ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  -  MINUTES OF MEETING

REGULAR SESSSION  -  DECEMBER 13, 1999

 

The Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4) met in Regular Session on December 13, 1999,  beginning at  9:30 a.m.,  in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing Room, Coupeville, Wa., with   Mike Shelton,  Chairman,   Wm. L. McDowell,  Member, and  Wm. F. Thorn, Member, present.

 

VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS

 

The following vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the Board:    Voucher (War.) # 64248 - 64619 …… $ 626,519.45.

 

EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD

 

Barbara Oleson, Auditor’s Office  15 years

 

EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – NOVEMBER

 

Tim McDonald, Health Services Director

 

Interlocal Agreement-DSHS  and Island County –

Work First-Children with Special Needs

 

By unanimous motion, subject agreement having been reviewed by the Board with staff at a recent staff session,  the Board approved an Interlocal Agreement with the State  Department of Social & Health Services Administration and Island County,  Work First-Children with Special Needs, Fee for Service.

 

Resolution #C-164-99 Establishing Salaries for Non-Bargaining Unit Employees (Excluding Elected Officials) for 2000

 

The Board, on unanimous motion, approved Resolution #C-16499 Establishing Salaries for Non-Bargaining Unit Employees (Excluding Elected Officials) for the year 2000.

 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

MINUTES OF MEETINGS

 

IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING

)

 

SALARIES FOR NON-BARGAINING UNIT

)

   RESOLUTION  C- 164-99

EMPLOYEES (EXCLUDING ELECTED

)

 

OFFICIALS) FOR 2000

)

 

 

            WHEREAS, the Board of Island County Commissioners finds that it is in the public interest to make provisions for the 2000 salaries for department heads and all non-bargaining unit employees (excluding Elected Officials) within the following Island County Funds, to wit:

 

Current Expense, Public Works, Road, Public Health Pooling,  Insurance Reserve, Solid Waste and Law & Justice.

 

            WHEREAS,  it is in the public interest to maintain morale and compensation equity among county employees both represented and non-represented;  NOW, THEREFORE,

 

            BE IT RESOLVED, that the above listed shall be granted a cost of living adjustment equal to 2.75% of base salaries effective January 1, 2000;  and

 

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that department heads and all other non-bargaining unit employees (excluding Elected Officials) may be granted additional compensation adjustments during calendar year 2000, if approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  

 

            ADOPTED this  13th  day of December, 1999.

 

Board of County Commissioners

Island County Washington

 

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:  Margaret Rosenkranz,

 Clerk of the Board    BICC 99-692

RESCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TIME TO EVENING OF JANUARY 10, 2000

ORDINANCE #C-151-99 [PLG-049-99] AND ORDINANCE #C-152-99 [PLG-050-99]

 

Larry Kwarsick, Public Works and Community Development Director, advised the Board that in community meetings  held with the agricultural community about 58 individuals  have actually been attending those community meetings and by and large requested that the hearings now scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on January 10th be rescheduled for the evening to allow those folks to attend.   During community meetings these individuals expressed  good stewardship,  care and concern they have for critical areas and Mr. Kwarsick felt it was quite important to give them an opportunity to provide  testimony to their standard  practices and involvement with Natural Resource Conservation Agency and  also  the WSU Extension Office.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board rescheduled Ordinance #C-151-99 (PLG-049-99) Amending Chapter 17.02.   ICC  to comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board relating to certain provisions  of the  County’s Critical Area Regulations relating to Existing and  On-Going Agricultural Activities [Exhibit A  17.02.107 Critical Areas; Exhibit B   Agricultural BMPs; and       Exhibit C   Findings and Legislative Intent ]; and  #C-152-99, (PLG-050-99) Amending Chapter 17.02.ICC to comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board relating to the Critical Areas Exemption For Existing And On-Going Agriculture [Exhibit A   17.02.107  Critical Areas], originally on November 22, 1999 having scheduled the hearing for  January 10, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.,  now rescheduled to January 10, 2000 at  7:00 p.m.

