ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES OF MEETING
REGULAR SESSION -
MARCH 6, 2000
The
Board of Island County Commissioners (including Diking Improvement District #4)
met in Regular Session on March 6, , 2000,
at 9:30 a.m., Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing
Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Wm. L.
McDowell, Chairman, William F. Thorn,
member and Mike Shelton, Member, present.
The following
vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion [including
approval of February payroll: Voucher (War.) # 69755 - 70019 …………….$ 367,730.74.
Local
Government Certification – HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ISLAND COUNTY - EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROGRAM
By
letter dated March 2, 2000, Steve Gulliford, Executive Director, asked for the
Board’s approval and signature on a form entitled Certification by the Local Government associated with the
Authority’s application for year 2001
Emergency Shelter Grant Program funds,
as has been requested in past years.
By unanimous motion, the Board authorized the Chairman’s signature on
Form I, Local Government Certification,
for the State of Washington 2001 Emergency Shelter Grant application by
the Housing Authority of Island County [BICC 00-147].
After a presentation by the Human Resources
Director, Dick Toft, the Board by unanimous motion, approved the following
personnel authorization actions:
026/00 Vol. Program Asst. 1207.01 Replacement 3/17/00
028/00 Sergeant 4023.02 New
Position 3/6/00
029/00 Sergeant 4023.02 New
Position 3/6/00
030/00 Sergeant 4023.03 New
Position 3/6/00
031/00 Sergeant 4023.04 New
Position 3/6/00
032/00 Deputized Officer 4014.15 Replacement
3/27/00
025/00 Dep. P.A. – District Ct. 1805.00 Replacement 3/17/00
027/00 Court Commissioner 1006.00 New Position 2/28/00
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE TOWN OF COUPEVILLE FOR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM – HPN –
#RM-HR-00-0023
By
unanimous motion, the Board approved Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Coupeville to join in Island County’s agreement with
Health Promotion Network (HPN) for employee assistance program services beginning April 1, 2000
through December 31, 2000 renewed automatically unless written notice provided. Further, the Board by unanimous motion,
approved Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Employee Assistance Program
Services dated 12/6/99 with Health Promotion Network to recognize the County’s Interlocal Agreement with the Town
of to participate in the program.
As
discussed at the Board of Health meeting on 2/28/00, the Chairman was given
approval to sign for the Board of Health and the Boar of County Commissioners
when the Contract Amendment was presented.
The Amendment extends
alternative response for another 6 months, to June 30, 2000, in the
amount of $6,284.00 [new maximum consideration $14,444]. By unanimous motion, the Board approved and
signed Amendment 209-01(1).
RESOLUTION #C-20-00 IN
THE MATTER OF CERTIFYING THE LEVIES FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES IN THE YEAR 2000
Tom
Baenen, County Assessor, and Lanny Key, Levy analyst, handed out a copy of the
levies. This year has been an
involved process and has taken longer
due in part because of problems with the new system in use in the Assessor and Treasurer’s offices, as well as
computer problems Snohomish County encountered. Historically, the largest portion of the levy goes to State
Schools and the same is true this year.
By
unanimous motion, the Board adopted
Resolution #C-20-00 certifying the
levies for collection of taxes in the year 2000.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN RE THE MATTER OF CERTIFYING )
THE LEVIES FOR COLLECTION OF
) RESOLUTION C-20-00
TAXES IN THE YEAR 2000 )
___________________________________ )
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners has received and filed as public record the certified
budgets or estimates of the taxing districts of Island County, for the purposes
of levying taxes, all as required by RCW 84.52.020, and
WHEREAS, the board scheduled a
public meeting for March 6, 2000 to receive the levy estimates and
requests, and to set the levies for the year 2000 and
WHEREAS, the Board of County
Commissioners hereby determines to levy taxes as allowed and required by law,
based upon the assessed valuation as determined by the Island County Assessor, and set forth in Exhibit A, which
is attached hereto, and by reference incorporated herein, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Board of County
Commissioners of Island County, Washington,
hereby levies and certifies to the Island County Assessor, the above
taxes for collection in the year 2000 as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto,
to be extended upon the rolls against the taxable property in Island County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
ADOPTED
this 6th day of March,
2000.
BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Margaret
Rosenkranz Wm. L. McDowell, Chairman
Clerk of the Board Mike Shelton, Member
BICC 00-130 William F. Thorn, Member
[note: Exhibit A is on file with the Clerk of the
Board attached to C-20-00]
RESOLUTION #C-21-00 IN
THE MATTER OF APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORITY CALL FOR BIDS FOR TITLE
REPORTS
The
Board, by unanimous motion, approved Resolution #C-21-00 submitted by the
County Treasurer approving specifications and authorizing call for bids for
title reports.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN RE THE MATTER OF APPROVING )
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ) RESOLUTION C-21-00
CALL FOR BIDS FOR: TITLE REPORTS)
WHEREAS,
the purchase of title reports are required for tax foreclosure,
BE
IT
HEREBY RESOLVED that Attachment A, Invitation For Bids (with bid
form), for Title Reports, and specifications are approved as written. The
County Treasurer is authorized and directed to call for bids for furnishing
Island County with these services. The
bids are to be received by the Island County Treasurer not later than 3:00 p.m.
on April 3, 2000, with bid opening to occur at that time in office of Island
County Treasurer and bid award to occur at 9:45 a.m. on [*] April 6, 2000 in the
Hearing Room, Courthouse Annex, Coupeville, Washington.
ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 2000.
BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Margaret
Rosenkranz William L. McDowell, Chairman
Clerk of the Board William F. Thorn, Member
BICC 00-141 J. Michael Shelton, Member
[note: Attachment A, Invitation for Bids, is on file with the Clerk of the Board
attached to C-21-00]
[*] Correct bid
award date is April 10, 2000 @ 9:45
a.m. See March 13, 2000 BOCC Minutes reflecting the correction
Quitclaim
Deed FOR East Camano Drive,
Phase 2-
Bonnie & Don Brindle
As
presented and recommended for approval by Larry Kwarsick, Public Works
Director, the Board by unanimous motion
approved and accepted a Quitclaim Deed associated with East Camano
Drive, Phase 2, from Bonnie and Don
Brindle, with payment in the amount of
$5,400.00 for land, on parcel
374-0940, Sec 3, Twp 31N, R 3E, with corrections on the Deed of the page
numbers under Schedule A, page 6 and 7 and the map page to read 7 of 7.
Construction
Easement & Agreement – East Camano Drive,
Phase 2; owner Bonnie and Don Brindle
As
a companion action, the Board by unanimous motion approved and accepted a Construction Easement & Agreement
related to East Camano Drive, Phase 2, from
Bonnie and Don Brindle with payment of
$600.00 for the construction easement, on parcel 374-0940; Sec 3, Twp
31N, R 3E.
Agreement
for Boundary Line Adjustment for
Courthouse
Master Plan – Work Order #305
Mr.
Kwarsick presented for approval, an Agreement for Boundary Line Adjustment for
Courthouse Master Plan – Island County and H.B. & S. B. McDonald;
Courthouse Master Plan Work Order #305; Boundary Line Adjustment Cost. The Agreement between Island County and the
McDonalds involving a boundary line issue discovered in association with development of the Coupeville Courthouse Master Plan construction
documents and survey. The McDonalds and
another party, Gary Hoyt, had been occupying property that based on survey and record title was
actually held in ownership by Island County.
Mr. Kwarsick met with the Board and legal counsel and the
collective opinion was that this seemed
to be the most expeditious and cost
effective way to resolve the issue.
This action will take the approval of the Town of Coupeville for the
boundary line adjustment. Actual
locations have been field-identified.
There is no issue of gifting
inasmuch as the McDonalds are paying for the land per square foot value; in
turn, the County will pay the cost of the BLA ( $3,395.00 includes survey,
preparation, recording).
By
unanimous motion, the Board approved the Agreement for Boundary Line Adjustment
between Island County and H. B. and S. B. McDonald, Work Order #305.
