HomeMy WebLinkAbout2680 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Development StandardsOrdinance No. 2680
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND CREATING A NEW
CHAPTER 17.78, PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, TO THE PORT TOWNSEND MUNICIPAL CODE, TO REGULATE
THE LOCATION, PLACEMENT AND DESIGN AND SUCH FACILITIES
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
1. 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
2. The Telecommunications Act preserves local zoning authority over decisions
regarding the placement, construction and modifications of personal wireless service facilities; and
3. Recent changes in telecommunications technology have caused personal wireless
service facilities to become a rapidly growing segment of the telecommunications industry; and
4. The current zoning code for the City was adopted before appropriate siting and
development standards were in place, and the City became concerned that uncontrolled location
of personal wireless service facilities could have significant adverse effect and cause irreparable
harm to the City; and
5. In order to review its codes and ordinances in a comprehensive fashion and to adopt
new regulations consistent with the Telecommunications Act, in April of 1998, by Ordinance 2638
the City imposed a six-month moratorium barring the acceptance of applications relating to
franchises, use of the public streets by either franchise or right-of-way use permits, building
permits and zoning code permits for antennas (conditional use permits) for wireless
'telecommunications services, until the necessary code revisions were complete; and
6. The City Council found that enactment of Ordinance 2638 constituted an
emergency, due to the rapidly changing telecommunications industry and the fact that the current
city code and regulations did not adequately address the potential environmental, scientific,
economic, infrastructure and aesthetic impacts associated with the type, number and siting of
wireless telecommunications facilities and equipment located and likely to be proposed for location
January 19, 1999
within the City of Port Townsend, and the fact that an unnecessary burden would be placed on the
wireless telecommunications industry if such companies attempt to process applications under a
structure that is ill-suited to review the technological issues involved in such applications; and
7. In April of 1998, the City formed a nine-person ad hoc committee (the "Wireless
Committee"), consisting of two City Council Members (one member from the Utilities Committee
and one member who acts as chair of the Land Use Committee), representatives from the Historic
Preservation Committee and the Planning Commission, three Port Townsend citizens (including
two engineers and an Internet specialist), a City Planner and the Assistant City Attorney; and
8. The Wireless Committee held nine separate public meetings, including a lengthy
meeting with industry representatives from Western Wireless, Inc., and developed a
comprehensive, draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission and City Council; and
9. In October of 1998, the City Council extended the moratorium for an additional
six months to April 19, 1999, finding that although significant progress had been made on the
draft ordinance, additional time was still needed to complete Planning Commission and Council
review, and to hold the necessary public hearings on the ordinance, justifying the extension of the
moratorium; and
10. 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 nonsignificance
and published notice of such in the official city newspaper on November 10, 1998, for which the
comment and appeal period ended on November 25, 1998; and
11. The City solicited comments from six wireless companies that may serve the area,
and received and considered oral or written comments from Air Touch Cellular and Western
Wireless; and
12. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the ordinance; and
13. On January 19, 1999, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
ordinance; and
14. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act states that "[n]o 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 Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions"; and
January 19, 1999 2 Ord. 2680
15. Neither the text of the Telecommunications Act nor the legislative history indicates
to what extent localities are permitted to request that personal wireless service providers
demonstrate compliance with FCC RF guidelines. However, in its Second Memorandum Opinion
and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Released August 25, 1997), the FCC
recommended certain policies which, if followed, would likely result in a finding that the local
action was consistent with Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act. The City Council desires to
implement those recommended policies in this ordinance in the sections on demonstration of RF
compliance; and
16. The City's Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations are
designed to ensure that property is developed in a planned and thoughtful manner which protects
the scenic beauty and limits visual clutter within the City, preserves property values, and protects
the health, safety and welfare of residents in the community; and
17. Maintaining property values is vital to preserving the City's tax base and revenues,
and the unregulated siting of personal wireless service facilities may compromise the scenic beauty
and aesthetic character of the community, block significant viewscapes, blight historic buildings,
and reduce property values; and
18. The City Council finds that personal wireless service facilities should be reasonably
regulated to minimize potential adverse impacts to areas of the City, particularly residential and
historic areas, to preserve the character of the City, to preserve viewscapes, and to promote the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
19. The City Council finds that the overall goal of this ordinance should be to find the
proper balance between the best service possible at the least possible impact, and in doing so
recognizes that it may have to trade off the most penetrating coverage conceivable under current
technology with regulations that minimize visual and aesthetic impacts and still allow reasonably
good service to the majority of citizens, businesses and visitors; and
20. In adopting siting standards, the City Council desires to minimize the number of
visually obtrusive support structures by disallowing lattice or guyed towers and allowing
monopoles only at limited locations, and to encourage the co-location of facilities; and
21. While city 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 and natural
beauty of the city; to cause conflicts between residential property owners regarding placement of
such facilities on neighboring property; to detract from existing patterns of development; to cause
aesthetic and safety (meaning safety in relation to the structural integrity of facilities particularly
January 19, 1999 3 Ord. 2680
in the high winds common to Puget Sound) in residential neighborhoods; and, to generate
significant adverse noise impacts in existing residential areas; and
22. Since personal wireless service facilities are a commercial use, it is more
appropriate to encourage the location of such facilities in commercial rather than residential zoning
districts; and
23. The City Council therefore desires to restrict the placement of personal wireless
facilities in residential zoning districts or within 100 feet of residentially zoned property except
the water tower site; and
24. The Council finds that the siting of personal wireless service facilities in Parks and
Open Space Designations is incompatible with such zones due to the presence of parks,
environmentally sensitive areas, the general lack of utility or other infrastructure in such areas and
the existence of regional stormwater facilities and valuable open space buffers in such areas; and
25. The Council finds that a "preferred locations" approach, which encourages and
provides incentives for locating personal wireless service facilities in certain areas of the city by