 

HEARING SCHEDULED:  RESOLUTION #C-162-99  IN THE MATTER OF DECLARING AN EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION IN THE 1999 CURRENT

 EXPENSE FUND, ER&R FUND, PUBLIC WORKS FUND, SOLID WASTE FUND, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FUND, ANTI-PROFITEERING FUND BUDGETS

 

As presented by the Budget Director, the Board by unanimous motion  scheduled a public hearing on Resolution #C-162-99, in the matter of an emergency appropriation for the 1999 Current Expense Fund, ER&R Fund, Public Works Fund, Solid Waste Fund, Guardian Ad Litem Fund and Anti-profiteering fund budgets, for  December 27 at 1:50 p.m.

 

HEARING SCHEDULED:  RESOLUTION #C-163-99 IN THE MATTER OF A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 1999 CURRENT EXPENSE

FUND, SOLID WASTE FUND, PUBLIC HEALTH POOLING FUND AND

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES FUND

 

As presented by the Budget Director, the Board by unanimous motion scheduled a public hearing on Resolution #C-163-99, in the matter of a supplemental  appropriation for  1999 Current Expense Fund, Solid Waste Fund, Public Health Pooling Fund and Developmental Disabilities Fund budgets, for December 27 at 1:50 p.m.

 

Resolution #C-155-99 Authorizing ENTERING  Into  Interlocal Agreement With South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District

AND APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT

 

The Board considered proposed Resolution #C-155-99 Authorizing Island County To Enter Into A Interlocal Agreement With South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District For Purchase of Recreational Property and  Interlocal Agreement Between South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District and Island County On presentation of the Resolution, Lee McFarland, Assistant Director, GSA, confirmed that the Board needed to make a correction on  Page 2 under item #1 second paragraph the date needs to be corrected from December 10 to December 16.    There District has withdrawn proposed addendums to the Agreement, and the Agreement is now ready to be approved and signed.

 

By unanimous motion, the Board approved Resolution #C-155-99 authorizing Island County to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with  South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District For Purchase of Recreational Property. By subsequent unanimous motion of the Board, the Interlocal Park Purchase Agreement was Risk Management Contract #RM-PARKS-99-0094 with modification on Page Two, the second  paragraph numbered one, entitled County Contribution, the date of December 10 is changed to December 16; and on Page One, the fifth Whereas paragraph to have the Resolution Number C-155-99 filled in; and in the sixth Whereas paragraph, the District’s resolution number of #99-12-001 to be filled in.  [Interlocal Agreement placed on file with the Clerk of the Board]

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

 In The Matter of Entering Into An Interlocal       )

 Agreement  Between The South Whidbey Parks )              Resolution No: C- 155-99

 and Recreation District and Island County to      )

 Purchase Property for Recreational Purposes      )

 

WHEREAS, the preservation of open space is consistent with the Island County Comprehensive Plan and is of benefit to the residents of Island County; and

 

WHEREAS, the County has agreed to provide REET 1 funding to aid in the purchase of a forty acre parcel to the north of the South Whidbey Park and Recreation District Property; and

 

WHEREAS, the County’s Cedars Trail, when constructed, will pass through the easterly portion of this property; and

 

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that the County’s TRAIL fund reimburse the REET 1 fund for the appraised value of the right-of-way corridor  necessary for construction of the Cedars Trail; and

 

WHEREAS, the TRAIL fund will become available for reimbursement upon execution of the Cedars Trail prospectus by Island County and the Federal Funding Agency; and

 

WHEREAS, the District has agreed they are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the property, except the 30’ wide Cedar’s Trail corridor once constructed, following purchase: NOW THEREFORE

 

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Island County, Washington, that Island County is authorized to enter into an Inter-Local Agreement with the South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District for the purpose of purchasing property for recreational purposes.

 

            Adopted this 13th day of December 1999.

                                                BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                 ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

                                               

                                                 Mike Shelton, Chairman

                                                Wm. L. McDowell, Member                                                                                          William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:   

Margaret Rosenkranz, 

Clerk of the Board        BICC 99-695

 

Supplemental Agreement No. 3 – Consultant Agreement

PW-982023, Reid Middleton, Inc.

