The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM071299JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS District No. I Commissioner: Dan Harpole, Chair District No. 2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford, Member District No. 3 Commissioner: Richard Wojt, Member Clerk of the Board: Lorna L. Delaney Director of Public Services: Gary A. Rowe Deputy Director of Public Services: David Goldsmith MINUTES Week of July 12, 1999 The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Glen Huntingford in the absence of Chairman Dan Harpole. Commissioner Richard Wojt was present. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of the weeks of June 21, and 28, 1999 as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. PUBLIC SER VICES BRIEFING SESSION: Director of Public Services Gary Rowe reported: · He presented an outline for the Board to complete to begin the process of setting budget objectives for 2000. · Referendum 695 is expected to be certified and be on the ballot this fall. If this referendum passes it will have a large impact on the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax which is estimated to be a reduction of about $600,000 in revenue for the County. · The Public Works Department has presented information on the procedures required to dispose of abandoned vehicles. The Board can pass a local ordinance to deal with these vehicles on County right-of-way. He will do more research on this issue. · The Conservation Futures Advisory Committee was established several weeks ago. Cedar River Associates was contacted to help facilitate this committee. They estimate the facilitation will cost approximately $11,500.00. This amount could be paid from the Open Space Acquisition Fund. If the tax is passed, this amount would be paid back to the fund. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve taking the funding for Cedar River Associates from the Open Space Acquisition Fund. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion. The motion carried. Page ' Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 1999 Caryn Woodhouse, Natural Resource Policy Analyst, gave a report on the Water Conservancy Advisory Boards in Lewis and Benton Counties that are currently conducting pilot projects with the State Department of Ecology to handle water fight applications locally. She noted that each County charges fees for these applications which are handled by volunteer boards. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: A report of a Citizen Watershed Monitoring Program that is being proposed by citizens in the Lake Leland watershed and their plans to apply for grant funding for the program with the County's support; a request for an update on the Lake Leland property owner's proposal for stricter land use regulations; certification of the water in the park in Quilcene; copies of an application to the State Parks & Recreation Commission to install a barge into the reef at Fort Flagler State Park were presented by County divers who also requested an update on their County Fee Waiver Request for the Shoreline Permit that was submitted several weeks ago; and a suggestion that the entire street of Fremont Avenue in Quilcene be vacated. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT A GENDA: Commissioner Wojt moved to delete Item 6 and to approve and adopt the balance of the Consent Agenda items as presented. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 06-0712-99 re: Wireless Services Facilities Ordinance Regulating the Location, Placement, and Design of Such Facilities 2. RESOLUTION NO. 56-99 re: Establishing a New Fund Entitled the Health Benefits Savings Fund 3. CALL FOR BIDS re: Center Road Asphalt Overlay Project #CR1370; Deadline for Receiving Bids: Monday, July 26, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. at the County Commissioners Office; Bid Opening Same Day After 11:00 a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers 4. CALL FOR BIDS re: 1999 Pavement Marking on Various County Roads, Project #MT1424; Deadline for Receiving Bids: Monday, July 26, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. at the County Commissioners Office; Bid Opening Same Day at 11:15 a.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers 5. CONTRACT re: Hydroseeding on Lindsay Hill Road Slides and East Quilcene Road Slides; Jefferson County Public Works; Hydroseeding and Bark Blowers, Inc. 6. DELETE Agreement re: 1999-2000 Coastal Zone Management Grant for the Shoreline Master Program Amendments; Jefferson County Planning Department; Washington State Department of Ecology (See Item late in the Minutes.) 7. AGREEMENT re: To Conduct One Full Day and One Half-Day Training Session on Time Management; Jefferson County Public Services; Tena Crosby, Fast Track Communications, Inc. 8. AGREEMENT re: Temporary Help; Administrative Clerk and Corrections/Dispatch Duties; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Washington Teamsters Union Local #589; Colleen Hendricks 9. AGREEMENT, Supplement #1 re: Cable Television Regulation Development; Adding Task V - VIII to Scope of Work, Extending Time of Completion and Amending Payment; Jefferson County Public Works; 3H Cable Communications Consultant Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. AGREEMENT, Supplement #3 re: Consultant Services for the Tri-Area/Glen Cove Special Study, Project #RO 1336; Revising Schedule and Scope of Work to Complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Provide Potential Plan Amendments; Jefferson County Public Works; Shockey-Brent AGREEMENT, Local Agency; AGREEMENT, Certification Acceptance Qualification; and FEDERAL AID PROJECT PROSPECTUS re: Irondale Road Improvement Project #CR1107; Shoulder Widening and Asphalt Overlay on Irondale Road from SR-19 to 4th Avenue; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Transportation GRANT APPLICATION re: Early Action Fish Passage Barrier Removal Design and Construc- tion for East Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road, Project #CD 1362; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife GRANT APPLICATIONS (4) re: Early Action Fish Passage Barrier Removal Design and Construction for 1) Bamhouse Creek on Center Road, Project #CD1361; 2) Fletcher Creek on Lower Hoh Road, Project #CD 1382; 3) East Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road, Project #CD 1363; and 4) North Branch East Fork Tarboo Creek on Coyle Road, Project #CD 1378; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Authorization to Proceed with Real Property Acquisition For the Prevention of Flood Damage, Project #RO 1425; Williams Property, 281 Fremont Avenue, Quilcene Recommendation to Reject Claim for Damages #C-18-99, $452.92; Damage to Vehicle; Robb Bouma Out of State Travel Request re: NACO/NACE Conference in St. Louis, Missouri; July 15-20, 1999; Public Services, Gary Rowe Appoint Member and Alternate Member to Serve on the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) Representing the City of Port Townsend; No Term Lengths Established; Robert LaCroix, Member, and Robert Wheeler, Alternate Member Accept Resignation of Member and Appoint Two (2) New Members; Olympia Area Agency on Aging (O3A); Resigning Member Robert Baker, Newly Appointed Members Joan Linderoth and Glee Hubbard (Both Terms Expire July 12, 2002) COUNTY DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS/BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Director's Update: Director of Community Development A1 Scalf reported on the following: · A request for a fee waiver for a Shoreline Permit has been submitted by the Diver's Association for their project to raise a vessel that is located at the railroad wye in Port Townsend and move it to a reef at Fort Flagler. The Shoreline Permit fee is estimated to be $961.50, but part of that may not be required. The Department recommends that the fee be waived if an alternate funding source can be found. They recommend that the County Parks Board be asked if they have grant funding available. Pa~ , ~ : Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 1999 He reported on the decision of a recent court case from Seattle that municipalities are not liable for natural conditions that cause land slides after storm events. There is a Conditional Use Permit from US West for installation of a fiber optic cable across Hood Canal. Jefferson and Kitsap Counties, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, are issuing permits on this project. The County is investigating whether Lone Star (Northwest Aggregates) has violated the County's Shoreline or Zoning Ordinances. A public records request has been received from Northwest Aggregates' Attorney seeking records in conjunction with the investigation. The Department will provide the information requested in the required time frame. There have been several requests for extension of subdivision approvals which will be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner. A memo, dated July 9, 1999, from Bruce Bailey was reviewed. He requested a determination in writing of the density for his property allowed under current County Codes. A1 Scalf asked the Board for direction regarding future contact with Mr. Bailey and reviewed his record of contact with Mr. Bailey regarding his project. Mr. Bailey has asked to meet with the Prosecuting Attorney and A1 Scalfto discuss a new project. A1 Scalf advised that he will meet with Mr. Bailey and the Prosecuting Attorney and advise the Baileys that the density is 1 residence per 10 acres and that the County's ordinances require an official pre-application conference. PUBLIC WORKS Hearing Examiner Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: Petition to Vacate a Portion of Platted Fremont Avenue; Located in Quilcene; Tim Gallagher, Petitioner: Terry Duff, Public Works, reported that this road vacation is in a statutorily vacated plat. This vacation is the platted Fremont Avenue, not the physical location of the actual road. The County Engineer recommends approval. Commissioner Wojt moved to adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendation as submitted. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. Director's Update: Interim Public Works Director Frank Gifford reported on the following: · The Parks Advisory Board will be reviewing the request for a boat launch at Gibbs Lake at their next meeting. · New carpet has be installed in the second floor Jury Room. · Grayland Productions will be producing a video on the funding needs for repair of the Court- house Clock Tower. · Options for the Bayshore Motel are being reviewed. A diving company has contacted the Department about leasing the entire motel facility. · There is a public open house on the Tri Area/Glen Cove Study on July 15, 1999 at the WSU Cooperative Extension Office. · The County has not put up a sign on Paradise Bay Road near the intersection at SR104 that says "entering Kitsap County." The Department will check into this further. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 1999 A Scenic Byways grant was submitted for the Gateway Visitor Center. It was ranked 12th out of 18 and is being forwarded to the Federal agency for review. The Department is discussing this project with several agencies and entities to encourage their participation. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Director's Update: Health Officer Dr. Tom Locke, Environmental Health Director Larry Fay, Jean Baldwin, Director of Nursing, and Officer Manager, Mary Ann Preece, came before the Board to report on the following: · The proposal by the State to turn over the review of water right applications to counties through a volunteer Conservancy Board was reviewed. · The interim management plan has been finalized through the Human Resource Manager and it appears to be working well. · Any changes to the Health & Human Services Director's job description need to be made soon so that the recruitment process can begin. AGREEMENT re: 1999-2000 Coastal Zone Management Grant for the Shoreline Master Program Amendments; Jefferson County Planning Department; Washington State Depart- ment of Ecology: (Item #6 on the Consent Agenda) Associate Planner Lauren Mark reported that this contract is for the 2 year project on updating the Shoreline Management Master Program. Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the contract as presented: Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. Pete Piccini, Sheriff re: Deputy Sheriff Position: Sheriff Pete Piccini reported that approximately 24% of the amount of traffic citations a Deputy writes comes back to the County. He asked that the Board approve another Deputy position for his office. The Law and Justice Committee has recommended that another position be funded. If this position is approved, the Deputy will work out of the South County Annex because there is a need for increased law enforcement coverage in that area. Commissioner Huntingford asked if the Sheriff had discussed this request with the Budget Manager? Pete Piccini answered that he had discussed it with Gary Rowe and with Commissioner Harpole. Commissioner Wojt asked if there is a vehicle available for this position? Pete Piccini reported that a new car would have to be purchased. Application for Assistance from the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Fund: Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the application for assistance from the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Fund in the amount of $75.00 as requested by the Service Officers' Association. Commissioner Huntingford seconded the motion which carried. Page 5 ' 'OL 25 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of July 12, 1999 The Board attended a workshop on possible changes to the Road Vacation Ordinance to address statutory road vacations. Meeting A~lou,rn_~.d ."