Bid
Award – Courthouse Expansion and Improvement
Project
Law and Justice Facility
Larry
Kwarsick and Gary Ness, Public Works Engineer, reported from review of bids
opened on February 24, 2000 for the Courthouse Expansion and
Improvement Project, Phase 1B,
Law and Justice Facility, Work Order #301, recommending award to the low
bidder, Haskell Constructors, including
Alternates 1, 2b, 3a, 3b and 6, for total amount of $5,185,080.00, including
Washington State Sales Tax. The bid
was within 1.4% of the architect’s estimate.
By
unanimous motion, the Board awarded the bid to the low bidder, Haskell Constructors, including Alternates
1, 2b, 3a, 3b and 6, for total amount of $5,185,080.00, including Washington
State Sales Tax.
HEARING
SET: OPEN SPACE APPLICATION OPS 818/99 Michael Heggenes
On
presentation of the Planning Director, Phil Bakke, the Board by unanimous
motion scheduled a public hearing on March 27, 2000 at 2:45 p.m. to consider
Open Space Application #OPS 818/99 by
Michael Heggenes, Assessor’s Parcel
R32804-310-2380, for placement of 15 acres of a 17-acre parcel into the Timber Land
Tax Classification Program.
Resolution
#C-22-00 Certification of the Island County
Personal
Property Inventory for 1999
As required by RCW 36.32.210, the Board by unanimous
motion approved Resolution #C-22-00 to certify the inventory of all personal
property of Island County related to the various county departments for the
year 1999.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ISLAND COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER
OF CERTIFICATION )
OF THE ISLAND
COUNTY PERSONAL ) RESOLUTION NO. C- -00
PROPERTY
INVENTORY FOR 1999 )
WHEREAS,
pursuant to R.C.W. 36.32.210, the Board of County Commissioners of Island
County, Washington, hereby certifies that the inventory of all personal
property of Island County, Washington, consisting of the returns from the
various county departments for the year 1999 shall be filed with the Island
County Auditor on March 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS,
the members of the Board of Island County Commissioners hereby certify that
they have reviewed said inventory of personal property for the year 1999, and
believe the same to be complete, accurate and true to the best of their
knowledge and belief, based upon the information submitted and certified by the
individual elected officials and county department heads.
ADOPTED
this 6th day of March, 2000.
BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Wm. L.
"Mac" McDowell, Chairman
William
F. Thorn, Member
Mike
Shelton, Member
ATTEST: Margaret Rosenkranz
Clerk of the Board
[inventories from the various
county departments are on file with the County Auditor]
AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - T B ENTERPRISES
Kathy Carpenter, Chief Deputy Treasurer, presented for
approval and signature Agreement for
Professional Services
RM-TREAS-00-0025 with Bernice Bainbridge, TB Enterprises, Coupeville, for services not to exceed $1,000 for the year
2000. Work performed includes review
and servicing the Property Tax System and training Treasurer’s personnel. The Contract was reviewed and approved by
the Risk Manager, with the addition of spouse as part owner of TB Enterprises; copy of business license has been
provided. The Treasurer has verified
this would be an independent contractor as opposed to an employee and provided a copy of the contractor’s business license. The Treasurer researched
the issue and with assistance from Senator
Haugen’s staff made sure there is no
threat to the individual’s retirement status.
The Treasurer has also confirmed
that the contractor was
comfortable this action was not a threat to her retirement and was going
in with her eyes wide open and comfortable
that DOR would not invalidate her medical retirement.
The Commissioners and Auditor discussed various aspects
of the proposed contract. The Board
considered issues brought to their attention: whether appropriate license had been
provided; concerns related to the scope of work and potential of failing the
independent contractor test; a question of whether or not the County is
assuming any potential liability
should contractor’s disability
retirement benefits suffer as a result
of the contract. Prior to taking
action, the Board requested a statement from the contractor acknowledging her
responsibility that any
potential problems associated
with her disability retirement as a result of this contract rested with her and
the County would not be held responsible.
Ms. Carpenter returned later and provided a memorandum
to the Board that stated: “I talked
with Bernice this morning who stated that she was well aware of the retirement
issue and assumes the responsibility
that her contract entails.”.