requiting 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 community; and
26. The Wireless Committee, after reviewing ordinances from other cities and meeting
with industry representatives (including two engineers), determined that seven specific locations
or areas of the city are most conducive to the locating of such facilities due to their high elevation,
compatibility with the surrounding development, commercial or industrial nature and/°r site
capacity, and should be identified as preferred locations where the siting of facilities would be
subject to a Type II administrative permitting process; and
27. The City Council desires to implement the approach recommended by the Wireless
Committee, thereby providing incentives for location of personal wireless service facilities at
preferred locations and co-location of facilities, so as to preserve the existing visual and aesthetic
character and distinctive beauty of the city, which the Council finds is critical to Port Townsend's
economic health; and
28. The City Council finds that the adoption of a permit process which provides clear
development standards coupled with administrative review for preferred locations will result in
a fast and predictable process for obtaining land use permits associated with the development of
personal wireless service facilities within the City; and
January 19, 1999 4 Ord. 2680
29. Adopting a conditional use permit process for secondary locations is consistent with
other commercial development within the City and strikes a balance between the industry desire
to have multiple available locations with the community's right to have a public forum for
commenting on the proposed siting of personal wireless service facilities in the more sensitive
areas of the City; and
30. One of the preferred locations, referred to as "the water tower site" (a 5 acre site)
is not visible from most places in the city, is not on a skyline for most views, has already been
developed with large utility-oriented structures (the standpipe, reservoir and power station) and
is one of the highest yet non-obtrusive points in town, making it an ideally suited location for
placement of personal wireless service facilities and different from all other areas zoned park and
open space; and
31. The City Council finds that only the identified portion of the publicly-owned water
tower site is suitable for placement of wireless facilities, since the remainder of the site is
designated as a potential location for future reservoirs, a water treatment facility, city shops or
other utility purposes, and acts as a buffer to the wetlands to the southeast of the property, making
placement inappropriate; and
32. The City Council finds that it is'appropriate to limit the types of facilities allowed
in the CI-MU and CII-MIJ zones, because although such zones have a commercial component,
pursuant to Chapter 17.18, Mixed Use Zoning Districts, such zones are intended to provide for
a compatible mix of single-family, multi:family, residential uses and neighborhood commercial
businesses and services, with an emphasis on compatibility of surrounding land uses and sensitive
transitions between commercial and residential development, so that residential development is
required in the CI-MU zone, andis strongly encouraged in the CII-MU zone; and
33. The City Council finds that adoption of clear performance standards regulating the
visual and noise impacts of personal wireless service facilities will minimize the impacts that such
facilities have on the scenic beauty and aesthetic character of the city, will protect viewscapes, and
will protect property values; and
34. The City Council finds that the noise levels generated by some personal wireless
service facilities may cause nuisance-like impacts on surrounding land uses due to the duration,
'levels and type of noise generated by such facilities; and
35. The City Council has concluded that maintaining a community characterized by low
noise levels associated with development, including development of personal wireless service
facilities, is an important objective of the City; and
January 19, 1999 5 Ord. 2680
36. The City Council finds that personal wireless service facilities should be regulated
to assure that reasonable mitigating measures have been employed to protect the public health (as
limited herein), safety, and welfare of the citizens of Port Townsend; and
37. The City Council has concluded that personal wireless service facilities containing
noise-generating equipment, including, but not limited to, mechanical cooling and/or air
conditioning equipment, should be regulated through performance standards as contained in
Chapter 173-60, Washington Administrative Code, which are designed to reduce environmental
noise impacts; and
38. The City Council finds that limiting the number of structures within the City which
exceed the height limit of the underlying zone will preserve the character of the community,
preserve the views available within the community, and encourage development of a scale
compatible and proportionate to the scale of existing development; and
39. Under current technology, personal wireless service facilities must often exceed the
height limit of the underlying zoning district to function properly, so that in some areas of the
City, a deviation from the existing height limit is appropriate; and
40. Since Port Townsend is the home of many nationally and locally recognized historic
buildings, and is federally recognized in the National Registry of Historic Places, preservation of
historic buildings and structures is critical to its beauty and economic health; and
41. Although the City Council has decided not to prohibit the placement of personal
wireless service facilities on historic buildings and structures, the City Council finds that to
preserve and maintain such buildings and structures and the architectural integrity of the
commercial historic district, permits should be processed as conditional uses, subject to review
by the Historic Preservation Committee, and that concealment or camouflaging of personal
wireless service facilities should be required; and
42. It is in the best interest of the City, its residents and personal wireless service
providers that flexibility exist within the regulations to allow the implementation of the City's
policies and regulations; and
43. The City's Wireless Committee, Planning Commission and City Council have
undertaken a deliberative process to establish policy, standards and procedures related to the
location and siting of personal wireless service facilities,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Port Townsend does ordain as
follows:
January 19, 1999 6 Ord. 2680
SECTION 2. A new Chapter 17.78, Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code is hereby adopted and shall read as follows:
Chapter 17.78
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
17.78.010
17.78.020
17.78.030
17.78.040
17.78.050
17.78.060
17.78.070
17.78.080
17.78.090
17.78.100
17.78.110
17.78.120
17.78.130
17.78.140
17.78.150
17.78.160
17.78.170
17.78.180
Purpose, policy, goals and interpretation.
Scope and applicability - Exemptions.
Definitions.
Application submittal and content.
Compliance with other regulations- Response capabilities
Prohibited facilities and locations,
Overview of location preferences - Co-location.
Preferred locations table.
Secondary locations table.
Review process - Preferred locations - Secondary locations - Low powered
facilities- Variances.
Design criteria and standards for monopoles, macro-, mini- and micro-facilities
Wireless Permit - Approval criteria.
Additional Conditions - RF Monitoring, Noise Monitoring, Security and
Maintenance, Covenant of Good Faith Among Carriers.
Time limitation - Expiration of Permits - Amendment - Assignment/Sublease.
Grandfathering of existing facilities.
Recovery of city costs.
Abandonment of facilities.
Enforcement and penalties.
17.78.010 Purpose, policy, goals and interpretation,
A. 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 city and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the city's
residents and property owners.