~ ~, ,. '' ATTEST: Loma Delaney, Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Richard Wojt, Memb-~ Page 6 'CONTRACT WITH: CONTRACT FOR: REVIEW FORM N/A (Contractor) Wireless Ordinance TERM: N/A AMOUNT: Revenue: Expenditure: Matching Funds Required: Source(s) of Matching Funds: PROCESS: Exempt from Bid Process Consultant Selection Process Cooperative Purchase Competitive Sealed Bid Small Works Roster Vendor List Bid RFP or RFQ Step 1: Co~ APPROVED FORM ents: REVIEW BY RISK MA]S_AGEMENT ~ Review by: Date Reviewed: DReturned for revision (See comments) Step 2: REVIEWReview by:BY PROSEC._.UTING(~.~qd_./.~fC,,M~~ATfORNEY_ ' f'~'-~ fi0 ,'7// I ~ Date Reviewed: d 7/~/¢¢ :PPRO~ (~{ D Retumed for revision (See comments) Step 3: Step 4: Step 5' DEPARTMENT MAKES REVISIONS Have contractor sign appropriate number of originals. SUBMIT TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR FINAL SIGN OFF SUBMIT TO BOCC FOR APPROVAL Submit originals and 7 copies of Contract, Review Form, and Agenda Bill to BOCC Office. Place "Sign Here" markers on all places the BOCC needs to sign. MUST be in BOCC Office by 5 p.m. WEDNESDAY for the following Monday's agenda. (This form to stay with contract throughout the contract review process.) pw_form\contrev.xls revised 1/21/98 01/27/99 08:11. '~541 387 9037 LrTNW EXEC. DEPT. April 26, 1999 f~ Will Butterfield ~}0p~ Jefferson County Department of Public Works P.O. Box 2070 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Comments of Sprint/Unit~! Telephone Company of the Northwest r~garding the Jefferson County Department of Public Worka Telecommunications Ordinance Dear Mr. Butterfield: Thank you for the April 14, 1999 Dratt Telecommunications Ordinance and the oppommity to provide commextts. Thank you also for the changes you made in the most recent draft based on our earlier feedback. Our attorney has not yet reviewed the April 14, 1999 draft ordinance; however, it appears that most of the changes we recommended on March 31, 1999 have not been addressed, and many of our original questions remain unanswered. While Sprint appreciates the County's rights and obligation with respect to public right of way, this ordinance goes well beyond the requirements of any other franchise agreements Sprint has in place with Washington municipalities. Sprint is particularly troubled with language that would allow the County to cut our cable. Such action could put many customers out of service, even those outside the county, and disable access to emergency services, such as 911. We would welcome the opportunity for our attorney to meet with you to resolve the following issues: Section 13.60.080 Penalties (p. 7) Who is the enforcement agency? There may be a potential for double penalties. Section 13.68.030 Determination by County (pp. 10-11) Why do we need a license? The fact that we are certified by the WUTC should suffice for criterion "a" and "b". As to the rest of the criteria, we would just note that these conditions should be interpreted with an eye toward Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 253 makes it clear that State and local entities have the authority to manage right of way in a competitively neutral manner, protect public safety and welfare, and are entitled to receive fair compensation. However, the Act also states that no State or local, statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or inmte telecommunications service. Can we add some due process language for dispute resolution? 04/27/99 08:12 8541 387 9037 UTNW EXEC. DEPT. ~003 Section 13.68.040 and Section 13.72.040 Agreement (pp 11,13) If a license is granted, why do we need a subsequent agreement? Do we need a license, frartchL~e, and one agreement9. Will the franchises be publicly disclosed in compliance with Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act? What are the remedies if we feel we've been unjustly denied a franchise? Section 13.72.100 Compensation to County (p. 14) Who decides when to cut off negotiations? What is the procedure? Section 13.72.110 Nondiscrimination (p. 14) Statutes and roles already address this issue (e.g., RCW 80.36.186; 80.36.150; 80.36.330) Section 13.72.160 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal (p. 15) Need a due process provision, e.g,. "after notice and oppommity to be heard." Section 13.80.050 Relocation or Removal of Facilities (p. 30) and Section 13.80.080 Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities (p. 33) A new term has been introduced, "Permittee" without a definition. Usually our franchise agreements make it clear that we will not prevent the proper authorities from sewering, grading, planking, rocking, paving, repairing, altering, or improving its streets, highways, etc., but all such work will be done if possible so as not to obstruct or prevent the free use of our facilities. The public entity shall not require us to remove or relocate our facilities or vacate without reserving our rights or without requiring that we be compensated for the costs thereof. In mm, we agree not to unreasonably interfere with other facilities or utilities already located in the franchise area and the free passage of traffic. When we must complete an excavation, we agree to restore the surface as nearly as practicable to the same condition it was in prior to such excavation, and in compliance with any roles, laws, etc,. Additionally, the public entity commits to provide us with written notification (e.g., 90 days) prior to the commencement of any grading, widening, etc. along with any available plans and specifications. At such point we would move our facilities within the franchise area to a place provided by the public entity. When a person or entity other than the public emity requires the relocation, we would have the right to specify the payment terms for any costs we incur and the fight to be indemnified and held harmless except in the case of gross negligence on our part. The reference in Section 13.80.080 to the County cutting our facilities is particularly troublesome. There could be far reaching public impact beyond the "public" the County might be concerned with. Section 13.80.090 Damage to Grantee's Facilities (p. 33) See response to 13.80.050 above. We would like to have notification of when work is scheduled so that we can protect our facilities. Section.13.80.150 Security Fund (p. 35) 04/27/99 08:13 ~'~541 387 9037 UTNW EIEC. DEPT. ~004 We pay for the franchise, license, restoral costs, annual fees, and a security fund? Seems excessive. We'd be willing to be bonded. If a security fund is necessary, we would want to limit our liability under any oftbe provisions of this agreement to the amount eomained in the security fund. How would this be policed? What is the dispute resolution process? Section 13.g0.160 and 170 Assignments or Transfers of Grant (aP,., 36) and Section 13.80.170 Tmnsaetim~ Affecting Control of Grant (p. 37) Our fxanch~ agreements typically include provision for a successor to assume the contract. We would think this would serve the County's interest as well. What is the reasoning for forbidding a successor to assume the contract? Section 13.88.050 Rights of Way Compensation (p. 42) Statutes do not permit discounted, free, or in-kind services (see RCW 80.36.130; 80.36.170; 80.36.180; 80.36 186). Section 13.88.070 Annual Fees (p. 42) and Section 13.88.040 Other County Costs Is this a franchise fee or something above and beyond? How many fees are we talking about? Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Sincerely, Nancy Judy AVP External Affairs ,vo JEFFERSON COUNTY ! RTMENT OF PUBLIC 1322 Washington St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 O 0 ~', f~ i S ~b%~i~ifford, Pubfic Works Director/County Engineer WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: A1 Scalf, Community Development Director / SEPA Responsible Official Frank Gifford, Public Works Director / County Engineer, Interim ~~ DATE: March 8, 1999 SEPA review for the Master Utilities, Telecommunications, and Wireless Communications Ordinances Attached for your review is the environmental checklist for the Master Utilities, Telecommunications, and Wireless Communications Ordinances. The Department has placed a Notice of Pending Threshold Determination in the Port Townsend / Jefferson County Leader March 10, 1999 edition. The Department has also submitted the checklist to the Washington State Department of Ecology and notified interested parties, affected agencies, and tribes. The Department has specified in the notice that comments should be submitted to the Permit Center. I request that a copy of the comments be provided to the Department for consideration and response prior to making a threshold determination. Please direct comments to Jim Pearson. FQG/jwp 100% Recycled Paper NOTICE OF PENDING THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROPONENT: Jefferson County Notice is hereby given that Jefferson County proposes the following non-project action: Adoption of three related ordinances--a Master Utilities Ordinance, a Master Telecommunications Ordinance, and a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance. The proposed ordinances implement goals, policies, and strategies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element. The Master Utilities and Telecommunications Ordinances would guide the management of the County's rights-of-way and provide standards for the placement of utilities and telecommunication facilities in those rights-of-way. The Wireless Communications Ordinance would regulate the location and design of wireless communications facilities in Jefferson County. These facilities would include new wireless communications towers, antennas attached to existing towers, antennas attached to alternative support structures such as utility poles, buildings, and water tanks, and accessory equipment shelters. The review of applications for these facilities would vary depending on the type of facility proposed and the land use designation of the proposal site. The Ordinance provides design review standards that are intended to minimize impacts related to wireless facilities. The proposed action is subject to environmental review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Any person desiring to comment on or receive notice of the threshold determination should contact the Jefferson County Permit Center, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368; (360) 379-4450 by 4:30 PM on March 25, 1999. Copies of the proposed ordinances can be obtained fi:om the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, P.O. Box 2070, Port Townsend, WA 98368; (360) 385- 9160. Appeals of the threshold determination must be filed within fourteen (14) days following issuance of a final threshold determination. Only parties of record have standing to appeal. Requirements for the content of an appeal request can be obtained fi:om the Permit Center. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed ordinances would apply to all areas in unincorporated Jefferson County. £'reattve Solutioas ... Superior Service April 27, 1999 Will Butterfield Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Port Townsend, WA Subject: Proposed Wireless Ordinance ~EFFERS!.)f'~ udUi BOARD OF COiV!,¥,ISStONERF, Dear Mr. Bunerfield. These comments are in addition to the previous written comments and support testimony given today at the Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on the referenced subject. In Section 18.42.070 reference is made to collocation. Th~ collocation procedure should clearly state that a no response from another carrier should imply that no collocation opportunity exists. In Section 18.42.090 A 9. C) A lease is required to protect vegetation on aa adjacent property. Reference was made to this at the public hearing. To emphasize this again, securing such an easement would be difficult to impossible. I look forward to addressing questions addressiag these and other issues at the workshop tomorrow, 4/28/99. Than~ you for your time and axtention in this matter. Senior Land Use and Zoning Planner W &H Pacific for USWEST Wireless 450 110* Avenue N.E. Room 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 1-425-652-1018 Fax. 1-425-451-6310 Engineering, Landscape Architecture * Environmental Services Planning · Surveying and Mapping Washington ® Oregon ~ Idaho TO: Board of Couz~ty Commissioners: Dan Harpole, Chair Glen Huntingford, Member Richard Wojt, Member JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. Box 2070 1322 Washington St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 Frank Gifford, Pubfic Works Director/County Engineer FROM: Frank Oifford, Director/County Engineer DATE' ,~ SUB J: April 28, 1999 Utilities, Telecommhnications, arid Wireless Ordinance Public Hearing and Staff Comment In response to the public hearing conducted by the Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, Wednesday, April 27, 1999, the Department of Public Works has reviewed the