With that statement, the Board by unanimous motion, approved and signed Contract for
Professional Services RM-TREAS-00-0025
between Island County and Bernice Bainbridge, TB Enterprises.
HEARING HELD: Ordinance
#C-118-99 (PLG-001-99), Amending Chapter 17.03 ICC regarding Communication
Towers
A
hearing was held beginning at 1:30 p.m., continued from 12/13/99 & 2/7/00,
on Ordinance #C-118-99 (PLG-001-99),
Amending Chapter 17.03 ICC regarding Communication Towers, also having been the
subject at staff sessions held on
3/1/00 and 2/23/00. The matter
was forwarded to the Board from the Planning Commission.
Attendance
Public: 9 [Attendance
Sheet GMA #5578]
Staff: Phil Bakke, Planning Director
Handouts:
Proposed Amendment No. 1 dated 3/3/00 [GMA doc. #5579]
Correspondence for the
Record:
3/6/00 Letter Andrew
T. King, The Meridian Group, Seattle, on behalf of Sprint PCS
GMA
#5488
3/5/00 e-mail
Pat & Ken Sasson, Greenbank
GMA #5490
3/5/00 e-mail
Julie Glover, Langley GMA
#5489
3/4/00 e-mail
Mark Wahl, Langley GMA #5491
2/25/00
Letter Bill Monroe, Odella Pacific
Corporation, on behalf of U. S. West
Wireless
GMA #5503
2/18/00
Letter Whidbey Aububon Society GMA #5435
2/12/00
Letter Marty Rogers-Jorgensen, Oak
Harbor GMA #5436
2/7/00 Letter
Sarah O. Richards & Al Grapel, Coupeville GMA #5473
Mr. Bakke reviewed the proposed changes as
contained in Amendment No. 1. This is a new section of Code amending
17.03.040 and 17.03.180.L.8; underlining reflects new code language; strike-throughs reflect language proposed by the Planning Commission proposed for
removal; and bold underlined are
modifications proposed today as a
result of the previous public hearings
of the Board.
Public Comments
Billie Barb, Mutiny Bay area, Freeland. Asked for clarification about limiting the total height of the facility to not more than 45’ above average tree height and the ability of
topping trees – height above the trees is a concern. Aesthetics a main
concern; towers stick up and from different areas and some can be seen
more than others. Although towers may
be needed, somehow the towers need to be buffered. Towers should be kept out of areas that should be pristine, i.e. Ebey’s
Prairie.
The Chair explained this is a site specific
determination as far as average tree
height; when looked at by staff about average height it is the site on that
particular piece of property. The
proposal is written such that the most that can be topped is whatever
the height initial was; if that height initially was 20’ and the trees grow 2’
to 3’ the most that can be cut back is to that initial 20’. The industry has stated that the array on
top can never be buffer because it has to be clear of trees.
Gary Piazzon, speaking on behalf of the Citizens Growth Management
Coalition, agreed that this is an
aesthetic issue. Visually the idea of having several towers the same
height, if appropriately painted, could provide less of a visual impact. If co-location were redefined
to include multiple towers on the same
site, with a limit, could
influence and change the height restrictions
and make those a little lower; 20’ is
required which is better than
45’ above the average tree height. Example: if three service providers
were required to locate at the same site, they could do so using three different towers all at the same height [there is also 10’ separation between antenna vertically]. Three towers at the same height, horizontally
spread out, being more pleasing aesthetically than one higher tower, is
an aesthetic judgment call.
There
would be leeway if concealment technology were employed more widely especially along major view
corridors in the Reserve: avoid towers
in the Reserve. Another option would be
to require use of satellite technology,
although it would be an added expense to the company. He commended the
County for the proposed changes, most
very good. One issue of continuing concern had to do with service
and security lights [not tower
lighting]. Suggestion is require those
be turned off when not necessary. If
used for security, employ motion sensor.
If used to maintenance the site after dark, use an off and on switch.
Regarding danger to birds if a tower is high enough the type of hazard lights should be the type
that avoid confusion of birds who
migrate through this major flyway. To
prevent avian mortality, require bird
flight detectors in towers requiring
guy wires, a simple plastic
device emitting a sound, easily applied;
Snohomish PUD has done this already.
