, National Food Safety Education Month was launched by the restaurant and foodservice industry; and is widely supported by government agencies, the food industry, universities, consumer organizations, and educators across the country, who recognize and encourage the observance of National Food Safety Education Month, and who have joined forces to mark this occasion; and WHEREAS, this year the emphasis is on the importance of refrigerating and freezing foods promptly, and food safety experts advise consumers to refrigerate foods quickly since cold temperatures keep most harmful bacteria from multiplying, thus helping to prevent foodborne illness; and WHEREAS, public health officials recommend that the temperature of the home refrigerator be 40° F or below, and the home freezer be 0° F or below, and a refrigerator/freezer thermometer should be used to check temperatures; and WHEREAS, consumers and commercial food preparers should practice the four simple steps to food safety, promoted by the nationwide food safety education program called "Fight BAC! TM: 1. Clean: Wash hands and surfaces often. 2. Separate: Don't cross -contaminate. 3. Cook: Cook to proper temperatures. 4. Chill: Refrigerate promptly; and EXHIBIT B Quality Services Performed with Pride WHEREAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 76 million persons experience foodborne illness each year, resulting in 5,000 deaths annually; and although most consumers have a good foundation of food safety knowledge, problem areas and food safety gaps still exist; and government research shows that this gap results in increased risk of foodborne illness, and food safety education is vital in helping to combat this public health issue; and WHEREAS, to help reduce the risk of foodborne illness, it is recommended that consumers refrigerate or freeze perishables, prepared foods and leftovers within two hours of purchase or preparation; thaw foods in the refrigerator, under cold running water or in a microwave; divide large amounts of leftovers into shallow containers food for quick cooling in the refrigerator; and, with poultry and other stuffed meats, remove any stuffing and refrigerate it in a separate container. NOW, THEREFORE, to express appreciation for the many dedicated educators and consumers who actively promote safe food products and the safe handling of foods, we do hereby proclaim September 2001 as National Food Safety Education Month, and call upon all public and private organizations to celebrate with appropriate activities that acknowledge these efforts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS hereby sets its hand this 12th Day of September 2001, the two hundred and twenty-sixth year of the independence of the United States of America. T7Def, Chair ennis R. Luke, Commissioner Mijhaff M. Daly, ?"missioner ATTEST: Recording Secretary i The voters of Deschutes County deserve to know how their elected commissioners feel about different issues brought before them and how they will vote. I do not want anybody wondering where I stand on any issue, therefore I will try to clear the air on the issue of the two cell towers we have before us today. My background and experience is somewhat different than my two fellow commissioners. I am older than they are, and spend 9 years as a police officer in Oregon as well as 16 years as a businessperson. My police experience tells me that the Cellular phone industry is a godsend for public safety. Our police officers now have many more eyes and ears out there on the road reporting accidents, crimes, and disasters as the instant they happen rather than minutes or hours later. Drunk Drivers are reported almost as soon as they get on the road because nearly everyone has access to a cell phone. Heart attack victims who have very little time to get to a hospital may get that edge they need because of cell phone technology. All of us have been watching the events unfolding in New York City and Washington over the past few days. Three calls from cell phones from the airliners used in the disaster have given authorities clues as to that may have committed this crime and how they were able to get on the airlines. Also their relatives were able to talk to them just before they died. Cell phone calls from inside the rubble EXHIBIT C have given authorities notice that there are survivors there and their approximate location. Here in Deschutes County lost hikers on our forests and mountains can call help with a cell phone. To these people the cell phone tower sticking up above the tree line in strategic locations are something beautiful rather an eye sore as the opponents of these towers would like you to believe. I want to impress upon all of you here today that cell phone technology have saved lives in the past and will continue to save lives in the future. How much value do you put on a human life. Is it more important than an occasional cell tower sticking up above the tree line which most of us would only see once in a great while as we may or may not pass by the area. I wonder how popular cell tower opponents would be in New York and Washington about now. Does it take a tragedy like the one back east to make us all realize how important this technology is to the citizens of our county? As a Deschutes County Commissioner I believe the Citizens of Deschutes County deserve to have the most up to date cellular technology. How can we attract high tech business to locate here if their cell phone won't even work? We must work together to find some common ground here so Deschutes County can keep up with the rest of the country. ri Having said everything above, lets get down to the business of deciding the issues in the two cases we have before us today. Lets try very hard to find common ground on these issues and make this thing happen. We can explore different ways to lessen the impact to surrounding property owners, and still accomplish the goal of ending up with the cellular technology we all need now and in the future. I challenge my fellow commissioners, do not just say no, say maybe, or we will be willing to work on it and explore different avenues. Lets keep an open mind when making our decisions. I truly believe this is one issue where peoples lives and public safety issues far exceed the issue of an occasional visual siting experienced by a few citizens as they happen to drive by. As I have said before, lets use a little common sense to our decisions. Mike Daly, Deschutes County Commissioner.