public testimony received during the public hearing and offers the following observations for your consideration prior to Public Works forwarding the Ordinances, with minor clarifications, to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for a final legal review: MASTER UTILITIES ORDINANCE TESTIMONY Lisa Vernier/Representing AT&T Wireless Services: Section 13.56.050 Utility Permit Types Comment: Issue with this is the equipment cabinets/shelters are very large and locating them underground is unworkable. Asked for clarification on language if you are not talking about equipment shelters. If you were including them to be required to be underground it would cause difficulty and expenses. She recommends the language be changed. Staff Comment Staff acknowledges that equipment sheds/shelters for wireless facilities may need to be above ground and further submits that these construction issues will be addressed through the building permit process applicable to wireless siting activities not located within the rights-of-way. Staff Recommendation: For locations within the County rights-of-way staff suggest the following language clarification noted in underline and italicized: Utility Permit Types. As far as practicable all utility providers shall construct new utility facilities underground. Above ground facilities or extension qf overhead facilities_following county rights-of- way shall be undertaken only with the approval of the Director. Provided, however, that said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Permittee shall convert existing overhead facilities to underground facilities as and when equipment replacement is undertaken, or when other existing overhead facilities are placed underground, or when new facilities are installed, unless such placement or replacement is unsafe, impracticable, or economically unreasonable as determined by the Director thc £oard. Line extension policies and procedures established by the permittee uniformly applied through its service area, shall be the standard in determining what is "practical, impractical or economically unreasonable" under this ordinance. 100% Recycled Paper Malcolm Harris/Representing Summit Cablevision Section 13.56.050 Utility Permit Types Comment: Supports the categories of projects created in this section. Section 13.56.080 Determination by County Comment: Places additional requirements in Type A categories, which put them, back into the complicated areas; This interferes with the intent of making Type A projects an efficient process. Requests that separate tracking requirements be eliminated by not imposing additional fees on type A projects. Staff Comment~Recommendation: With respect to the comment addressed to chapter 13.56. 080, the issue is addressed in Chapter 13.56.190 whereby the permit fee attributable to the Type A activity shall be paid no later than the tenth day of each month following the preceding month's activities. This system cannot be more simplified relative to an efficient County management process for the Type A utility installation. Section 13.56.190 Utility Permit Fee. Prior to issuance of a utility permit within County Rights-of- Way, the applicant shall pay a utility permit fee to recover the County's actual attributable costs and expenses. The amount of the utility permit fee is dependent upon the type of activity being conducted within the County Rights-of-Way as defined in section 13.56.050. For all Type A activities, the annual utility permit fee shall be 20% of the individual utility permit fee for each Type A activity conducted within the Rights-of-Way. The annual utility permit fee shall be paid to the County no later than the tenth day of each month following the preceding month's activities. For all Type B activities, the individual utility permit fee shall be established pursuant to a schedule of fees adopted by the Board. Staff recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.56.370 Aesthetic and Scenic Considerations Comment: Requests the underground fiber-optic systems location is modified from minimum 36" below finished surface to 30" which is the industry standard for cable TV installations. Staff Comment & Recommendation. With respect to the comment addressed to chapter 13.56.370, regarding the installation of fiber optic cable at a depth of not less than thirty-six (36) inches, Staff concurs in remaining consistent with section 13.56.350 (B), therefore, chapter 13.56.370 will be amended to read as follows: "Depth. All fiber optic systems shall be installed at a depth of thirty (30) vertical inches below the finished surface or the bottom of the ditch for all installations within County Rights-of- Way, or in compliance with applicable federal, state and industry requirements." Paul Crane/Representing US West Wireless Section 13.56.030 Definitions Comment: The term "franchise" could mean having to give a percentage of revenue to Jefferson County. Requests a different name other than franchise to address that definition. Staff Comment: The Revised Code of Washington specifically grants Counties authority to franchise as cited in Title 36 RC~' Chapter 36.55. Historically the franchise agreement provides a means for persons or private or municipal corporations to use the public rights of way subject to the terms and conditions therein. Franchise agreements are the standard and recognized instrument in establishing said terms and conditions. Staff recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.56.050 Utility Permit Types Comment: U.S. West has small equipment/cabinets that can be mounted on a pole. Requests exceptions be stated other than general all underground equipment. Star_f Comment: The minor revision to Section now provides the Director or his/her designee with the authority to approve any aboveground utility facility. Staff recommendation: No revision recommended. Bob Rogers/Representing US West Section 13.56.050 Utility Permit Types Comment: Requests clarification that service connections are not included in type A. That service connection is in type C but not in A Staff Comment; Only those individual service connections requiring trenching up to 200feet of County rights- of-way would require a Type A permit as stated. Individual service connections OVERHEAD not interfering with other utilities, nor impacting the rights-of-way would remain an exempt activity. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following language clarification to the exemption section C, to read as follows: "Exempted Activities. Utility providers conducting the following exempted activities within County Rights-of-Way shall not be required to obtain an utility permit; however, utility providers shall comply with all other provisions of this Chapter: stringing cables on utility poles and associated maintenance thereof, individual overhead service connections, accessing and maintenance of existing manholes, handholes, pedestals, closures and vaults, and replacing above-ground meters, transformers, closures, and pedestals, and performing emergency work." MASTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE TESTIMONY · Brad Kemp/Representing Sprint/United Telephone Company of the Northwest Section 13.60.080 Penalties Comment: Enforcement Clarification Request Staff Comment: The Section identifies that a violation of the proposed Ordinance is designated as a Class 1 Civil Infraction pursuant to 7. 80 RC~. 7. 80 RCI'V identifies a court of limited jurisdiction, including district courts, as having jurisdiction over an alleged civil infraction. RCI, V 7. 80. 040 Enforcement Officer Defined states: "... 'enforcement officer' shall mean a person authorized to enforce the provisions of the title or ordinance in which the civil infraction is established" The Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney upholds the laws of the State of g~ashington and provides for and defends Jefferson County in civil litigation. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.68.030 Determination by County Comment: Licensing Clarification and "Due Process" Request Staff Comment: The Telecommunications Act addresses state and local regulation of telecommunications providers at 47 USC 253. The proposed Ordinance states that licensing is required "to the extent permitted by law". The licensing requirement does not result in the prohibition nor the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide interstate or intrastate telecommunications services. The licensing requirement does allow local government to efficiently manage the public rights of way in a timely and competitively neutral way, without discrimination, and in a manner which conserves the limited physical capacity of the public rights of way. Chapter t3.80 Conditions of Grant of License, Franchise, or Cable Television Franchise identifies, in Section i3.80.210, a public hearing and appeal process for Grantees who have been granted rights and are bound by the obligations of the Ordinance, Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.68.040 Agreement & Section 13.72.040 Agreement Comment: (1) Clarification on Agreement Requirements, (2) Franchise and Compliance with Statutory Requirements, (3) "Dispute" Resolution regarding Franchise Staff Comment: (1) Agreements: In Section 13.68.040 the license is the agreement. In Section 13.72.040 the franchise is the agreement. The general content of agreements for licenses and franchises are clearly identified Section 13.68.010License requires a license for any telecommunications carrier providing services in the public rights of way exclusively to person or areas outside Jefferson County. Section 13.72.010 requires a franchise for any telecommunications carrier providing services in the public rights of way to person or areas within Jefferson County. (2) Per 36.55.080 RCPV Record of Franchise, all franchises become public record and are recorded with the county auditor of each county. Jefferson County will be in compliance with Federal laws. (3) Section 13.72.030 identifies the process and objective criteria for County determination of franchise application. If the application is denied, the Ordinance requires a determination including reasons for the denial based on the objective and non-discriminatory criteria for use of the public rights of way. The applicant may resubmit with the deficiencies noted per the objective and non-discriminatory criteria corrected. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.72.100 Compensation to County Comment: Questions on Negotiations Staff Comment: The Section identifies that compensation shall be in an amount established by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will establish any change in the current compensation schedule in an open and non-discriminatory public process resulting in final adoption ordinance and/or resolution.. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.72.110 Nondiscrimination Comment: Unnecessary to include due to inclusion in existing state statutes Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed the three RCW sections cited by the testifier. All are located in Chapter 80. 36 RCI, V Telecommunications. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not believe that inclusion of this Section contradicts statutory regulations. This section serves to clarify the obligations of entities applying for a franchise to occupy the public rights of way and to provide telecommunications services to any person or area of the County. No revision recommended. Section 13.72.160 Obligation to Cure as a Condition of Renewal Comment: Request provision of "due process" Staff Comment: Ordinance Chapter I3.80 Conditions of Grant of License, Franchise, or Cable Television Franchise identifies conditions including Section 13.80.200 Revocation and Termination of Grant, Section 13.80.210 Notice and Duty to Cure, and Section 13.80.220 Hearing. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended Section 13.80.050 Relocation or Removal of Facilities Comment: (1) "Permittee" undefined, (2) Questions the process proposed for the public's removal, relocation, or vacating Sprint facilities including notification procedures and compensation Staff Comment: (1) "Permittee" is a typographic error and needs to conform to the definition "Grantee" which is used throughout the Chapter and defined in Section 13.60. 020 Definitions. (2) Section 13.80. 050 identifies the criteria whereby the County shall require alteration of telecommunications carrier facilities, the formal notice procedures and notification time frames required of the County. Existing franchise agreement with United Telephone Company of the Northwest, RCW 36.55.060 (4) which requires relocation when "reasonably necessary" for the construction, alteration, or improvement of county roads, common law in the State of Washington that public utilities must bear the costs of removing and relocating their facilities when necessary for the public use, and, specific to US West, the March 13, 1998 Order No. 97-2-08395-3 Granting Summary dudgement that US West "shall be required to pay the costs associated with the necessary relocation of its facilities along the public rights of way and county roads when necessary for public use" are the basis for the Section. Staff Recommendation: Delete "Permittee" and Add "Grantee ". No additional revision recommended. Section 13.80.080 Emergency Removal or Relocation Comment: Disruption of Sprint facilities can also impact other emergency-related uses Staff Comment.': Disruption of any utility is recognized as extremely disruptive and potentially dangerous and in recognition of the seriousness of the issue the Section also uses the word "privilege". The Section states: "The County retains the right and privilege to cut or move any Telecommunications Facilities located within the Rights-of-Way as the County may determine to be necessary, appropriate or useful in response to any public health or safety emergency." Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.80.090 Damage to Grantee's Facilities Comment: Questions the process proposed for the public's removal, relocation, or vacating Sprint facilities including notification procedures and compensation Staff Comment: The County recognizes that damage or disruption to a Grantee's facilities may seriously impact the provision of services, including perhaps, emergency services to the public. The Section identifies that the County will be responsible for damage caused by negligence on the part of the County. The County has been and will continue to work closely with all utilities and telecommunications carriers to ensure work is performed in our best mutual interests. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.80.150 Security Fund Comment: Concerned about costs, enforcement, and dispute resolution Staff Comment: Bonding may be an acceptable security instrument to Jefferson County. The current compensation ordinance requires a $37.00 payment for a license to use the right of way. There are no annual fees. There is a one time application fee of $37.00 to Open the Rights-of-way, and a one-time application fee $38.00 to Work in the Rights-of-way. A Franchise Application Fee is $160.00. A Franchise Re-Application Fee is $160.00. Currently a Department of Public Works staff person is assigned at the Jefferson County Permit Center to manage public rights of way management considerations. To work in the public rights of way without meeting the conditions and obligations identified in the Ordinance, the entity may, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; be subject to Section 13.80. 060 Removal of Unauthorized Facilities. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.80.160 Assignments or Transfers of Grant, Section 13.80.170 Transactions Affecting Control of Grant Comment: Concerned about transfer of ownership procedures Staff Comment: The Sections define and identify the conditions whereby "provision for a successor to assume" ownership or control of a license, franchise, or cable television franchise for use of the public rights of way issued by the County are transferred. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.88.040 Other County Costs Comment: Requests clarification of costs Staff Comment: There currently are no costs. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.88.050 Rights of Way Compensation Comment: Concerned that the Ordinance may be requiring telecommunication carriers to provide pricing in violation of state statute Staff Comment: The Section identifies that the Board of County Commissioners shall in an amount and type establish compensation. The Board will establish any change in the current compensation schedule in an open and non-discriminatory public process resulting in final and lawful adoption ordinance and/or resolution.. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.88.070 Annual Fees Comment: Requests clarification of fees Staff Comment: There currently are no costs. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended Mr. Malcolm Harris/Representing Summit Cablevision Section 13.60.020 Definitions Comment: "Telecommunications Carrier" implies Cable Television Carrier Staff Comment: Section clearly defines "Cable Operator ", "Cable Service ", and Cable Television Facilities ", as distinct from "Telecommunications Carrier", specifically to provide the clarity requested. The Ordinance definitions do recognize that a" cable operator" may choose to branch into the telecommunications field and become a "telecommunications carrier", or vice-versa. The Ordinance recognizes therefore that J~edera[ law differs with respect to telecommunications carriers and cable operators, in.fact, requiring separate.franchises. Sta. f. f Recommendation: No revision recommended. Section 13.60.070 Application to Existin~ Franchises Comment: Delete Paragraph "c" due to inconsistency with existing franchise Staff Comment: ,,Is stated in the ,~pri127, ]99 Public Testimonies, Ms. Nancy Ervin, Summit Communications confirmed that the transJ'er of ownership from Summit Communications to Millennium Digital Media' is complete. The Section clearly identifies that "Except as other~ise provided in this Ordinance, and to the extent provided by law .... "l~e believe the specific paragraph (c) is not intended to constitute a breach o. fan existing;~ranchise agreement, be in conflict with the Federal Cable ,tcts, or contravene the Contracts Clause o~f the Constitution. Sta. f. f Recommendation: No revision recommended. Chapter 13.76 Cable Franchise Comment: Clarify that only Chapter 13.76 is applicable to cable television service Sta. f.f Comment: ,,t careful reading o. f the Ordinance is required due to the complexity o. f the issues surrounding statuto~ requirements at.federal level regarding cable services. There is no limit in additional eJ'.forts to clarid~; but sta. f. f is attempting to balance concise language, legal precedent, and clarity for the lay reader. Sta.f.fRecommendation: ,~dditional language such as "as defined under Federal Law, and as separate and distinct from telecommunications licenses and cable television franchises" could be added in Chapter 13.72 Franchises under Section 13.72.0]0 Franchise, and in Chapter ]3.68 £icenses under Section 13.68. 010 £icense. Ordinance in General Comment: Exact £ees and costs and other compensation are not identified. Sta. f.f Comment: Costs are identified in.franchise agreement.. There is a one time application.fee o.f$$ 7. O0 to Open the Rights-o.f-way, and a one-time application j~ee $38.00 to kgork in the Rights-of-way. Franchise ,'tpplication Fee is $]60.00. ,~ Franchise Re-,~pplication Fee is $]60.00. The Board in a public process adopts this compensation schedule. Sta.f.f Recommendation: No revision recommended. Ms. Lisa Vernier/Representing AT&T Wireless and AT&T Section 13.13,76~240 Internet Accessibility Comment: Remove and delete from Ordinance; AT&T has no intention o£ preventing customers £rom using ISP o£ customer's choice' Sta. f.f Comment: This issue goes to the heart o, f the best way to spur development o. f high-speed ;[nternet access and the role o. f government in partnership with business. Cable television is and will continue to provide high speed ~rnternet access through its proprietar3; infrastructure. Currently, .for example, in the Seattle metropolitan area, customers are allowed to choose a competing Internet Service Provider other than the cable service's dedicated internet service, but subscribers must stil[ pa. ydeor the cable service's 7 proprietary internet service provider system to ensure no "disruption" to other cable services provided to subscribers. The Section begins by stating "~Vhen permitted by Federal and State law..." Staff believes this condition provides satisfactory protection for both parties. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended Mr. Ben Welch/Representing Townsend Communications Section 13.13,76,240 Internet Accessibility Comment: Supports open and reasonably priced access to cable television systems by Internet Service Providers, if supported by the FCC and other state and federal laws, as a way to ensure diverse services to the public. Staff Comment: Please refer to Staff Comment on L. Vernier's testimony directly above WIRELESS SERVICES ORDINANCE · Malcolm Harris/Representing Summit Cablevision Section 18.42.020 Exemptions Comment: Summit Cable commented that cable television reception towers should be specifically exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Comment had been previously received from Puget Sound Energy that "facilities installed in conjunction with and support of Automated Meter Reading technology maintained by a government entity, public utility, or other franchised utility" should be exempt. Staff Comment: This section begins with the statement that "This chapter applies to the location, placement, construction and modification of licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facilities as defined in this chapter." Cable TV reception towers and Automated Meter Reading technology are not personal wireless service facilities. They are not subject to the ordinance. It is unnecessary and potentially confusing to list in the Exemptions section all of the various types of communications facilities that are not personal wireless service facilities. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Lisa Vernier/Representing AT&T Wireless Section 18.42.070 Colocation Procedure Comment: This section requires that at the time a pre-application conference .is scheduled for a new tower, the applicant shall demonstrate that a letter has been mailed to all other wireless providers licensed to provide service in the County informing them of the applicant's proposal and inquiring about the opportunities for colocation. AT&T Wireless commented that communication between providers at this stage of project development may be perceived as collusion constituting a violation of anti-trust laws. It was recommended that the process of colocation notification be moved to the time of permit application. Because permit applications are matters of public record, the issue of collusion would not arise. U.S. West Wireless stated that this section should state that no response from another provider should imply that no colocation opportunity exists. Staff Comment: The colocation procedure is intended to foster meaningful opportunities to reduce the impacts of wireless towers by reducing their number through colocation. In order to achieve this goal it is necessary to require early notice to other providers. This is best done prior to initiating the application process. After that point, land or [eases have been acquired, engineering and planning analysis has been undertaken, and tower plans are complete. There is less incentive and opportunity for co[ocation. Staff has discussed this issue with Mr. Phil Grillo, Miller Nash LLP, expert in wireless communication law serving as legal counsel to the Department in the development of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: The requirement to request information regarding colocation opportunities when scheduling a pre-application meeting should be retained. Regarding the lack of response to the colocation inquiry, the following statement could be added to the ordinance:. "If a response to the colocation notice is not received, this shall be j. nterpreted that there are no opportunities for colocation ". Section 18.42.090 Design Review Standards Subsection a. 4. Colocation Section Summary: More than three providers may co-locate on an existing tower or alternative support, provided that engineering data prepared by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington is submitted to the Building Official that certifies that additional antennas can be safely added to the tower. Comment: AT&T expressed concern that this section would require providers to design and construct towers to accommodate the antennas of other providers without providing compensation for the additional expense that this would entail. It was suggested that a second provider should be allowed to locate adjacent to the existing tower or, if the County requires colocation, the County should reimburse the provider for added expenses related to increased structural capacity. Staff Comment: This section does not require providers to construct towers with the structural capacity for colocating additional antennas. Rather this is intended to provide assurance through the building permit review that a tower or alternative support has the structural capacity for additional antennas, if more than three are proposed. Staff has discussed this issue with the Building Official He stated that a structural analysis by a licensed engineer would be required for approval of an application to colocate an additional antenna on an existing tower. Staff Recommendation: This requirement is already provided through the building permit review. Section 18. 