ISLAND COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES OF MEETING
SPECIAL
SESSION - DECEMBER 6, 1999
The Board of Island County Commissioners met in
Special Session on December 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. at Terry’s Corner Fire
Station, 525 E. North Camano Drive, Camano Island WA. Chairman Shelton, Commissioners McDowell and Thorn were
present. The purpose of the Special
Session was to conduct a public hearing on Ordinance #C-118-99 (PLG-001-99).
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
ORDINANCE #C118-99 (PLG-001-99) IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 17.03 ISLAND
COUNTY CODE REGARDING COMMUNICATION TOWERS
Attendance:
Public: Approximately 25 attended [Attendance Sheet: GMA doc. #5157]
Staff: Phil Bakke, Planning Director
Chairman Shelton opened the Public Hearing on proposed Ordinance #C-118-99 (PLG-001-99)
in the matter of amending Chapter 17.03 Island County Code regarding
communication towers.
Phil Bakke, Island County Planning Director, made
the presentation. He noted that a
second public hearing was scheduled for December 13, 1999 at 1:30 p.m., Courthouse, Coupeville. If the Board received
testimony and recommendations that
would make substantive changes to this Ordinance, the hearing should
be continued to a later date to consider those changes. This element is a part of the
Comprehensive Plan that was remanded back to the Planning Commission for
further review. He noted Type I Decisions from the Island County Code did not
require public posting or advertising.
Type I Decisions are approved by the Island County Public Works
Director; Type II Decisions require posting of the property and public
advertising and a mandatory comment period and are approved by the Public Works
Director. The decision can be appealed
to the Island County Hearing Examiner, the Board of Island County Commissioners
or to Superior Court. Type III
Decisions are made by the Island County Hearing Examiner after the property has
been posted and the proposal advertised and a public hearing is held.
Mr. Bakke reviewed the provisions of the
Ordinance. He explained the Planning
Commission proposal came after receiving considerable public testimony,
encouraged and simplified the process for installation of aesthetic
communication antennas or equipment that can be attached to existing buildings,
screened by a chimney, or power pole swap-outs. A power pole swap-out is where a power pole is replaced with a
single antenna. The permit requirements of placing wireless
communication facilities in the County.
Under i. Co-Location, the
licensed carriers shall pursue sharing communications towers within the
intended service area, which would result in fewer communication towers in the
area. He reviewed screening, facility
color, signage, security barrier, storage, and noise levels. If communication towers become obsolete, the
abandoned structure would be removed within 180 days.
Commission Thorn pointed out the Federal
Telecommunications Act stated the County cannot prohibit the location of cell
towers in the county. The County can
have influence over the siting, lighting, and other standards as outlined by
Mr. Bakke.
John Lewis, 631 E. Chinook Ct., Camano Island, asked
if a guide communication tower in a residential zone would require a Type III
approval decision. He noted on page 7.
c. iii. it required monopole facilities in the Rural Residential (RR) zone to
be reviewed as a Type III Decision. He
recommended that any communication structure in the RR zone be required to be a
Type III Decision and that in critical areas that architectural designed towers
that looked like trees be required for aesthetics.
Mr. Bakke noted on page 7, c. v. there was a
typo. He stated “not” should be removed
to read “v. Any other wireless
communication tower exceeding twenty (20) feet in height shall be reviewed as a
Type III decision pursuant to section 16.19 ICC.”
Carl Lenander, 1376 County Club Drive, Camano
Island, submitted a letter into the record
[GMA doc. #5158] and suggested that the definitions needed to be in
harmony with technical engineering terms.
He stated for example: a “monopole” is a term used throughout the industry
for a single radiating element instead of an equipment type antenna. Monopole is not the structure that holds up
the antenna, it is actually a radiating element, itself. A “whip antenna” is really a self-supporting
flexible monopole energized at one end.
In cellular communications, Type A or B systems are wired systems or
wireless systems. A wireless
communication facility would refer to a cellular system fed by a microwave link
as opposed to either coaxial or fiber-optic link. He stated 17.03.180, Land Use Standards, L.8.(c) Permit
Requirements, needed clarification
regarding permitting of antenna arrays.
Antenna arrays are a collection of individual antennas. It could be an array of radiating elements
that could be on top of a tower, so he felt clarification was needed whether is
was both a tower and an array not taller than 20 feet.
Mr. Lenander thought this ordinance timely and felt that regulations for satellite to earth
links and large dish type structures should be included in these new codes.
Site placement was the main issue, since the best location for
transmission was usually not the best for aesthetic placement. He was in favor of architectural approaches
for construction of antenna systems to look like trees or buildings. He was concerned about the environmental
impacts and health impacts such as radio frequency radiation and future health
hazard discoveries. Mr. Lenander wondered why the newly approved tower on
Lands Hill did not require lights and wanted safety issues addressed in the
ordinance. He wanted to be assured that
the facilities were serving the residents of Island County and that Island
County regulations were as complete and restrictive as surrounding counties. He was concerned that facilities would be
built in Island County because it was easier and less expensive, but would
actually serve other counties.