B. Policy - Preservation of the Character of City. In addition to serving the general
purposes of the Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, a primary objective of
this chapter is to preserve the existing visual and aesthetic character of the city and its
neighborhoods, as well as to minimize noise impacts generated by personal wireless service
January 19, 1999 7 Ord. 2680
facilities. Preserving the visual and aesthetic character of the city includes the protection of
viewscapes, scenic resources, state and locally registered historic buildings and structures, and
the unique rural and natural characteristics of many areas of the city. The visual and aesthetic
character of the city is particularly critical in Port Townsend since the city derives much of its
economic health due to its distinctive beauty and status as a historic Victorian seaport,
federally recognized in the National Register of Historic Places. Preserving the character of
the city also includes limiting the intrusion of noise, visual and aesthetic impacts associated
with commercial uses into residential neighborhoods.
C. Intent and Interpretation. These standards are designed to comply with the
Telecommunications 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.
D. Inconsistencies with Other City Regulations. To the extent that any provision of this
chapter directly conflicts with any other city ordinance, this chapter shall control. In all other
regards, this chapter shall be construed consistently with all other city ordinances, regulations
and functional plans.
E. Goals. The goals of this chapter shall be to:
1. Establish development regulations consistent with and implementing the Port
Townsend Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in July of 1996 or later amended; 2. Provide locations for locating personal wireless service facilities;
3. Encourage the location of personal wireless service facilities at the preferred
locations identified in this chapter;
4. Facilitate the provision of personal wireless Service facilities and infrastructure to
serve city residents or others when in the city;
5. Encourage the use of appropriate and new technology so as to minimize adverse
environmental, noise, and visual impacts;
6. Encourage the location of personal wireless service facilities upon existing
structures in identified commercial, industrial, marine and public/infrastructure zoning districts
in such a manner that, whenever.feasible, the personal wireless service facilities are integrated,
or appear to be integrated into the structure;
7. Establish standards for personal wireless service facilities to mitigate the visual and
nOise impacts associated with those facilities;
8. Preserve the unique residential character of the city, by disallowing the placement
of personal wireless service facilities in residential zones, except for certain defined low power
January 19, 1999 8 Ord. 2680
licensed and unlicensed facilities which would have no appreciable impact on residential
neighborhoods;
9. Preserve the aesthetic character of the city by encouraging creative and cooperative
approaches to locating wireless communication facilities so that such facilities will be
compatible with their surroundings;
10. Where technologically feasible, encourage and facilitate co-location of antennas,
support structures and related equipment for wireless communication providers, public service
telecommunications, and emergency service telecommunications;
11. Require prompt removal of abandoned facilities; and
12. Encourage the development of personal wireless service facilities on a
competitively neutral basis; and
13. Require measurement of baseline noise and RF emissions at personal wireless
service facilities, and monitoring of new installations to demonstrate compliance with this
ordinance and FCC standards.
17.78.020 Scope and applicability -- Exemptions.
A. 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
personal wireless facility shall require a "wireless permit" as further set forth in this chapter;
p.rovided, however, that this chapter does not apply to personal wireless facilities located
completely and entirely inside a "building," as that term is defined in this chapter.
B. Exemptions. The following personal wireless service facilities are exempt from the
provisions of this chapter:
1. Federal, state or local personal wireless facilities used for temporary emergency
communications in the event of a disaster, emergency preparedness and public health or safety
purposes;
2. Two-way communication transmitters used by fire, police, and emergency aid or
ambulance services;
3. Citizen band radio transmitters and antennas or antennas operated by federally
licensed amateur ("ham") radio operators;
4. 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 or an increase in
radio frequency emissions levels;
January 19, 1999 9 Ord. 2680
5. 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;
6. Temporary personal wireless service facilities, provided that the city is notified in
advance of the need for such facilities and the duration of their use; and
7. Existing facilities, subject to the requirements of section 17.78.150 of this chapter.
17.78.030 Definitions.
A. General. The words used in this chapter shall have the meaning given in this: section.
The definition section of Title 17, Chapter 17.08 RCW, as now or later amended, shall also
apply. The definition of any word or phrase not listed in this section or in Chapter 17.08
which is in question when administering this chapter shall be defined from 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;
2. Any city of Port Townsend 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.
B. Specific Definitions.
"Alternative support structure"means any building, roof, water tank, flagpole, steeple or
other type of structure to which any type of antenna or antenna array and associated equipment
are affixed.
"Antenna" means any exterior equipment attached or mounted to a monopole or alternative
support structure in the form of one or more rods, panels, discs or similar devices used for the
transmission or reception of radio or electromagnetic frequency signals for any
telecommunication purpose.
1. "Panel antenna" generally, is a rectangular antenna designed to transmit and/or receive
signals in a specific directional pattern which is less than 360 degrees, typically an arc of
approximately 120 degrees.
January 19, 1999 10 Ord. 2680
2. "Parabolic antenna" or "dish antenna" is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and
transmission of radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern. Also referred to as a
satellite dish.
3. "Whip antenna" or "rod antenna" is an omni-directional antenna which is designed to
transmit and/or receive signals in a 360-degree pattern, and which is no more than 5 inches in
diameter.
"Antenna array" means two or more devices, panels, dishes, rods or similar devices used
for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals, microwave or other signals for
telecommunications purposes. Two or more such devices affixed or attached to a monopole or
to an alternative support structure are included in the definition of antenna array.
"BCD director" means the director of building and community development department or
his or her designee.
"Building" means a fully enclosed structure capable of being inhabited, and does not
include open structures such as towers, steeples, porches or other attachments to buildings.
"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.'
"Co-location" means the use of a single monopole or alternative support structure, to the
extent technologically feasible, by more than one licensed personal wireless service provider.
"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 completely hidden by, integrated with, or contained within a structure
such as a building, wall or roof that is not a telecommunications facility.
"Decisionmaker" means the BCD Director for Type I and Type II permits, and the Hearing
Examiner for Type III permits.
"Developed street" means any public street, highway, avenue, easement or other public
right-of-way classified as a local access street, collector street, minor arterial, or principal
arterial (see Title 12 PTMC), which is partially or fully developed and which is devoted to
vehicular transportation use by the public at large. For the purposes of this chapter only, any
street which does not meet this definition shall be considered an undeveloped street.
January 19, 1999 11 Ord. 2680
"Disguised" refers to a personal wireless facility that is constructed to appear as something
other than what it really is. For example, personal wireless service facilities are sometimes
disguised to appear as trees or flagpoles.