 

On presentation and explanation by Mr. Kwarsick, the Board by unanimous motion approved

Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to existing Consultant Agreement PW-982023, with Reid Middleton, Inc., involving Possession Road, Ferry Dock Road and Edgecliff Drive projects,

increasing agreement by  $15,310 for additional work, for a total of $177,152.  The  additional work came as a result additional geotechnical investigations and construction administration costs and reports dealing primarily with Possession Road repair and the need to modify the original plans for stabilizing that roadway.

 

CORRECTION OF ORDINANCE #C-148-99 INCREASING THE

 TAXING DISTRICT’S PRIOR YEAR’S LEVY AMOUNT

 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

 

As requested and presented by Margaret Rosenkranz, Budget Director, the Board by unanimous motion corrected action approving the Ordinance on December 6, 1999 by correcting in the Be It Ordained paragraph the correct numbers:  “…levy is $177,707, a percentage increase of 1.42 percent (1.42%) from the previous year.”.

 

 

 

HEARING HELD:   Ordinance #C-153-99, PLG-052-99, Amending Chapter 16.26 ICC Relating to Approval Criteria for Type IV Decisions

 

A Public Hearing was held beginning at 10:45 a.m., as scheduled and advertised, for the purpose of considering proposed  Ordinance #C-153-99 (PLG-052-99), Amending Chapter 16.26 ICC Relating to Approval Criteria for Type IV Decisions.  Exhibit A contains the proposed language to 16.26 ICC, and Exhibit B are Findings and Legislative Intent. [introduced on November 23, 1999 and set for hearing this date and time, GMA doc. #_______]

            Attendance:

            Public:             None

            Staff:               Phil Bakke, Island County  Planning Director

 

Mr. Bakke described the proposal for the  purpose of adding  requirements as follows:

 

                  16.26. 060  Annual Review Procedures

E.       These Findings shall identify as applicable the following:

1.     The local circumstances if any, that have been relied on in

                                    reaching a decision on the proposed amendment; and

2.     How the planning goals of the GMA have been balanced

                                    in the decision on the proposed amendment.

Public Input:  none

 

Board Deliberation and Action:

 

Commissioner Thorn  was concerned that  both #1 and #2  seemed to offer potential  significant opportunity for abuse.  He was not  opposed to the language but did feel this was an area where  very subjective in how someone responds to each of these, and was concerned about implementation, but agreed  to go along with it to see how it works. 

 

Commissioner McDowell believed this implemented GMA and he saw nothing counter productive to GMA and therefore agreed with the proposal.

 

Commissioner Thorn moved approval of Ordinance  #C-153-99 (PLG-052-99) in the matter of amending Chapter 16.26 ICC relating to approval criteria for Type IV decisions.  Motion, seconded  by Commissioner McDowell, carried unanimously.  [GMA doc. #_______] 

 

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

 

IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING CHAPTER 16.26 ICC RELATING TO APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR TYPE IV DECISIONS 

)

)         ORDINANCE C-153-99

)             PLG-052-99

)

 

WHEREAS, the need to balance GMA goals and consider local circumstances are both requirements of the GMA and implicit in all Type IV decisions; and

 

WHEREAS, there is a need to formally codify these requirements; NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED that the Board of Island County Commissioners hereby adopts the amendment to Chapter 16.26 ICC attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Findings and Legislative Intent attached hereto as Exhibit B.  Material stricken through is deleted and material underlined is added.

 

Reviewed this 23rd day of November, 1999 and set for public hearing at 10:45 a.m. on the 13th day of December, 1999.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:  Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board

BICC 99-662

 

            APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 1999.

 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Mike Shelton, Chairman

Wm. L. McDowell, Member

William F. Thorn, Member

ATTEST:

Margaret Rosenkranz

Clerk of the Board

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

David L. Jamieson, Jr.

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

& Island County Code Reviser                     [Exhibits on file with the Clerk of the Board]

 

HEARING HELD:   Ordinance C-118-99, PLG-001-99 Amending Chapter 17.03 Island County Code Regarding Communication Towers

 

A Public Hearing was held beginning at 1:30 p.m., on Ordinance C-118-99, PLG-001-99 Amending Chapter 17.03 Island County Code Regarding Communication Towers  having been continued from the December 6, 1999 Public Hearing held on Camano Island. 