Commissioner Thorn explained the tower on Lands Hill
was proposed to benefit the residents of the east-side of Camano Island, even though
it may very well benefit the residents of Stanwood also. After having read the Federal
Telecommunications Act, he stated Island County was barred from prohibiting the
placement of a tower based on health reasons alone.
Charlotte Lenander, 1376 Country Club Drive, Camano
Island, requested concerning co-location that the existing carrier, as well as
the applicant, provide written
documentation why it was not feasible, and she would like to see the applicant specify expected radiation power.
Fred D. Kalanquin, 346 Shore Drive, Camano
Island, a tower operator and issued the first cable franchise on Camano
Island in 1977, stated there were three
towers on the Island, his located in the northeast corner of Rocky Point
Heights next to Brentwood Estates on the north end of the Island in a rural
residential area. They lease to Snohomish County PUD, Northland
Cable T.V., TCI from Seattle, and Twin City Foods. He was in favor of co-location and understood it was the standard along the coastline from
California north. He understood the
only restrictions on the co-locations were that cellular companies needed to be
on different elevation lines with at least a 10-foot separation. He was pleased with the ordinance, but
commented that no one had contacted them for co-location on their tower.
Joyce Christiansen, 1333 S. Hagen Road, Camano
Island, was concerned about lack of staff to police the ordinance regulations
and was interested to learn how verification would be made that applicants for
placement of new towers had made a good faith effort to co-locate on existing
towers.
Chairman Shelton assured her that the applicant
would be required to furnish a written response from the owner of the
tower. And Mr. Bakke pointed out that the County was in the process of entering into a
GIS system the current locations of the facilities in the County to produce a
map to be available to the public and staff.
Then staff could direct an applicant to contact the owners of existing
towers for co-location.
Commissioner Thorn suggested the permit application
requirements needed expansion and agreed a written submittal was needed in
regard to co-location.
Laura Lewis, 979 S. Cavalero Road, Camano Island,
felt the correct language needed to be included in the ordinance as Mr.
Lenander pointed out. She felt
co-location was very important and agreed that
applicants should be required to contact the PUD and others for
co-location and should have strong policing.
She was also concerned that the benefit of the newly approved tower was
for other communities, such as Stanwood, Snohomish and Skagit counties. She was opposed to Island County approving
towers that other counties would not approve.
Phil Lewis, 979 S. Cavalero Road, Camano Island,
encouraged Island County to require the applicant to show in writing the
benefits to the citizens of Camano Island and prove electronically where they
will serve. He would like added that
the facilities not be placed within 200 feet of a scenic highway. He stated the scenic highways needed to be
designated as they were in the former Comprehensive Plan.
Carolyn Ehret, 903 High Road, Camano Island, was
concerned about the 128 foot tower only benefiting Sunrise Blvd. and asked
whether co-location was considered with Air Touch and U.S. West antennas. She asked too about a limit to the number of towers in a rural
area, and commented she would like to
see the range of service in writing for proposed cell towers.
Val Schroeder, 1369 N. Arrowhead Road, Camano
Island, was unhappy about the two cell
towers being approved near the heron habitat on Land’s Hill because she felt
the towers benefited Skagit and
Snohomish counties more than Island County.
She wondered why they were approved before there was policy and was concerned about the environmental impacts
and health issues within critical areas.
She supported co-location and environmental critical area
protections.
Chairman Shelton clarified there was a policy in
effect when the towers were approved, but many felt the regulations were not
stringent enough and the County
recognized the need to better define locations of facilities and the
community’s attitude toward cell towers.
Critical areas are
addressed in another ordinance and this ordinance
would not be exempt from those critical area ordinances.
Ms. Lenander asked if an environmental impact study
would be a requirement for a proposed tower.
Chairman Shelton stated it could be a requirement if
a tower was proposed in an extremely sensitive area. Cell tower operators would probably avoid that due to the expense
of placing it there.
Mr. Bakke explained none of these provisions
were exempt from the provisions of the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) or
Critical Areas Ordinance. Type
II and Type III Decisions require an applicant to go through a Site Plan Review
and the standards in the Site Plan Review Ordinance also apply here.
Ms. Lewis recommended that the specific density for
cell towers in an area be regulated by an engineering standard, such as how
many vendors could be accommodated by a single tower and how many towers would
be allowed for a specific number of square miles, etc. She was in favor of co-location and of
creating an incentive to encourage venders to co-locate, such as implementing
simpler permitting process or reduced permit fees. She felt co-location would result in less towers on Camano.
Mr. Bakke clarified the intention of the ordinance
would require the applicant to demonstrate how they would facilitate
co-location. After the facility was
approved, co-location for additional providers could possibly be as simple as a
building permit.