"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, including but not limited to the
antenna or antenna array.
"Lattice tower" is a framework composed of cables, straps, bars, or braces, forming a
tower which 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.
"Low power facility" means a licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facility with
a maximum transmitter peak output power that does not exceed one watt, is less than 14 x 16
inches in length and width and 8inches in depth including all associated equipment, and may
have an antenna, with a length not to exceed 30 inches mounted on street poles in developed
street rights-of-way.
"Macro-facility" means a personal wireless service facility, with a height not to exceed 75
feet (unless otherwise permitted at a preferred location) comprised of either (1) a monopole
and attached panel, parabolic or whip antenna or antenna array, or (2) a panel, parabolic or
whip antenna or antenna array attached to an alternative support structure. The definition of
macro-facility also includes the associated equipment enclosure.
"Mini-facility" means a panel, parabolic or whip antenna or antenna array attached to an
alternative support structure with a height not to exceed the height limit of the zoning district
January 19, 1999 12 Ord. 2680
in which it is proposed to be located. The definition of mini-facility also includes the
associated equipment enclosure.
"Micro-facility" means a single array and transmitter mounted on an existing street or light
pole located within a developed street, with the associated equipment enclosure mounted on the
pole or installed completely below grade.
"Monopole" is a vertical self-supporting structure consisting of a single vertical pole which
is typically round or flat-sided in section. The term "monopole" also includes the attached
panel, parabolic or whip antenna or antenna array.
"Mount" means any mounting device or bracket which is used to attach an antenna or
antenna array to a street pole, building, structure or monopole.
"Personal wireless service" means any of the technologies as defined by § 704(a)(7)(c)(I) of
the Telecommunications Act, including cellular, personal communication services (PCS),
enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), specialized mobile radio (SMR), paging and
unlicensed wireless services.
"Personal wireless service facility or facilities" means any unstaffed facility for the
transmission and/or reception of personal wireless services. This can consist of an equipment
shelter or cabinet, a support structure or existing structure used to achieve the necessary
elevation, and the antenna or antenna an'ay.
"Preferred locations" means locations that are listed in section 17.78.080 of this chapter
that have been found to be the most desirable for the location of personal wireless service
facilities because of the existing development in the area or on the site, the types of buildings
already existing at the site, the existence of similar or compatible facilities at the particular
site, the commercial or industrial nature of the area, the zoning designation of the area, and/or
the technical suitability of the particular location. The co-location of personal wireless service
facilities is included as a preferred location.
"Radio frequency emission limits" means the limit on field strength or power density at a
specified distance from a radiator that always applies, as opposed to an "RF exposure limit,"
which applies anywhere people may be located. The FCC guidelines specify exposure limits
not emission limits, which is why accessibility is key to determining compliance. As regulated
by FCC guidelines, exposure occurs whenever a person is subjected to electric, magnetic or
electromagnetic fields other than those originating from physiological processes in the body
and other natural phenomena. The FCC guidelines incorporate limits for Maximum
Permissible Exposure (MPE) in terms of electric and magnetic field strength and power
January 19, 1999 13 Ord. 2680
density for transmitters operating at frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. MPE refers
to the root mean square (rms) and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or
the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may
be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor. The MPE limits
indicate levels above which people may not be safely exposed regardless of the location where
those levels occur. When accessibility to an area with excessive levels is appropriately
restricted, the facility or operation can certify that it complies with the FCC requirements. The
FCC exposure limits apply to occupational/controlled exposure and to general
population/uncontrolled exposure~
"Secondary locations, means locations that are listed in section 17.78.090 of this chapter
that have been found to be appropriate for the location of personal wireless service facilities
because of the existing development in the area or on the site, the types of buildings already
existing at the site, the existence of similar or compatible facilities at the particular site, the
commercial or industrial nature of the area, the zoning designation of the area, and/or the
technical suitability of the particular location.
"Street pole" means a telephone, electric, cable television, purpose built pole, or light
fixture support pole located in a street, whether such pole is owned or leased by the city or is
owned or leased by a private utility company.
"Support structure" as used in this chapter means a monopole.
"Temporary personal wireless service facility" is a non-permanent personal wireless facility
installed on a short-term basis for the purpose of evaluating the technical feasibility of a
particular location 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.
"Viewscape" means scenic views of natural and built areas and features, including but not
limited to: tree-covered hillsides, the "feathered edge" along ridge lines surrounding or within
the city, views of the built environment which contain significant architectural, historical or
public art features, or views of the natural environment such as Puget Sound, mountains,
valleys or an area of landscaping, of local or regional aesthetic importance.
17.78.040 Application submittal and content.
A. Submittal Requirements. In order to be considered a complete application, all
applications for a wireless permit shall be subject to the general application requirements of
January 19, 1999 14 Ord. 2680
section 20.01.100 PTMC, plus the following additional requirements:
1. Name address and telephone number of the applicant and all co-applicants as well
as any agents for the applicant or co-applicants.
a. The personal wireless service carder must be the applicant or co-applicant. For
all licensed personal wireless services facilities, such applicant must 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 support structure.
b. Co-applicants must include the record landowner of the subject property, or
lease, easement or property licence holders, and any utility providers owning street poles upon
which facilities are proposed to be located.
c. The application must contain an original signed and dated signature of the
applicant and/or co-applicant, or their authorized agent(s).
d. In addition, the application must contain the name and telephone number of a
person to contact in the event of an emergency related to a permitted facility, capable of
responding immediately, and a local contact person or phone number for the city or citizens to
contact in the event technological problems (e.g., interference because of multiple signals,
etc.)
2. Proof of ownership of the proposed site or authorization to use it and copies of any
easements necessary for use of rights-of way or private land. If the property is to be leased, a
written statement that the lease or other property conveyance betw~n the applicant and the' co-
applicant landowner contains the following provisions:
a. The landowner can enter into leases or other:property conveyances with other
carriers for co-location.
b. The landowner is responsible for the removal of the personal wireless facility in
the event the licensed carrier fails to remove it upon abandonment, as further set forth in
section 17.78.170 of this chapter. The property owner shall execute a restrictive covenant,
acknowledging this responsibility. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Auditor's Office.