 

Attendance:

            Public:             1  [Attendance Sheet GMA doc. #_____]

            Press:              Whidbey News Times; Coupeville Examiner

            Staff:               Phil Bakke

 

Chairman Shelton understood  that  based on  public comment received at the  hearing on Camano Island, the Board  did not intend to act  on the Ordinance today, the Board’s desire was to  incorporate some of the public comments heard on Camano Island into a new proposed  ordinance.  He had expected to hear further public comments today, but noted only one in the audience.  Intent would be after today’s hearing to direct the Planning Director to incorporate public comments and bring another proposal to the Board at staff session for discussion and that this hearing be continued.

 

That was the general understanding of Commissioners McDowell and Thorn.

 

Commissioner Thorn had considerable comment on the current draft, based on  several suggestions from folks as well as his own thoughts:

 

·       A wildlife  expert on Camano Island  talked to him  about the triangular metal objects between  power poles [refer to SR20 heading in toward Anacortes] there to stabilize the line but also  whistle, and has been  extremely effective in the Skagit Flats with regard to power lines.  Inclusion of those on cell towers would help alleviate  some of the concerns about cell towers being potential impact sites for wildlife. 

 

·       Cell  tower companies should be obligated to use the latest  technology i.e. wrap around panels; power pole swap out that reduce the scope of aesthetic impact of towers.

 

·       The County should look  long and hard whether to  permit at all guide or lattice type  cell towers or restrict  any tower to monopole type tower.

 

·       Site  characteristics should be one of the primary controlling siting features:  size of the site; numbers and character of trees on the property, etc. as a beginning point.

 

·       Elsewhere  conservation easements being granted with regard to the site and surrounding  trees, etc. and that would be something for the County to consider.

 

·       The Planning Commission in Findings and Conclusions August 10, 1999, page 1 states  “It has been represented to the Commission that wireless technology has improved making it feasible to locate small non-intrusive antenna arrays on existing structures and on the top of power poles” and the County needs to characterize what non-intrusive  means.

 

·       Paragraph L-8 (a) (iii)  which states “… encourage and facilitate co-location of antennas…” is far too weak a statement; co-locating on an existing tower should be the preferred method for this County.

 

·       Reading the definition of wireless communication antenna arrays, Paragraph L-8 ( c) (i) would allow  a 20’ high panel [like a 2-story house on top of one of these towers] and did not believe that is what the Board intended.

 

·       Make it more reasonable for the cell tower companies to locate with highest and best technology in the least obtrusive manner.  The  County should characterize what a Type I decision can be used for.  Things that  act in the public interest concerning aesthetics   of these towers would be rewarded by a bit easier  process. 

 

·       Whips  and dishes should have some kind of specification for maximum size. 

 

·       In Section L-8 ( c )  iii  the statement is made that monopole facilities  in the Rural Residential Zone shall be reviewed as a Type III decision pursuant to Section 16.19 ICC; that should be prohibited; an alternate might be to consider allowing a tower to the prevailing maximum building height  and restricted to whip type, pole change out or small dish type.

 

·       Notice should be required  to all within a certain number of feet, i.e. 1,000 feet, when an application is received.  This should fall in the category of having a community meeting. before application is made  [type II or greater].  There should be a requirement to stay one pole height away from any residential structure.

 

·       Paragraph L-8 (g) screening,  states “… trees may be existing mature trees or newly planted regionally native evergreens not less than 5’ in height”  that height is not enough. when you take into consideration the height of a pole in the middle of 5’ trees.   Section (h) would be affected by the comment about either prohibiting in the Rural Residential zone or consider maximum building height installation of the least obtrusive type. 

 

·       Paragraph M, lights and signals,  “…confined to the property boundaries of the sight source” should say “light source”.    Paragraph O (6) “…authorization or utilize it” the or should be “to”.

 

·       Design standards set forth in the San Juan County ordinance  would  be  a good beginning point for fleshing out Island County’s design standards.    Design standards should look at color and appearance. 

 

·       Testing and monitoring protocol in the San Juan ordinance establishes a base line of radiation emissions this County should consider, and  establishing a base line will allow  a way to assess what the changes are over time. 