There is concern too about incentive for removal of towers once
they become obsolete. His suggestion was to require a bond
at the time of application which would cover the removal. Another way would be to apply a penalty of
$1,000 a day after the 180 day period
has expired.
Regarding
height and whether one tower should support multiple antennas or multiple
towers support one antenna, there was a ratio issue involved: a 40’ antenna array above a 40’ set of trees would have greater
visual impact than if the same array stuck out above trees 100’ high. He thought the solution might be to work out
a “golden triangle” and apply ratios to direct staff in making decisions –
something that creates a two-thirds, i.e. where the height of the tower
protrudes no more than ¼ or 1/3 above the heights of the trees so the trees
dominate. As far as the language
about the feasibility factor if
co-location is not feasible that a mutually acceptable technical expert
should be hired. he was not sure the
words “mutually acceptably” need be included.
John Graham, Citizens Growth Management Coalition, supported
comments made by Mr. Piazzon on behalf of the Coalition and he too commended
the County for its hard work on the proposal, excellent research and a lot of
good consideration. He provided the following comments/suggestions:
m, Lights and
Signals. Correct typographical error where the statement reads: sight source unless…” the word “sight”
should be corrected to read “light”.
n, Noise. If there are
generators associated with a communication
tower it might be a good idea to
require generators be put in below ground level.
q, Bond should be
required associated with removal of obsolete
tower within 180 days of the abandonment or discontinuation of use. Many people believe these towers will be
obsolete in 10 or 15 years.
Lynne Wilcox, Oak Harbor,
asked for clarification of what she understood about maximum height, and
Board members and Mr. Bakke provided that clarification.
Staff/Board
Comments
Mr. Bakke
regarding removal of facilities after the 180 day period, this section
of Code is being added to the Land Use Development Standards of the zoning
ordinance and as such any violation is a violation of Chapter 17.03 and the administrative remedy for the
County is to assess a $1,000 civil penalty and a $500 per day penalty for
violations of this Code.
Commissioner
Shelton observed that one common
thread has been the belief that
co-location is a good thing. There has
been talk about co-location in terms of multiple towers as opposed to one
higher tower. He thought co-location
ultimately probably more desirable from
a cell phone company standpoint, i.e. believing three carriers on one pole
probably reduces the cost for all. The industry has indicated concern about
extending the pole after the fact [to allow co-location at a later time] that
actually it would require a new pole. In terms of the bond for the removal he
thought that given the fact the County Code already contains provisions of
penalties those were adequate.
Mr. Bakke confirmed for Commissioner Shelton that he
thought the Code was clearly written
such that if someone agreed to co-locate they could put the top antenna at 40’
even when they do not have anyone else to co locate yet.
Commissioner Thorn had a number of comments, most in the
category of technical or administrative corrections:
Definitions.
Lattice
Support Structure. The language “three
or four-sided” be replaced with “multi- sided”.
Support
Structure. Where it states “…to support
an Wireless” the word an be changed to a.
Wireless
Communication Antenna Array. Words in
next to the last line place a period after the
word energy and delete “that can be attached to a building or sign”.
17.03.180
Land Use Standards
L.8.a)
(ii) change the language in bold now
reading “in areas with compatible land use” to
read: “to be compatible e with land uses in the
area”.
L.8.b)(i) Change “will” to “shall”
L.8.b)(iv)
Delete “personal” ; capitalize wireless; insert Communication after Wireless; capitalize the word facility.
Further
consider suggested five year sunset on
a permit for a tower
Anywhere
there is a Type I approval process that simultaneously must waive the conditional
use because all cell towers are defined as conditional use which
requires Type II or above review process.
Mr. Bakke acknowledged the express intent of the Board
to have these as defined Type I
decisions, and suggested if that needed to be modified it could be handled through a technical correction.
L.8. (c)(vii) delete “Permits” and replace it
with “Applications”
Commissioner Thorn suggested consideration as well on
the following:
L.8.
(g) Screening and Siting Standards.