3. Written, irrevocable commitment valid for the duration of the existence of the
facility, to rent or lease available space for co-location on the facility, without discrimination
to other personal wireless facility providers, consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
January 19, 1999 15 Ord. 2680
Such a commitment may require horizontal and vertical separation among users and the use of
filters or other equipment in order to ensure that transmissions are not impaired or diminished
by co-location. The BCD Director may require the wireless provider to submit an engineering
report to justify such measures are necessary to prevent substantial technical impairment of the
ability to provide service.
4. Tax parcel number of the property and a complete legal description.
5. A recorded professional survey of the subject parcel, using established city datum
lines.
6. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed facility and the location of
any existing and known or planned future facilities of the licensed carrier within the city. The
map should also include the location of all antenna-support structures identified by latitude and
longitude, and be provided in a computer data format that is compatible with the city's GIS
system.
7. A 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 adjacent properties within 1,000 feet of macro-facilities and 300
feet of mini- and micro-facilities as depicted on the Jefferson County Assessor's maps.
8. A list of tax parcels and their owners for all properties to which public notice is
required to be sent pursuant to this chapter.
9. Scale drawings, depicting the prOPosed and existing improvements on the property.
The site plan drawings should include a plan view and elevations, and contain the fOllowing
information, as applicable: dimensions and shape of lot and 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 at 5-foot contours; storm drainage and sidewalks; and, elevation
drawings for all proposed improvements on the site.
10. 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.).
January 19, 1999 16 Ord. 2680
11. Identification of environmentally sensitive areas (as defined in Chapter 19.05
PTMC), utility lines, easements, deed restrictions, and any other built or natural features
restricting use of the property. If requested, identification of the surrounding topography, tree
coverage and foliage.
12. Information necessary to determine the intended service area of the facility
which may include a map of the intended service area.
13. A report, certified by an acoustical engineer competent to perform noise tests
and interpret the data gathered, setting forth the ob served noise levels at the property line of
the property upon which the proposed facility is to be located, taking into account both
background noise and other incidental noise sources. The report must further analyze and
document the noise that will be emitted by the facility, including any air conditioning or
ventilation equipment contained therein, as set forth in the specifications or other information
for such equipment. Based on this information, the report must certify that the proposed
facility will not exceed the maximum permissible environmental noise levels set forth in
Chapter 173-60, Washington Administrative Code, as it currently exists or is later amended.
14. All necessary information for review of environmental impacts, potential
shoreline development permitting issues and an environmentally sensitive area determination,
as further set forth in section 20.01.100 PTMC and Chapters 19.04 and 19.05 PTMC, and the
Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program.
15. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to all
applications for personal wireless service facilities, and is administered by the FCC via
procedures adopted at 47 C.F.R., Part 1, sections 1301 et. seq. The FCC requires that an
environmental assessment (lEA) be filed with the FCC prior to beginning operations for
facilities to be located within any of the following: officially designated wilderness areas or
wildlife preserves; situations which may affect listed threatened or endangered species or
critical habitats; situations which may affect historical sites listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places; Indian religious sites; 100-year floodplains (as
determined by FEMA); situations which may cause significant change in surface features, such
as wetland fills, deforestation or water diversion; proposed use of high intensity white lights in
residential neighborhoods; and, radio-frequency radiation exposure in excess of FCC adopted
guidelines. If at the time of application, any of these conditions are affected, the drai:t EA
shall be submitted to the city before or during the comment period, and upon adoption the final
EA shall be also be submitted to the city.
January 19, 1999 17 Ord. 2680
16. Permit applications for all other necessary city approvals (e.g., building permit,
street and utility development permit, etc.) shall be submitted with the personal wireless
services facility permit application. See section 17.78.050(A) of this chapter.
17. If requested by the BCD Director, a map showing the viewshed of the facility,
meaning all places that the facility can be seen from in any compass direction, with section
drawings showing the vertical relationship between the facility and the viewshed. In addition
or alternatively, the decisionmaker may require photographic views from significant points in
the viewshed showing the existing:appearance and photo simulations depicting the appearance
after the proposed facility is installed.
18. A visual impact analysis may be required whenever the BCD Director determines
that such facility imposes a significant visual impact on viewscapes pursuant to its authority
under SEPA and/or the requirements of this chapter.
a. The impact analysis will be accomplished through the erection of a crane or
similar devices within the proposed site used to simulate the proposed dimensions and height
of the structure.
b. Ten working days prior to the demonstration, the applicant shall notify the BCD
department and provide a courtesy informational .notice to properties within 1,000 feet of the
parcel (for monopoles and macro-facilities) and 300 feet (for mini- and micro-facilities) upon
which the visual compatibility test will be conducted. The potential impact shall be
documented through the submittal of maps, photographs, photo-stimulation and other
appropriate methods.
19. If requested by the BCD Director, a landscape plan which identifies existing and
proposed landscaping.
20. For all applications which propose to locate facilities anywhere other than a
preferred location, a written opinion from an electronic/telecommunications engineer (or other
professional consultant approved by the BCD Department) describing: what preferred locations
are within the geographic service area; why siting at a preferred location is not possible under
section 17.78.080 of this chapter; what good faith efforts and measures were taken to secure a
more preferred location; how and why such efforts were unsuccessful; and, how and why the
proposed location is essential to meet service demands for the geographic service area.
21. For all applications which do not propose co-location of facilities, a ~written
opinion from an electronic/telecommunications engineer (or other professional consultant as
approved by the BCD Department) that: there are no other viable antenna-support structures or
January 19, 1999 18 Ord. 2680
mounted antenna arrays reasonably available within the area sought by the applicant; that any
such existing facilities are not technologically suitable for use by the applicant; and, that the
additional location sought is necessary to provide adequate communication coverage for the
applicant. This submittal shall reflect good faith and cooperation as further set forth in section
17.78.070 of this chapter.