42.090. a. 4 could be deleted without an adverse effect on public safety. Section 18.42.090 Design Review Standards Subsection a. 6. Fencing and Security Summary of Issue: Wireless facility towers and accessory equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum six feet high security fence. Comment: U.S. West Wireless stated that this requirement was not necessary for antennas placed on utility poles. Staff Comment: Staff concurs that .this would be unnecessary. It is not intended by the ordinance. The section refers to towers. They are defined in the ordinance as "a structure designed and constructed specifically to support an ~lntenna Array...Any device that is used to attach an antenna or antenna array to an existing support structure is excluded from the definition of and regulations applicable 'to towers. "An antenna mounted on a utility pole would not constitute a tower and would not require a security fence unless there was accessory equipment that was located on the ground. Staff Recommendation: No revision recommended. Paul Crane/W&H Pacific Representing US West Wireless Subsection b. Design Review Standards--Conditional Uses Summary of Issue: In addition to the Wireless Facility General Design Review Standards set forth above, wireless communication facilities subject to conditional use review shall comply with the following design review standards: 1. Protecting Points of Visual Interest: Views towards the following points of visual interest from residential structures located within 250 feet of a proposed wireless communication facility subject to conditional use review shall be protected from significant degradation to the greatest extent practicable: a) Mountains b) Marine Waters and Shorelines c) Public Parks and Significant Public Open Spaces d) Historic Structures The applicant for a conditional use wireless communication facility shall either demonstrate that the points of visual interest listed above will not be significantly degraded by the proposal or demonstrate that a significant wireless telecommunication service can only be provided by development of the proposed facility. Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest: The following standards may be used to protect the points of visual interest listed above: a) Use alternative facility designs and locations on the parcel to minimize the degradation of views from residences to the point of visual interest. b) Maintain existing trees and shrubs on the site and/or provide additional landscaping. c) Obtain leases or easements for the life of the proposal to protect trees and shrubs on adjoining properties that will screen the proposed facility or to allow the planting of additional trees and shrubs. 3. In the event that it is not practicable to protect the visual points of interest listed above from significant degradation, the applicant for a conditional use wireless communications facility shall minimize the visual effect to the greatest extent practicable and shall also demonstrate through appropriate analysis that: a) There are not other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less. b) Colocation or attachment on an alternative stTucture within the service area is not feasible. c) Development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area is not feasible. In the event that it is not practicable to protect the visual points of interest listed above from significant degradation, the applicant for a conditional use wireless communications facility shall minimize the visual effect to the greatest extent practicable and shall also demonstrate through appropriate analysis that: There are not other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less. Colocation or attachment on an alternative structure within the service area is not feasible. Development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area is not feasible. Comment: U.S. West Wireless stated that this section is vague and arbitrary. The term "significant open space" was cited as an example. In order to have greater predictability and consistency this section needs to be based on a formula. There was also objection to requiring a lease to protect vegetation on adjacent property. Staff Comment This section addresses the most difficult aspect of regulating wireless facilities: balancing the needs of wireless providers to site large towers against the Federally recognized authority of local government to exercise zoning authority over the placement of wireless facilities. The types of concerns addressed by this section are often complex and controversial. It is very difficult to address these concerns through the application of a formula or by referring to lists of specific view amenities. 10 That is why these uses are proposed to be subdect to conditional use review in residential and commercial areas. Conditional use review requires the decision-maker to exercise discretion in applying design review standards, but that discretion must be supported by a record that is established at a public hearing and is subject to appeal at a closed record hearing. Reliance upon the public hearing process is preferable to reliance on a rigid formula. Finally, it should be noted that obtaining a lease or easement to protect screening vegetation on adjacent property is only one of three standards that may be used to protect points of visual interest. This is a legitimate requirement in cases where visual impacts are mitigated by screening vegetation that is not under the control of the applicant. Staff Recommendation: Revision is not recommended. Cc: FG:kp Juelie Dalzell, Prosecuting Attorney Shirley Waters, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 11 Jefferson County Planning Commission COU RTHOUEIE: PORT TOWNC~£ND, WA~HINOTON April 14, 1999 Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners: It is our pleasure to submit for your consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation for the Jefferson Coun~ Wireless Services Facilities Ordinance. The Planning Commission met in workshop sessions on March 3 and 17, 1999 with Department of Public Works staffto discuss the draft ordinance that been prepared with guidance from the County's Telecommunications Technical Steering Committee. Consultants and interested parties knowledgeable in the personal wireless services industry and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 also participated in the workshops. The Commission held a public hearing on March 17 to take public testimony on the draft ordinance. The Commission held another workshop session on April 7, 1999 to discuss the public testimony and to make revisions to the draft ordinance. The Commission is confident that the Wireless Services Facilities Ordinance that we are recommending to you is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. We believe that it will fulfill the goals of ensuring that the community is adequately served by personal wireless service facilities, while also providing for the orderly development of the County and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the County's residents and property owners. Sincerely, Janet Welch, Vice Chair Jefferson County Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the matter of x A Wireless Services Facilities Ordinance Regulating x The Location, Placement and Design of Such Facilities x ORDINANCE NO. WHEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 31- 136, hereinafter the Telecommunications Act) provides that local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of personal wireless service facilities and may not establish regulations which prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provisions of wireless communications services, and allows the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") to preempt any such regulations; and. WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act preserves local zoning authority over decisions regarding the placement, construction and modifications of personal wireless service facilities; and WHEREAS, recent changes in telecommunications technology have caused personal wireless service facilities to become a rapidly growing segment of the telecommunications industry; and WHEREAS, the current zoning code for Jefferson County was adopted before appropriate facilities development design standards were in place, and Jefferson County became concerned that uncontrolled location of personal wireless service facilities could have significant adverse effect and cause irreparable harm to Jefferson County; and WltEREAS, on July, 21, 1997, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners formed a Jeffersoh County Telecommunications Technical Advisory Committee which established four separate subcommittees one of which was the Strategic Growth Management Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Management Subcommittee transmitted draft information and draft ordinances to industry representatives, held a public meeting on April 2, 1999, and developed a comprehensive, draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission and Jefferson County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the responsible SEPA official has conducted SEPA review of the ordinance under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C and made a determination of non-significance and published notice of such in the official County newspaper on March 31, 1999, for which the comment period ended on April 15, 1999, and WHEREAS, Jefferson County solicited comments from six wireless companies that may serve the area, and WHEREAS, on March 17, 1999, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the ordinance; and WHEREAS, on Aril 27, 1999, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held a duly noticed public heating on the ordinance; and PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 WHEREAS, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act states that no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning such emissions; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations are designed to ensure that property is developed in a planned manner which protects the rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources of Jefferson County, preserves property values, and protects the health, safety and welfare of residents and visitors in Jefferson County; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners finds that personal wireless service facilities should be reasonably regulated to minimize potential adverse impacts to areas of Jefferson County, particularly residential and scenic areas, to preserve the character of Jefferson County, and to promote the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in adopting facilities development design standards, Jefferson County desires to minimize the number of visually obtrusive support structures and to encourage the colocation of facilities; and WHEREAS, while County residents benefit from the convenience of personal wireless service facilities for home and business use as well as from their use in emergency services communications, such facilities have the ability to detract from the rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources of the County; to cause conflicts between residential property owners regarding placement of such facilities on neighboring property; and to detract from existing patterns of development; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners finds that a design review approach, which encourages and provides incentives for locating personal wireless service facilities in certain areas and/or situations within the County by requiring a less rigorous permit process than is required for other locations, and is coupled with appropriate visual, screening and noise standards, is a rational and sensible way of regulating the placement of such facilities, and serves both the needs of the industry and aesthetic and safety concerns of the County; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Management Subcommittee after reviewing ordinances from other Washington Counties, cities and meeting with industry representatives and industry consultants, determined that specific areas of the County are most conducive to the locating of such facilities due to their high elevation, compatibility with the surrounding development, commercial or industrial nature and/or tower colocation capacities, and will be identified as locations where the siting of facilities would be subject to Uses Permitted Outright, Uses Permitted Subject to Type A Design Review, and Uses Permitted Subject to Conditional Use Review; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County finds that the adoption of a development review process which provides clear development standards will result in an efficient and effective development review process for obtaining land use permits associated with the development of personal wireless service facilities within the County; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County has concluded that personal wireless service facilities containing noise- generating equipment, including, but not limited to, mechanical cooling and/or air conditioning equipment, PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 should be regulated through performance standards as contained in Chapter 173-60, Washington Administrative Code, which are designed to reduce environmental noise impacts; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the County, its residents and personal wireless service providers that flexibility exist within the regulations to allow the implementation of the County's policies and regulations; and WHEREAS, The Jefferson County Telecommunications Technical Steering Committee, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners have undertaken a deliberative process to establish policy, standards and procedures related to development design standards which encourage and support personal wireless service facilities, NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF .JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Jefferson County Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Jefferson County Code as CS'rapI~'~_~ ~ ~ as set forth below: WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION, PLACEMENT