 

·       Review  application requirements  outlined in the San Juan County ordinance.

 

·       Although  Paragraph P requires towers to be moved if abandoned or  discontinued, there is nothing about site restoration which should be included.

 

Alex G. Perlman, Washington Attorney from a Municipal Council and Planning Agency council for the City of Des Moines, several years’ ago and currently  Project Manager, Whalen & Company, Inc. Bellevue, Wa.    In this case, the  Company’s client is GTE Wireless, but the company represents all sorts of wireless carriers throughout the western United States.  He commented on the  ever emerging technology, smaller and smaller antenna panels and configuration options as a response from industry to public concern about aesthetics and making a unified attempt to make these less and less obtrusive.  Giving a co-location preference  by some shorter public process he thought would be a definite incentive to the wireless carriers in general and to the extent the County can  differentiate in its  process between that new monople in a residential zone versus encouraging co-location, whether attachment to existing structure or modification  of an existing structure, those types of  add-ons become a streamlined way for a carrier to come through public process, be more acceptable in the community and not create visual impact.

            He passed around a photograph of a GTE facility in an urban setting, a representation of an extended light pole replacement in a commercial plaza.  The existing poles were about 35’, extended to 90’ allowed in that zone, and the panels almost flush-mounted.  The pole is brown in color.  He mentioned a facility at the  Washington  State Department of Transportation  Park & Ride at  Newcastle on  I-405   where the pole blends in with the  hillside  and evergreen trees behind the Park & Ride.  This was a site-specific  design to address everyone’s concerns.

            As far as emission standards he encouraged the County stay on top of that; there are FCC reporting requirements that carriers have to comply with, and he thought there was no

reason  as each additional  carrier came on to the  pole to report their continued compliance.   The  federal safety standard is based on all emissions from a particular location. It would not, in his opinion,  be unreasonable to require  documentation of on going compliance at some interval.  Each  carrier as it brings a new station on line has to create a file and get a FCC certificate of compliance prior to having the station  certified to be on the air, which requires the existing  carrier’s designs, output, type of panel antennas or whips and emissions information.   Last carrier on always gives an updated report and responsible for any interference created by their station.    Choice of types of equipment are driven by factors such as the  frequency range each operator is operating in because the length of antenna is a ratio to the wave length; it is not a “one size fits all”.    Most of the carriers using panel  antennas are using a three-panel array, but in the second generation wireless build out what they are seeing is a four sector array.

 

Chairman Shelton     thought that at some  point in time Island County would have sufficient  enough locations  to provide  good coverage throughout the county and wondered about the legality at that point for the County  to not authorize any new cell tower sites.   He asked if there was a way such that if a  cell  carrier proposes to site a tower in Island County for cell coverage to service another county that Island County would have the ability to  not authorize any new cell tower locations.   

 

Mr. Perlman believed that as a practical matter it would be problematic; the FCC is licensing more and more spectrum at different frequency bans and each of those frequency bans as they go higher in the frequency bans,  require that the power outputs be lower for emission standards and because of the lower output powers there are smaller and smaller transmission diameters.  Each licensee is required to provide coverage throughout their license area and he  thought each federal license has its own right to provide service.

 

As an example of concern expressed to Commissioner Thorn  from folks on  Camano Island, a

new tower to go in on the top of Lands Hill coming on Camano Island in a fairly remote location as far as the bulk of Camano Island is concerned, looks out across Snohomish County toward I-5 and perception is the tower is actually going to serve that community and has little or nothing to do with Camano Island or Island County.

 

Mr. Perlman acknowledged that at the end of the day  ultimately the citizens will have  to say whether they want this kind of service; the market price will shake that out.  Taking  advantage of where a company can achieve coverage from is a concern more based not on where necessarily the greatest number of users are but how the best coverage objective can be obtained.  How it can be of benefit for example is that most counties have cooperative fire and police response.  He has not  had any experience using audible devices on towers  other than FCC lighting.  Typically, flight paths of migratory fowl are critical for guide facilities so having some restriction for a known fly-through area discouraging a guide type facility would make a lot of sense.  On the other hand he has seen poles or  add-ons in the urban areas  with nesting platforms added to a monople  [example, City of Renton on the south side of the Kennydale Hill; three platforms with two active nests].