22. For facilities which are categorically excluded from routine environmental
processing as set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306, the following uniform demonstration of RF
compliance:
a. Submission of a uniform demonstration of compliance, consisting of a written
statement signed by the personal wireless service provider, conforming to FCC rules on
truthfulness of written statements, subscription and verification.
b. A statement that the proposed facility does or will comply with FCC radio
frequency emission guidelines for both general population/uncontrolled exposures and
occupational/controlled exposures as defined in the FCC rules.
c. A statement or explanation with supporting data as to how the personal wireless
service provider determined that the transmitting facility will comply, e.g., by calculational
methods, by computer simulations, by actual field measurements, etc. Actual values for
predicted exposure should be provided to further support the statement. An exhaustive record
of all possible exposure locations is not necessary, but, for example, the "worst case" exposure
value in an accessible area could be mentioned as showing that no exposures would ever be
greater than that level. Reference should be given to the actual FCC exposure limit or limits
relevant for the particular transmitting site.
d. An explanation as to what, if any, restrictions on access to certain areas will be
maintained to ensure compliance with 'the public or occupational exposure limits: This
includes control procedures that are established for workers who may be exposed as a result of
maintenance or other tasks related to their jobs.
e. A statement as to whether other significant transmitting sources are located at
or near the transmitting site, and, if required by the FCC rules, whether their RF emissions
were considered in determining compliance at the transmitting site.
23. For facilities that are not categorically excluded from routine RF emissions
evaluation by the FCC or are environmental actions requiring the submission of an
Environmental Assessment, the applicant shall submit any and all documents related to RF
January 19, 1999 19 Ord. 2680
emissions, including but not limited to the draft Environmental Assessment or evaluation,
submitted to the FCC as part of the licensing process.
24. Information necessary to determine whether the facilities are potentially
categorically exempt under 197-11-800(27), Washington Administrative Code.
B. Cost of Submittals. All application requirements shall be at the applicant's own
expense. In addition, for all reports, statements or opinions required under Numbers 10, 13,
20, 21, 22 and 23 of this section, at the request of the BCD Director, the city may require
independent third-party review (by a city-approved qualified t~hnical consultant) to validate
and review the technical, information contained'in the application submittals. This independent
third party review may be required at the time of application submittal or later during the
permitting process based on requests made by citizens or city land use decisionmakers. The
cost of such review shall be borne by the applicant. All applications shall be accompanied by a
non-refundable application fee as further set forth in Chapter 20.09 PTMC.
17.78.050 Compliance with other regulations - Response capability.
A. Compliance with other Regulations. All construction of personal wireless service
facilities shall also be subject to the requirements of the city's building code, Title 16 PTMC,
and all codes adopted bY reference in chapter 16.04, 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
Industries Association, the Uniform Fire Code and the fight-of-way requirements of Title 12,
PTMC, including the Engineering Design Standards. All necessary permit applications (e.g.,
building permit, street and utility development permit, etc.) shall be submitted with the
personal wireless services facility permit.
B. Business License Required,' All personal wireless services facility's providers must also
obtain a business license pursuant to Chapter 5.08 PTMC.
C. Emergency Response System. All personal wireless facilities service providers shall
ensure that they are tied into the local emergency response system, and are responsible for
determining whether the emergency 911 system or another emergency response system is most
appropriate.
D. Right-of-Way Facilities. All facilities located in any developed or undeveloped street
or fight-of-way shall be governed by Title 12 and by any fight-of-way utility requirements
contained in Sections 5.14.080,. 100,. 110,. 120 PTMC, Port Townsend Master Cable
Television Ordinance, deemed applicable by the BCD Director or public works director.
January 19, 1999 20 Ord. 2680
17.78.060 Prohibited facilities and locations.
A. Lattice and Guyed Towers Prohibited. Lattice and guyed towers shall not be permitted
in any zoning district. Monopoles shall be permitted only as specified in this chapter.
B. Location in ESAs. Siting of personal wireless service facilities in environmentally
sensitive areas shall be governed by Chapter 19.05, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, except
that the siting of such facilities shall be prohibited within regulated Class I, II or III wetlands.
C. Location in Residential Zoning Districts~ Except as provided in i7.78.100(D), location
of personal wireless service facilities shall not be permitted in any of the following residential
zoning district: R-I(SF), R-II(SF), R-III(MF) and R-IV(MF). In addition, except as provided
in 17.78.100(D) and at the water tower preferred site, location of personal wireless service
facilities shall not be permitted within 100 feet of these same residential zoning districts,
measured from the edge of the proposed facility (e.g., the outside edge of the equipment
enclosure, mount, antenna, etc., whichever is the farthest out) to the nearest residentially
zoned property line (rather than to the center of the street which is typically the edge of the
zoning district).
D. Neighborhood Commercial Zones. Personal wireless service facilities shall not be
permitted in C-I, Neighborhood Commercial, C-I/MU Neighborhood Serving Mixed Use
Center, or C-II/MU Community Serving Mixed Use Center zones, except for micro-facilities
in developed streets.
E. Location in P/OS Zone. Except for the portion of the city water tower site which is a
preferred location, the location of personal wireless service facilities in the P/OS, Existing
Park or Open Space zone shall not be permitted.
17.78.070 Overview of location preferences - Co-location.
A. Overview - Location Preferences. Certain areas of the city are more appropriate for
the location of personal wireless service facilities because of the existing development in the
area or on the site, the types of buildings already existing at the site, the exiStence of similar or
compatible facilities at the particular site, the commercial or industrial nature of the area, the
zoning designation of the area, and/or the technical suitability of the particular site. Locating
facilities in such areas can reduce adverse visual and aesthetic impacts of personal wireless
service facilities city-wide, and help protect the health, safety and welfare of city residents.
Therefore, the location preferences and design criteria and guidelines, and associated
conditions of approval, contained in this chapter are intended to ameliorate any potential
visual, aesthetic or neighborhood livability concerns while still facilitating growth of an
industry that is important to the city's economic health and whose services are demanded by an
January 19, 1999 21 Ord. 2680
increasing number of the city's residents, businesses, workers and visitors. In order to
facilitate the location of facilities at such preferred locations, the permitting process is intended
to be simpler and more expeditious than for secondary locations. Preferred location permits
will be processed as a Type II administrative permit, with notice, and are appealable to the
Hearing Examiner, as more fully set forth in Section 17.78.100 of this chapter and Chapter
20.01 PTMC.
B. Co-location Encouraged. It is also the policy of the city of Port Townsend to minimize
the number of personal: wireless service support structures and require co-location when
appropriate. The city will pursue all reasonable strategies to promote co-location of facilities,
including emergency service facilities.