AND DESIGN OF SUCH FACILITIES ~~R ] ¢,q~LpERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES Section 18.42.010 Section 18.42.020 Section 18.42.030 Section 18.42.040 Section 18.42.050 Section 18.42.060 Section 18.42.070 Section 18.42.080 Section 18.42.090 Section 18.42.100 Section 18.42.110 Section 18.42.120 Section 18.42.130 Section 18.42.140 Section 18.42.150 Section 18.42.160 Purpose, policy, goals and interpretation Scope and applicability - Exemptions Definitions Application submittal and content Compliance with other regulations Colocation Policy Colocation Procedure Wireless Communications Facilities- Types of Uses Design Review Standards Time limitation - Assignment/Sublease Grandfathering of existing facilities Variances Recovery of County costs Abandonment of facilities Enforcement and penalties .Severability PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Section 18.42.010 Purpose, Policy, Goals, and Interpretation ao Purpose. This chapter is designed to provide opportunities for the community to be served by personal wireless service facilities, consistent with the rights of personal wireless service providers as set forth in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 State 56, 31-136, codified at 47 U.S.C. 332(c)), hereinafter referred to as "the Telecommunications Act" or "the Act", while at the same time providing for an orderly development of the County and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the County's residents and property owners. bo Intent and Interpretation. These standards are designed to comply with the Act. The provisions of this chapter shall not be interpreted to prohibit, or to have the effect of prohibiting, telecommunications or personal wireless services, television broadcast signals, multichannel multi-point distribution services or direct broadcast satellite services, or to unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Inconsistencies with Other County Regulations. To the extent that any provision of this chapter directly conflicts with any other County ordinance, this chapter shall control. In all other regards, this chapter shall be construed consistently with all other County ordinances, regulations and functional plans. d. Goals. The goals of this chapter shall be to: Establish development regulations consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehbnsive Plan, as adopted August 28, 1998 or later amended; Establish personal wireless service facilities development design standards which protect the rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources of Jefferson County from adverse environmental, noise, and visual impacts; Provide clear and objective approval criteria for locating personal wireless service facilities including structural safety requirements; Facilitate efficient development review of applications for personal wireless service facilities and infrastructure which serve the needs of County citizens and visitors, and promote the goal of universal service; Where technologically and structurally feasible, encourage and facilitate colocation of antennas, support structures and related equipment for wireless communication providers, public service telecommunications, and emergency service telecommunications; 5. Require prompt removal of abandoned facilities; and Encourage the development of personal wireless service facilitieS on a competitively neutral basis. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Section 18.42.020 Scope and Applicability -- Exemptions Scope. This chapter applies to the location, placement, construction and modification of licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facilities as defined in this chapter. In addition to any other required permits, all proposals to locate, place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the appropriate design review standards set forth in this chapter. bo Exemptions. The following personal wireless service facilities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: Governmental wireless communication facilities used for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness and public health or safety purposes; ° Two-way communication transmitters used by fire, police, and emergency aid or ambulance services; Citizen band radio transmitters and antennas or antennas operated by federally licensed amateur ("ham") radio operators; Emergency or routine repairs, reconstruction, or routine maintenance of previously approved facilities, or replacement of transmitters, antennas, or other components of previously approved facilities which do not create a change in visual impact; Military and civilian radars and marine vessel traffic communication facilities, operating within FCC regulated frequency ranges, for the purpose of defense, marine or aircraft safety; Temporary personal wireless service facilities, provided that the County is notified in advance of the need for such facilities and the duration of their use; 7. Existing facilities, subject to the requirements of Section 18.42.100 of this chapter; anc[ Section 18.42.030 Definitions General. The words used in this chapter shall have the meaning given in this section. The definition section of Title 18, Chapter 18.15 JCC, as now or later amended, shall also apply. The definition of any word or phrase not listed in this section or in Chapter 18.15 which is in question when administering this chapter shall be defined fi.om one of the following sources. The sources shall be utilized by finding the desired definition from source number one, but if it is not available there, then source number two may be used and so on. The sources are as follows: 1. The 1996 Telecommunications Act and the implementing FCC regulations; PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Any Jefferson County resolution, ordinance, code, regulation or formally adopted comprehensive plan, shoreline master plan or program or other formally adopted land use plan; 3. Any statute or regulation of the state of Washington; 4. Legal definitions from Washington common law or a law dictionary; 5. The common dictionary. Specific Definitions. Alternative structure means any building, roof, water tank, flagpole,, steeple, utility pole or other type of structure to which any type of antenna or antenna array and associated equipment are affixed. Any device which is used to attach a antenna or antenna an'ay to an alternative structure is excluded from the definition of and regulations applicable to alternative structures. Antenna means a device commonly in the form of a metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting or receiving electromagnetic radiation. An antenna is typically mounted on a support structure, such as a tower, pole, mast, or building. Antenna array means one or more devices, whips, panels, dishes, rods or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals, microwave or other signals for telecommunications purposes. One or more such devices affixed or attached to a support structure or to an alternative support structure are included in the definition of antenna array. Attached Wireless Communication Facili _ty. A wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall or roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water tank, utility pole, or light pole, that does not include a new tower. Camouflaged is the use of shape, color and texture to cause an object to appear to become a part of something else, usually a structure such as a building, wall, flagpole, street pole, or roof. Camouflage does not mean "invisible", but rather "appearing as part of or exactly like the structure used as a mount." Colocation means the placement of two or more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC license holders on a support structure or altemative support structure. Concealed means fully hidden when viewed from ground level, adjacent rights-of way, adjacent properties or viewscapes. For example, a personal wireless service facility is concealed when it is integrated with, or contained within, a structure such as a building, wall or roof that is not a telecommunications facility. PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Director means the director of the Jefferson County Department of Community Development or his or her designee. Equipment enclosure is a structure, shelter, cabinet, box or vault designed for and used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary and/or desirable for processing wireless communication signals and data, including any provisions for mechanical cooling equipment, air conditioning, ventilation, or back-up power supplies or emergency generators. FCC refers to the Federal Communications Commission. Guyed tower is a monopole or lattice tower that is stiffened or anchored to the ground or other surface by cables. Height is the vertical distance measured from the lowest pre-existing ground level within the footprint of the facility to the highest point on the facility, not including the antenna array. Lattice tower is a framework composed of cables, straps, bars, or braces, forming a tower that may have three, four or more sides. Licensed carrier means any person, firm, or entity licensed by the FCC to provide personal wireless services and which is in the business of providing the same. Microcell means a wireless communication facility meeting the following definition set forth in WAC 197-11-800 (27) SEPA Rules: Consisting of an antenna that is either no more than four feet in height and with an area of not more than five hundred eighty square inches or, if a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet in length. Monopole is a vertical self-supporting structure consisting of a single vertical pole that is typically round or flat-sided. The term "monopole" also includes the attached panel, parabolic or whip antenna or antenna array. Mount means any mounting device or bracket that is used to attach an antenna or antenna array to a support structure or alternative structure. Temporary_ personal wireless service facility is a non-permanent personal wireless facility installed for a limited period of time, does not have a permanent foundation, and is placed in use for the purpose of evaluating the technical feasibility of a particular site for placement of a personal wireless facility or for providing emergency communications during a natural disaster or other emergencies which may threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Examples include, but are not limited to, placement of an antenna upon a fully extended bucket truck, crane, or other device capable of reaching the height necessary to evaluate the site for placement of a personal wireless facility. PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 19. Tower as used in this chapter is a structure designed and constructed specifically to support an Antenna Array, and may include a monopole, self-supporting (lattice) tower, guy-wire support tower and other similar structures. Any device that is used to attach an antenna or antenna array to an existing support structure is excluded from the definition of and regulations applicable to towers. 20. Wireless Communication Facility. A WCF is a non-staffed facility for the transmission and/or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of an Antenna Array, equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed structure containing electronic equipment, a support or alternative support structure, antennas or other transmission and reception devices. 21. Wireless Communications shall mean any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which includes FCC licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. Section 18.42.040 Application Submittal and Content ao Submittal Requirements. In order to be considered a complete application, all applications for a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the general application requirements of Section JCC, plus the following additional requirements: Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant and all co-applicants as well as any representative for the applicant or co-applicants. The wireless communication service provider shall be the applicant or co-applicant. The applicant shall demonstrate that it is an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider or that it has agreements with an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the antenna or tower. b) Co-applicants shall include the record landowner of the subject property, or lease, easement or property license holders, and any utility providers owning utility poles upon which facilities are proposed to be located. The name and telephone number of a person responsible for the facility, capable of responding immediately. 