Commissioner Thorn clarified the ordinance said the
applicant shall demonstrate a good faith effort to co-locate with other carriers. In an event it is not feasible to co-locate,
a written statement stating that would be required by the applicant. The County and applicant may retain a
mutually acceptable technical expert in the field of RF engineering to verify
feasibility of co-location.
John Lewis felt technical maps showing cell
communication deficiencies and how the proposed antenna would eliminate the
problems should be a requirement of the application. This would serve the
issue of meeting density and indicate
the geographical locations they would be serving.
Mr. Lenander explained the federal government
produced a digital terrain elevation database that is used by many
communication agencies and it would do precisely what Mr. Lewis requested. It would be a worthwhile addition to County
capability and improve the emergency services’ communication. He stated with the original cell tower
concept, cell antennas covered approximately a 10-mile region. He explained in high- density areas, the
micro-channel concept used smaller systems bolted on the side of a church, on
power poles, etc. and they are focused antennas that cover a specific corridor
in a micro-cell concept. If you have
too many users in a single cell, you can add micro-cells within the original
cell with neighborhood antenna systems that would cover areas that are
shadowed. He explained that shadowing
was a problem on Camano. He felt in
establishing a private utility system that serves the public well, the overall
architectural solution for communications on the Island should include the
micro-cell concept locating distributor radiating centers in needed areas.
Commissioner
Thorn explained there was an article in the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) that described the same concept with the larger
towers called coverage phases, a capacity phase with more channels, and a
residential phase with smaller type installations, but more of them. [INFO Tech
Report for local governments, Vol. 16, No. 9,
Sept. 1999, article: “Hello
Local Government Control, Good-bye Cellular Towers” GMA doc. #5159.
Peggy Wendel, Everett Herald, inquired about
the different technology and whether
the County had the power to regulate the different type systems proposed. She also asked whether co-location was proposed for the two towers on Lands
Hill. She understood the newer technology did not need such a large base system, and is quieter. She suggested
getting the providers to collaborate to work together to get seamless
coverage.
Dennis Conroy, 1808 Lake Drive, Camano Island, in
regard to co-location, recommended the words “encourage” in the ordinance
be replaced with “required”. He felt
some excellent points had been made and
urged the County to take them into account.
Sandra Erickson, 914 High Road, Camano Island,
requested clarification of co-location, whether it meant another location down
the street or on the same pole. She
asked what would happen if the County
just said “no”, for example, to the new
U.S. West proposal.
Mr. Bakke explained under the proposed ordinance, an
application would be reviewed to see how the new facility would help facilitate
co-location. There would be
demonstration where on the pole other
providers could locate. Co-location is
a new proposal in the ordinance,
therefore, not considered when
approving the previous towers on Lands Hill.
He explained that specific code requirements that regulated the approval
of cell towers were currently in effect and the County had to abide by those
requirements.
Commissioner Thorn explained there were degrees of
co-location, such as co-locating on a specific tower and/or co-locating towers
on a specific site.
Howard Shuman, 1459 Larkspur Lane, Camano Island,
asked for clarification regarding
health issues in siting towers as regulated by the Federal
Telecommunications Act. He was
interested that the County, should in
the future science technology indicate
there could be some genetic effects from cell towers, take that into
consideration.
Commissioner Thorn assured him that if new research
indicated a health threat, the County
would respond by a code modification.
He noted that San Juan County issued a model cell tower Ordinance No. 8, in 1997.
Commissioner McDowell agreed with the consensus on
co-location and that the specifics may need to redefined, with owner of tower
responding in writing if the applicant is not able to co-locate on their
tower. He believed the County should establish a database of tower
locations and each tower’s co-locating capability. He was not sure if the
County had the right to restrict the benefits to only Island County residents
and felt it was up to the County Prosecutor to determine that issue for the
Board.
Chairman Shelton felt there were ways to make
cellular phone service palatable with the residents of Island County. He thought, perhaps, before approving any
new cell tower that the County could require future co-location and establish
the capacity before granting site plan approval. He believed co-location was part of the solution along with
requiring antennas be located on top of existing power poles and other low
impact solutions as discussed. He did
not want Island County to be singled
out as having “easier” regulations such that
tower owners would locate in Island County rather than in adjoining counties. At the same time, he was not sure the County could
restrict the benefits to Island County residents
only.
BOARD ACTION:
The Board, by unanimous motion, continued the public
hearing on Ordinance #C118-99 (PLG-001-99) to 1:30 p.m., on December 13, 1999,
in the Commissioner’s Hearing Room, Island County Courthouse Annex,
Coupeville. [Notice of Continuance, GMA
doc. #5152].
There being no further
business to come before the Board at
this time, the Chairman adjourned the
meeting at 8:35 p.m. .
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
________________________________
Mike Shelton, Chairman
________________________________
Wm. L. McDowell, Member
_______________________________
Wm. F. Thorn, Member
ATTEST:
____________________
Margaret Rosenkranz,
Clerk of the Board