1. Co-location requirements. Licensed carriers shall share personal wireless service
facilities, structures and/or sites where such facilities are already located whenever feasible, so
as to reduce the number of personal wireless facilities that are stand-alone facilities. All
freestanding mounts shall be designed so as not to preclude co-location. All antenna-support
structures shall be available for use by the owner or initial user thereof, together with as many
other wireless communication service providers as can be technically accommodated.
2. Cooperation and Good Faith Among Carriers Required. All wireless
communication service providers shall cooperate with other personal wireless service providers
in co-locating additional antennas on existing monopole towers, antenna-support structures,
and/or on existing buildings or other alternative antenna-support structures. A personal
wireless service provider shall exercise good faith in co-locating with other providers and
sharing antenna sites, provided that such shared use does not give rise to a substantial technical
impairment of the ability to provide service. Such good faith shallinclude sharing of non-
proprietary technical information to evaluate the feasibility of co-location, This covenant of
good faith and fair dealing shall bea condition of any permit 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 city may require a third-party technical study at the expense of either or
both of such providers.
January 19, 1999 22 Ord. 2680
17.78.080 Preferred locations table.
The following table identifies areas, locations and/or zoning districts which constitute
preferred locations for the siting of personal wireless service facilities, and the types of
facilities which may be allowed at the preferred location.
Preferred Locations Types of Facilities Allowed
The portion of the city water tower property, Monopoles, macro-, mini- and micro-
zoned P/OS(B) legally described as follows: facilities, except as follows: Monopoles and
East half of the Northeast quarter of the any facilities attached to the water tower
1. Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of may not be more than 160 feet in height
Section 9, Township 30 North, Range 1 above grade, and no more than 3
West, W.M. independent monopoles may be permitted at
the site (subject to the design standards
contained in section 17. 78.110 below)
Mixed commercial/light manufacturing zone Macro-, mini- and micro-facilities (subject
2. (M-C). to the design standards contained in section
17. 78.110 below)
The general commercial zone (C-II) along Macro-, mini- and micro-facilities (subject
3. Sims Way west of Sheridan Street to the city to the design standards contained in section'
limits. 17. 78.110 below)
The Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven Macro-, mini- and micro-facilities (subject
4. property, zoned M-II(A) (Boat Haven) marine to the design standards contained in section
related uses. 17. 78.110 below)
The Port Townsend High School Property, Mini- and micro-facilities (subject to the
5. zoned P-I, Public/Infrastructure. design standards contained in section
1 7. 78.110 below)
The city of Port Townsend Fire Station, zoned Mini- and micro-facilities (subject to the
6. P-I, Public/Infrastructure. design standards contained in section
17. 78.110 below)
The Jefferson General Hospital property, Macro-, mini- and micro-facilities (subject
7. zoned P-I, Public/Infrastructure. to design standards contained in section
1 7. 78.110 below)
8. Co-location sites. See Section 1 7. 78. 070 and design standards
section 1 7. 78.110.
January 19, 1999 23 Ord. 2680
17.78.090. Secondary locations table.
For the geographic areas of the city not covered by sections 17.78.060 and 17.78.080 above,
the type of review process and facilities allowed will depend on the nature and characteristics
of the various zoning districts in the city. The following table sets forth the type of facilities
and the permit process for the various zoning districts in the city (excluding any area of the
zone which is identified as a preferred location above):
Zoning District Types of Facilities Type of Permit
P-I Public/Infrastructure
C-II General Commercial east
of Sheridan Street
M-II (B) (Point Hudson)
Mini-facilities
Micro-facilities
Macro- and mini-facilities
Micro-facilities
Mini- and micro-facilities
Type III/CUP
Type I11
Type III/CUP
Type IIi
Type III/CUP; also subject to
Marine Related Uses HPC review per Chapters 17.30
and 17.80 PTMC.
C-II(H) Hospital Commercial
C-III Historic Commercial
C-I/MU Neighborhood
Serving Mixed Use Center
C-II/MU Community Serving
Mixed Use Center
C-I Neighborhood
Commercial
Mini-facilities
Micro-facilities
Mini- and micro-facilities
Micro-facilities in developed
streets
Micro-facilities in developed
streets
Micro-facilities in developed
streets
Type III/CUP
Type IIi
Type III/CUP; also subject to
HPC review per Chapters 17.30
and 17.80 PTMC.
Type IIi
Type IIi
Type IIi
~ Notwithstanding the above, if a micro-facility subject to a Type II permitting process requires routine
evaluation under FCC RF exposure guidelines, it shall be subject to a Type III/CUP permitting process. Under
FCC guidelines (OET Bulletin 65, Ed. 97-01) in effect as of the adoption of this ordinance, evaluation under the
FCC's environmental rules is required when tower-mounted antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above
ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1,000 watts effective radiated power (ERP), or
2,000 W ERP for broadband PCS. The standards for micro-facilities encompasses this guideline as it now
exists or is later amended.
January 19, 1999 24 Ord. 2680
17.78.100
A.
Review process - Preferred locations - Secondary locations - Low powered
facilities - Variances.
General Provisions.
1. Comments. The BCD Director may solicit comments from the public
works director, building official, local utility providers, adjacent jurisdictions if the proposal is
within one mile of another city or jurisdiction, the Washington State Department of
Transportation (if the proposal is adjacent to a state highway), and any other state, local or
federal officials as necessary.
2. Findings and Conclusions. Based upon comments from city departments
and applicable agencies and all other pertinent information in the record, the decisionmaker
'shall make written findings and conclusions documenting compliance with all approval criteria.
Approval and design criteria are found in sections 17.78.110 -. 120 of this chapter. Required
conditions of approval are contained in 17.78.130 of this chapter.