3. A recorded survey of the subject parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 A County-wide map showing the location of the proposed facility and the location of any existing facilities of the applicant within the County. The map shall identify the location of all towers and alternative structures by latitude and longitude and be provided in a computer data format that is compatible with the Jefferson County IDMS system. A vicinity map depicting the area immediately around the proposed site, showing the comprehensive plan land use designation, the zoning designation, and the property lines of the subject property and of all immediately adjacent properties as depicted on the current Jefferson County Assessor's maps. A list of tax parcels and their owners prepared by a title company for all properties for which public notice is required pursuant to this chapter. A site plan depicting the proposed and existing improvements on the property. The site plan shall include a plan view and elevations, and contain the following information, as applicable: dimensions and shape of lot; dimensions and location of existing and proposed buildings and structures, including setbacks, and a notation of their purpose (e.g., residential buildings, garages, accessory structures, etc.); adjacent street names and all proposed points of access and parking layout; preliminary grading plan depicting proposed and existing grades; storm drainage; elevations for all proposed improvements on the site; utilities; easements and deed restrictions; and any other built or natural features restricting use of the property. Additional information regarding the surrounding topography, tree coverage and foliage may be required as necessary to review applications subject to Type A review by the Community Development Director ~d Type B review by the Heating Examiner. o A written description of the proposed facility and the building or structure upon which it is proposed to be located, including the technical reasons for the design and configuration of the facility, as well as design information and dimensional information (e.g., equipment brochures, color and material boards, etc.). Information necessary to determine the intended service area of the facility which may include a map of the intended service area. 10. For applications that propose construction of new wireless communications towers in rural residential or commercial crossroads districts or agricultural lands, photographic views from significant points in the "viewshed" showing the existing appearance and photo simulations depicting the appearance after the proposed facility is installed. 11. A landscape plan consistent with Section 18.42.090 Design Review Standards. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 12. For all applications that require conditional use review, a written analysis by the applicant, including appropriate analysis by a qualified telecommunications engineer, describing the proposed location within the geographic service area; the good faith efforts and measures taken to secure a location where the facility would be permitted outright; how and why such efforts were unsuccessful; and, how and why the proposed site is essential to meet service demands for the geographic service area. 13. For all applications for new towers that do not propose colocation of facilities, the applicant shall comply with the Colocation Protocol as set forth in Section 18.42.070 of this chapter. bo Cost of Submittals. All application requirements shall be at the applicant's own expense. All applications shall be accompanied by a non-refundable application fee as further set forth in Chapter __ JCC. Section 18.42.050 Compliance with Other Regulations ao Compliance with other Regulations. All construction of personal wireless service facilities shall also be subject to the requirements of the County's building code, JCC, and all codes adopted by reference in chapter ., including but not limited to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the Electrical Code (NEC), the requirements of the National Electronics Industries Association / Telecommunications Industries Association (EIA/TIA) 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures" and any additional applicable standards published by the Electronics Industri6s Association, the Uniform Fire Code and the right-of-way requirements of JCC, including the Engineering Design Standards. Emergency Response System. All personal wireless facilities service providers shall be integrated into the local emergency response system. Co Right-of-Way Facilities. All facilities located in any developed or undeveloped street or right- of-way shall be governed by Master Telecommunications Ordinance, Chapter JCC. Section 18.42.060 Colocation Policy ao The number of wireless communication towers shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible through colocation of wireless communications facilities and attachment of wireless communications antennas to existing alternative structures. Installation of Accessory Equipment Shelters. Any provider who is authorized to colocate on an existing tower or alternative structure as provided above shall also be authorized to install any necessary accessory equipment shelter and related equipment at or near the base of the tower or alternative structure or within the structure, provided that the equipment shelter and related equipment comply with the development standards (i.e. setbacks, height limitations, bulk, landscaping and screening, etc.) of the applicable zone as set forth in the JCC Chapter and the wireless facility design standards as set forth in Section 18.42.090 of this ordinance. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Co Preserving Landscaping and Buffering. To the greatest extent practicable landscaping that was required as a condition of approval of a wireless communication facility should not be removed in order to construct an accessory building or equipment for an additional colocated facility. If any such landscaping is removed, the applicant shall be required to replace it with the equivalent quantity and type of landscaping in a manner to achieve the original intent. Section 18.42.070 Colocation Procedure Colocation of antennas by providers is not always feasible for technical or business reasons. However, if all licensed providers are made aware of any pending tower or antenna permit applications, providers will be able to investigate all reasonable accommodations and maximize opportunities for colocation. This section establishes a processthat will enable providers to equitably share publicly available, nonproprietary information among themselves, with interested persons and agencies, and with Jefferson County at the time the provider schedules a pre-application conference. a° Pre-Application Requirement. A pre-application conference is required for all proposed new towers. Request Letter Requirement. At the time a pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed to all other wireless providers licensed to provide service within Jefferson County' "Pursuant to the requirements of the Jefferson Cotmty Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, Chapter , JCC, (wireless provider legal name here) is hereby providing you with notice of our intent to meet with the Jefferson County Department of Community Development for a pre-application conference to discuss ' our proposal to construct a wireless communication facility tower at (general location and section, township and range). We propose to construct a __ feet high tower for the purpose of providing (cellular, PCS, etc.) service. Please inform us whether you have any existing or pending wireless facilities located within (distance in feet) of the proposed facility, that may be available for colocation oppommities. Please provide us with this information within 10 business days after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, (pre-application applicant, wireless provider)." Co To Analyze the Feasibility of Colocation. If a response to a colocation request letter is received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for colocation, the applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the feasibility ofcolocation. This analysis shall be submitted with an application for any new tower. A good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of colocation shall be deemed to have occurred if the applicant submits all of the following information: A statement from a qualified engineer indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by colocation at the potential colocation site; 11 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 2. Evidence that the lessor of the potential colocation site either agrees or disagrees to colocation on their property; 3. Evidence that adequate site area exists or does not exist at the potential colocation site to accommodate needed equipment and meet all of the site development standards; 4. Evidence that adequate access does or does not exist at the potential colocation site 5. Non-proprietary technical information to evaluate the feasibility of colocation. This covenant of good faith and fair dealing shall be a condition of any permit for a new wireless facility tower issued under this chapter. In the event that a dispute arises as to whether a provider has exercised good faith in accommodating other providers, the County may require a third-party technical study at the expense of either or both of such providers. Section 18.42.080 Wireless Communications Facilities--Types of Uses Certain areas of the County are more appropriate than others for the location of wireless communication facilities because of the existing development in the area or on a site, the types of buildings already existing at the location, the existence of similar or compatible facilities at the particular location, the commercial or industrial zoning designation of the area, and/or the suitability of the particular location based on the technical requirements of the wireless telecommunications services industry. Locating facilities in such areas can reduce adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities and enhance the health, safety and welfare of County residents. The type of wireless communication facility and its size may also result in differing impacts. Wireless facilities that require construction of new towers may have greater impacts than facilities that colocate antennas on existing towers or altemative structures. Wireless facilities that are mounted on new towers that are greater than 60 feet in height may have greater impacts than facilities that are mounted on support structures 60 feet or less in height. The appropriate type of review for wireless communications facilities applications shall therefore be based on the zoning district of the proposed site and the nature and size of the proposed facility as set forth below. Uses Permitted Outright. The following wireless communications facilities shall be permitted outright, subject to the appropriate Wireless Communications Facility Design Review Standards set forth in Section 18.42.090: Attached or colocated wireless communications facilities on existing structures in all commercial and industrial districts and designated forest lands. Attached or colocated wireless communications facilities on existing structures in all residential districts that are microcells as defined in WAC 197-11-800 (27) SEPA Rules, provided they are not attached to a school or residence. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Wireless communications facilities with new towers less than 60 feet in height in all industrial districts, except Resource-Based Industrial Zones, and designated forest lands. bo Uses Subject To Type A Land Use Review. The Director shall review the following uses as a Type A Land Use Application, subject to the appropriate Wireless Communications Facility Design Review Standards set forth in Section 18.42.090: Attached or colocated wireless communications facilities on existing structures in all residential districts that are not microcells as defined in WAC 197-11-800 (27) SEPA Rules or that are microcells attached to a school or' residence. New wireless facility towers less than 60 feet in height in all residential and commercial districts and Resource-Based Industrial Zones. New wireless facility towers 60 feet or more in height in all industrial districts, except Resource-Based Industrial Zones, and designated forest lands. Co Uses Subject To Type B Land Use Application Review as conditional uses. The Hearing Examiner shall review the following uses as a Type B Application, subject to the appropriate Wireless Communications Facility Design Review Standards set forth in Section 18.42.090: New wireless facility towers 60 feet or more in height in all residential and commercial districts and Resource-Based Industrial Zones. 2. All wireless communications facilities in designated agricultural lands. Section 18.42.090 Design Review Standards The design review standards set forth in this section are intended to ameliorate potential visual, aesthetic, and safety concerns while facilitating growth of an industry that is important to the County's economic health and whose services are demanded and required by an increasing number of the County's residents, businesses, workers, and visitors. When reviewing an application for proposed wireless communications facility, including accessory equipment shelters and enclosures and security fencing, the County shall apply the following design standards. The County shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny applications based upon compliance with the following standards. ao Wireless Facility Design Review Standards--General 1. Wireless communications facilities including attached or colocated antennas, towers, and equipment enclosures shall be painted a non-reflective color that blends with the surroundings. Appropriate colors may include earth tones and muted grays, blues, and greens in broken patterns. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Tower Spacing. New wireless facility towers shall not be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing tower, unless the applicant demonstrates through the Colocation Procedure set forth in Section 18.42.070 that colocation on the existing tower is not feasible. Such demonstration shall include but not be limited to a structural analysis of the existing tower provided by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington. 3. Tower lighting shall not be allowed except as required by the FAA. Colocation. More than three providers may co-locate on an existing tower or alternative support, provided that engineering data prepared by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Washington is submitted to the Building Official that certifies that additional antennas can be safely added to the tower. Setbacks. For all new towers that are 60 feet or less in height, the standard setbacks of the underlying zone shall apply. For all new towers that are greater than 60 feet in height, the standard setbacks of the applicable zone shall be increased by one foot for every one foot of additional height above 60 feet, provided that this requirement may be waived by the Director or Hearing Examiner, as appropriate, based on a finding that lesser setbacks and/or the use of additional screening are adequate to ameliorate aesthetic and visual impacts. All equipment shelters shall comply with setbacks of the applicable zone. Fencing and Security. Wireless facility towers and accessory equipment shall be enclosed by a minimum six feet high security fence. 7. Equipment Enclosures. a) Ground mounted equipment enclosures shall be the smallest size practicable. b) Equipment enclosures mounted on alternative structures shall not extend more than 6 feet above the height of adjacent portions of the structure that screen the equipment enclosure. If mounted on buildings, equipment enclosures shall be placed within the interior of buildings, whenever technically feasible. If located on the roof of a building, equipment enclosures shall either be concealed or camouflaged with a design that is architecturally compatible with the building. Noise generated by a wireless facility shall not exceed the maximum environmental noise levels set forth in Chapter 173-60, Washington Administrative Code, as it is now in effect or hereafter amended. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. Landscaping and Screening A landscaping plan shall be submitted with all applications for towers and equipment enclosures in commercial and residential districts and in agricultural lands. Landscaping shall be placed outside the security fence and shall consist of fast growing vegetation with a minimum planted height of six feet, placed so as to form a solid hedge within two years of planting. b) Existing vegetation that conceals or screens a proposed facility from view (including antennas, towers, and equipment enclosures) shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the operation of the facility. If existing .vegetation is not adequate to screen the facility, additional vegetation shall be planted in order to adequately screen the facility. For all screening, the use of trees .with significant height and fullness upon maturity shall be required. c) If it is not possible to achieve adequate screening by preserving vegetation on the site, the wireless facility provider shall lease or secure an easement for additional land to preserve existing significant vegetation or to allow the planting of additional vegetation. Camouflage, and Concealment. Wireless communications facilities shall blend with and not disturb the visual character of their settings to the greatest extent practicable. Security lighting for equipment enclosures shall be minimized. It shall be orienteff downward and shielded so that the light falls only within the boundaries of the property and shall be triggered only by a motion sensor. Signs and Symbols: Signs, symbols, flags, banners or other devices shall not be attached to or painted or inscribed upon any tower or antenna, provided that the flags of the United States and the State of Washington may be flown from towers and antennas disguised as flag poles. A telephone number and person to call for information or in the event of an emergency shall be posted at the site. Security and maintenance. The provider and co-applicants shall protect the facility fi:om unauthorized access consistent with the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. The provider and co-applicants shall maintain the facility in a good and safe condition and preserve its original appearance and concealment or camouflage elements incorporated into the design at the time of approval. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, such items as painting, structural repair, repair of equipment and maintenance of landscaping. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 14. Antenna Mounting Roof mounted antennas and/or antenna arrays located on alternative structures shall be concealed when viewed from ground level adjacent to the structure unless this is not technically feasible, in which case the antennas or antenna arrays shall be camouflaged to the extent practicable. b) Side mounted antennas shall be mounted flush on the exterior wall of the building and not project above the wall on which it is mounted. If this is not technically possible, such antennas shall either be concealed or camouflaged into the building design to the extent practicable. Wireless Facility Design Review Standards--Conditional Uses In addition to the Wireless Facility General Design Review Standards set forth above, wireless communication facilities subject to conditional use review shall comply with the following design review standards: Protecting Points of Visual Interest: Views towards the following points of visual interest from residential structures located within 250 feet of a proposed wireless communication facility subject to conditional use review shall be protected from significant degradation to the greatest extent practicable: a) Mountains b) Marine Waters and Shorelines c) Public Parks and Significant Public Open Spaces d) Historic Structures The applicant for a conditional use wireless communication facility shall either demonstrate that the points of visual interest listed above will not be significantly degraded by the proposal or demonstrate that a significant wireless telecommunication service can only be provided by development of the proposed facility. Methods for Protecting Points of Visual Interest: The following standards may be used to protect the points of visual interest listed above: a) Use alternative facility designs and locations on the parcel to minimize the degradation of views from residences to the point of visual interest. b) Maintain existing trees and shrubs on the site and/or provide additional landscaping. c) Obtain leases or easements for the life of the proposal to protect trees and shrubs on adjoining properties that will screen the proposed facility or to allow the planting of additional trees and shrubs. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 o In the event that it is not practicable to protect the visual points of interest listed above from significant degradation, the applicant for a conditional use wireless communications facility shall minimize the visual effect to the greatest extent practicable and shall also demonstrate through appropriate analysis that: a) There are not other locations within the same parcel where the visual effects would be less. b) Colocation or attachment on an alternative structure within the service area is not feasible. c) Development on an alternative site with decreased visual effects within the service area is not feasible. Section 18.42.100 Time Limitation - Assignment/Sublease Time Limitation. A land use permit for a wireless facility shall automatically expire and become void if the applicant fails to obtain a building permit within one year of the effective date of the permit. The Director may extend the permit for a period of one year, provided that the applicant files a written request for extension not less than 60 days prior to the expiration that specifies good cause for the extension. Permit Transferable - Assignment/Sublease of Permitted Sites. If a provider transfers, assigns, or subleases a wireless communication facility, a copy of the land use agreement and FCC license shall be submitted in writing to the Director, as well as the name and telephone number of a person responsible for the facility, capable of responding immediately. Section 18.42.110 Grandfathering of existing facilities All facilities existing on [Insert - the date ofpassage of this chapter] shall be allowed to continue as they presently exist and will be considered non- conforming uses where they do not conform to this chapter. Routine maintenance shall be allowed; however, any physical change or alteration to the appearance, size or operation of the facility shall be subject to the appropriate review requirements of this chapter. Section 18.42.120 Variances Any applicant may request a variance from the requirements established by this chapter. Such request shall be processed according to the procedures and criteria for variances in the Jefferson County Zoning Code, Section ., JCC. In granting any variance the Hearing Examiner shall also find that: (1) there are no significant aesthetic or safety effects on adjoining properties as a result of the proposed variance; and (2) in the case of a historic building or structure, the variance will provide for effective concealment or camouflaging of the facility. Section 18.42.130 Recovery of County_ costs Each permit granted pursuant to this chapter is conditioned on the requirement that the permittee reimburse the County for all direct and indirect expenses reasonably incurred related to the application review or to the modification, amendment, or transfer of the permit. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 Section 18.42.140 Abandoned facilities ao Abandoned facilities. A wireless communication facility which has been unused for a period of 180 consecutive days is hereby declared abandoned. Abandoned facilities shall be removed by the property owner within 180 days from date of abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned facility shall be considered a public nuisance subject to penalties. Upon written application, prior to the expiration of the 180 day period, the Director shall in writing grant a 180 day extension for reuse of the facility. Additional extensions beyond the first 180 day extension may be granted by the Director, subject to any conditions required to bring the project or facility into compliance with current law(s) and make it compatible with surrounding development. bo Costs. If an abandoned facility is not removed within 180 days or a longer period of time determined in writing by the Director, the County shall have the authority to enter the property and remove the facilities. All reasonable and documented costs of such removal shall be charged to the provider and/or landowner of record. Section 18.42.150 Enforcement and penalties chapter shall be subject to Chapter of the JCC. (Ord. __, 1999; Ord. ) Enforcement and penalties for violations of this Section 18.42.160 Severability If any clause, sentence, paragraph, Section or part of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of corhpetent jurisdiction, such order or judgment shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remainder of any part of this ordinance. To this end, the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, Section or part of this law are declared severable. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT WIRELESS ORDINANCE, April 14, 1999 SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days following adoption by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on ,1999. PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,1999. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Dan Harpole, Chairman Glen Huntingford, Member SEAL ATTEST: Richard Wojt, Member Approved as to form only this __ day of ., 1999. Clerk of the Board Prosecuting Attorney END OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, April 14, 1999. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT, April 14, 1999 Jefferson County Draft Use Table Changes for Wireless Communication Facilities District CC NVC GC BVC/VCC LC LI HI R-5 R-10 R-20 Use Conven N'brhd Genl. Rural Light Light Mill Res-5 Res- Res - ience Visitor Com. Village Industrial Indust Heavy acres 10 20 Cross Cross Cross Cntr / Vill / Assoctd. Indust. acres acres roads roads Roads Comm. Comm. Cntr. Wireless Communication ~] ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/(A)* q(A)* q(A)* Facilities - Attached or colocated Wireless Communication x](A) X/(A) ~(A) X/ (A) ~/ ~ ~] ~(A) ~/(A) ~](A) Facilities - New towers, less than 60 feet in height. Wireless Communication C C C C ~(A) ~](A) ~(A) C C C Facilities - New towers, 60 feet or more in height Notes: '~ - Permitted outfight, subject to Building Permit and design standard review. x/(A) -Type A Land Use review. C - Conditional Use Review. *- Microcell antennas as defined in WAC 197-11-800(27) that are exempt from SEPA review shall be permitted outright.