Likes suggestion of a ratio, the 1/3 cap: that if the 45’
exceeded 1/3 of the total height the 1/3 would kick in rather than 45’; i.e.
90’
trees
would allow 135’ tower or 45’
protrusion. Insert sentence: “Every effort shall be made by the applicant to locate towers within an area of mature
tall trees or demonstrate why this is
not possible”.
On the Co-Location paragraph he suggested the Board
consider language from the Pierce
County development regulations include:
“A tower shall not be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates there
are no existing towers or support
structures available which can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna.
Fees, costs or contractual provisions that are necessary to accommodate
co-location may not be used as a justification to construct a tower within the
required separation.”. This language
would obviate the words in the first part of the paragraph that read “or is not
made available at market rate cost”.
(ii) (3)
Second line “statement of report demonstrating” of needs to be corrected to or.
l) Need to site a
specific height minimum, 6’.
m) Agrees with the
idea of using motion sensing for ground lighting; make the typographical
correction noted by John Graham on light source. Add a sentence that would say:
“Unless otherwise required by Federal or State authority, tower mounted
lights shall be intermittent rather
than steady”. Regarding avian
mortality, refer to the latest issue of
Audubon Magazine about lighting and effects of lighting on wildlife,
birds and the environment in general and note studies showing birds are
attracted to a steady light because they navigate by stars and confuse a steady
light with a star. Suggest a generic
sentence to indicate that some sort of sonic bird warning device be employed on
a tower, guyed or otherwise.
(i)
(5) Not necessary to say “If a site is owned fee simple”. Intent is that statement of intent be
provided and whether owned or leased or subleased does not matter.
Mr. Bakke suggested that (7) Copies of lease legal
description of easements necessary should be rewritten to state: “Copies of lease agreements and/or easements.”.
q Add cross reference to ICC 17.03.
The Board concurred with Mr. Thorn’s suggested
technical/administrative changes.
Commissioner Thorn thought it would be useful to have
the Public Works Director or Planning Director have leeway in the
implementation, to the extent that
where a really desirable site evolves that either or both would have flexibility in how many towers are sited there. He would like to see one generic statement
that provides that leeway. And there
was consensus reached that the Planning Director develop the language to
include.
Chairman
McDowell agreed with the suggestion
regarding the ratio [i.e. golden triangle description] 1/3 – 2/3. There was no intent to have a set of 45’
trees and then a 45’ tower above those.
More arrays on one pole seems more reasonable when there is a set of
125’ trees versus 45’ tower above a set
of 45’ trees. Board consensus reached
on this issue directing the Planning Director to come up with the appropriate
language.
As far as roof
mounted not being any more than 10’ above the building or camouflaged, the Chairman brought up an example,
Pennington Hill where the Town’s water
tower is completely hidden by trees; the idea that that would have to have some
type of technology on the tower would
not make sense and he thought more of a blight
to have a chimney on top of that water tank than the monopole. With regard to the security lighting issue
he thought the up-coming lighting
ordinance would address this lighting as it does for any other structure lighting.
Both the
Chairman and Commissioner Shelton did not agree with the suggested 5 year sunset.
Board
Action
By unanimous motion the Board continued the public
hearing on Ordinance #C-118-99 to March 20, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Bakke was
directed to make the changes the Board agreed up today and the matter brought
back for public hearing at another time, the only topic open for further public
comment at the next hearing to be the 1/3 – 2/3 ratio.
[Notice of Continuance GMA doc. #5580]
HEARING HELD: Ordinance #C-124-99 (PLG-030-99), Amending
Chapter 17.03.ICC regarding Signs &
Lighting
A
Public Hearing was held at 3:00 p.m., continued from 12/6/99, 12/27/99, 1/24/00
and 2/14/00, on Ordinance #C-124-99
(PLG-030-99), Amending Chapter 17.03.ICC regarding Signs & Lighting. At the last hearing, the Board directed the
Planning Director incorporate amendments discussed and agreed to by a majority of the Board on 2/14/00 into new
Exhibit A to the Ordinance.
Attendance
Public: 15
[Attendance Sheet GMA #5581]