 

The ordinance he was  most familiar with was  King County which allows a co-location increase of 40’ and does not differentiate between a utility pole swap out and an additional to an existing monopole structure.  There are restrictions, however:  radio frequency justification for the additional height; if more than 20’ over requires a community meeting as a pre-application.  Pre-application community meetings are a valuable tool for wireless carriers.

 

Commissioner McDowell agreed with the concept that the County should try to encourage co-location, and he suggested the way to do that was with a “carrot”  i.e. Type I decision, such as a building permit, and perhaps even consider reducing the cost of the building permit.  He did not think anything would be non-intrusive and the words  used should be “less intrusive”.  He thought too that everyone must keep in mind that cell phones are being used by the public  and the way to get good coverage is more antennas.   Technology on the market should carry the day and the market is what keeps the price coming down and makes that safety feature [use of cell phones] available to more people.  He thought the County should be encouraging the antenna method which are less intrusive and should do that  with the “carrot” approach.

 

Chairman Shelton  observed the examples of technology available such as shown in the photograph.   It was his opinion that in  special designated areas such as  Ebey’s  Landing Historic Reserve  that that type technology should be required rather than a cell tower.  Commissioner Thorn agreed with that, or if not, then  prohibited in that area, including heritage lands as well.

 

Chairman Shelton was not  trying to deny coverage, but thought there were places  where the County should stipulate the type of technology to be used.  One of the conditions, for example, of site plan approval could be that the applicant agree not to resist co-location by other carriers.

 

Commissioner Thorn noted that a related point came up on Camano about tower density for a given site and he thought that  at some point there is enough and anything future must  utilize technology i.e. co-location.

 

Mr. Bakke pointed out that Phil one of the things included in the proposal that he thought   could be made clearer and strengthened was the provision on page 8 for co-location, to provide for example:   if there is a tower at Lands Hill, that before a second carrier can come in with an application across the street they must first go to the tower approved under the code and put their facility on their tower.

 

Commissioner Thorn asked verification  dealing with ground equipment that most of that now can be vaulted underground. 

 

Mr. Perlman indicated that was a carrier-specific frequency-specific situation.  Being able to vault equipment is determined  on what size of an underground vault can be put in place in any given space.  All of the cellular carriers in the area of 800 – 900 megahertz range have a ground equipment cabinet space building of roughly 10 x 20’, 11-1/2’ tall and requires air-conditioning units.  Those facilities would be extremely difficult to vault.   The PCS carriers in this market all utilize either Lucent or Motorola equipment which comes packaged in small cabinets and typically three of those boxes would staff a station fully for one carrier and have some internal air-conditioning units.  These would be easier to screen and do not constitute site difficulties.    Most PCS carriers would prefer not to have their equipment inside a common space with carriers that have hotter equipment, also harder  to have good security when share equipment space.     Frequency and network designs of these carriers are based on the unique characteristics and coverage objectives.  All carriers are not created equally in the characteristics of their allotted frequencies and the design work inherent because of the frequencies they are assigned.  The next generation wireless carriers will be much higher in frequency and another increment lower in output power so there will be more rather than fewer of those facilities, but less intrusive.

 

Commissioner Thorn noted that also on the ground is noise which is something San Juan County has addressed and he thought Island County needed to address as well.

 

Consensus:  refer all information to staff to incorporate into the ordinance for discussion at Staff Session, and continue this hearing to a subsequent date.

 

Action:  By unanimous motion the Board continued the public hearing on Ordinance  #C-118-99 to February 7, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.     [Notice of Continuance, GMA doc. #_____]

 

            There being no further business to come before the Board at this time,  the Chairman  adjourned the meeting at  2:45 p.m.   The next Regular Session meeting is scheduled for  December 20, 1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON

   

                                             ______________________________

Mike Shelton, Chairman

 

_______________________________

Wm. L. McDowell,   Member

 

_____________________________

William  F. Thorn,  Member

 

 

ATTEST:    ____________­­­­­___________

Margaret Rosenkranz,  Clerk of the Board