B. Preferred Locations - Review Process - Additional Notice Required. An
application for the siting of personal wireless service facilities in a preferred location shall be
processed acCording to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Chapter
20.01 PTMC, Land Development Administrative Procedures, as an administrative permit with
notice and appealable to the hearing examiner, except as follows. The notice of application
and notice of an appeal of a Type II action shall be mailed to the latest recorded real property
owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least 1000 feet (for monopoles
and macro-facilities) or 300 feet (for mini- and micro-facilities) of the boundary of the
property upon which the development is proposed.
C. Secondary Locations- Additional Notice Required. An application for personal
wireless service facilities siting shall be processed according to the criteria for the particular
type of permit.set forth in sections 17.78.090-. 100 PTMC and as provided in Chapter 20:01
PTMC, Land Development Administration Procedures. The decisionmaker on Type II permits
will be the BCD Director. The decisionmaker on Type III/conditional use permits will be the
hearing examiner due to the special expertise involved in these applications. Type
III/conditional use permits, will also be subject to the review criteria set forth in Chapter 17.84
PTMC, Conditional Uses, and the design review and approval criteria set in sections
17.78.110 -. 120 below. In addition, for all permits requiring public notice, the notice of
application and notice of public hearing shall be mailed to the latest recorded real property
owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least 1,000 feet (for
monopoles and macro-facilities) or 300 feet (for mini- or micro-facilities) of the boundary of
the property upon which the development is proposed.
January 19, 1999 25 Ord. 2680
D. Low Power Licensed and Unlicensed Facilities. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter, low power licensed and unlicensed facilities mounted on street poles
in developed street rights-of-way may be permitted in all zoning districts (including
residential) and processed as Type I, administrative review process, pursuant to Chapter 20.01
PTMC. Provided, however, that such facilities remain subject to any franchising or licensing
fees established by the city council. Low power licensed and unlicensed personal wireless
service facilities are defined as facilities with a maximum transmitter peak output power that
does not exceed one watt and are less than 14 x 16 inches in length and width and 8 inches in
depth including all associated equipment and may have an antenna with a length not to exceed
30 inches.
1. Low power licensed and unlicensed facilities on new street poles. The
placement of low power licensed or unlicensed facilities on new street poles in developed street
rights-of-way shall be processed as a Type Ii administrative review process, pursuant to
Chapter 20.01 PTMC, with mailed notice to adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the
proposal.
E. Historic Preservation Committee Review. No personal wireless service facility
shall be located on buildings, structures, or street poles subject to the jurisdiction of the city's
Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) pursuant to Chapters 2.72, 17.30 and 17.80 PTMC,
and no city permit or approval for such an activity shall be issued unless a certificate of design
review has been issued by the HPC.
F. Variance Procedure. Any applicant may request that the requirements
established by this chapter be modified. Such request shall be processed according to the
procedures for variances in Chapter 20.01 PTMC, and shall satisfy the criteria of Chapter
17.86 PTMC, Variances. In addition to the approval criteria of section 17.86.050 PTMC, in
granting any variance the decisionmaker mustalso find that: (1) there are no increased noise,
aesthetic or safety impacts on adjoining properties asa result of the proposed variance; and (2)
in the case of a historic building or structure, the variance will continue to allow for effective
concealment, disguise or camouflaging of the facilities. The decisionmaker shall not grant a
variance from the provisions of this chapter which establish the allowed, conditional and
prohibited uses within the various zoning districts.
17.78.110 Design criteria and standards for monopoles and macro-, mini- and micro-
facilities. In its review of a proposed personal wireless facility, including associated
equipment cabinets and security barriers, the decisionmaker shall be guided by the following
standards:
January 19, 1999 26 Ord. 2680
A. Location, Camouflage, and Concealment. The entire facility should blend with
and not disturb the visual character of its setting, and camouflaging, concealment and/or
disguising the facilities may be required depending on the circumstances. To the greatest
extent possible, the shape of the facility shall be unobtrusive in relation to its surroundings,
and the silhouette of the facility shall be reduced to the minimum visual impact.
1. Historic Commercial District. Facilities in the historic commercial
district or on listed historic buildings shall be concealed or camouflaged, when viewed from
ground level, adjacent buildings, waterways, street rights-of-way and/or viewscapes, as
determined through the HPC review process more fully set forth in Chapters 17.30 and 17.80
PTMC.
2. All other Areas. Antennas and/or antenna arrays located on an existing
structure shall be concealed when viewed from a ground level view adjacent to the structure
unless circumstances do not permit such placement, in which case the antenna array must be
camouflaged.
a. For roof mounted antenna, this may include placement in penthouses
or other architectural features appropriate to the particular structure, the design of which must
be approved by the decisionmaker.
b. Side mounted antennas should be mounted flush on the exterior wall
of the building and not project above the wall on which it is mounted; if not technically
possible, such antenna must either be concealed or camouflaged into the building design.
c. For whip or rod antennas, in determining the adequacy of
concealment and camouflage techniques proposed, the decisionmaker shall consider whether
the conceptual elevations, site plans; photo simulations, and/or visual impact analysis
information submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the antennas will not be visible from
the public rights-of-way adjacent to the subject property.
3. Monopoles. Each monopole shall be painted in a non-reflective earth tone
that best allows it to blend into the surroundings, or, if disguised or camouflaged, painted in
such as way as to effectuate the disguise. The use of grays, blues and greens might be
appropriate; provided however, each case should be evaluated individually. At the discretion
of the decisionmaker, monopoles shall be disguised or camouflaged (such as being made to
appear as a flagpole, sailboat mast, or evergreen or other tree, depending on the features of the
surrounding property) so as to blend in with the surrounding area and to minimize any adverse
visual or aesthetic impacts.
January 19, 1999 27 Ord. 2680
B. Antennas and Support Structures - Specific Height, Bulk and Dimensional
Requirements.
1. Personal wireless service facilities, when considered in aggregate with
all other construction on a site, must conform to height (unless otherwise specified in this
chapter), bulk, dimension, footprint and setback requirements for buildings in the zone in
which they are located.
2. Macro-facilities. Macro-facilities may be of any physical size permitted
by this chapter and other provisions of the Port Townsend Municipal Code but shall in no case
extend above 75 feet in height above: grade with the exception of the water tower property.
The extension of antennas in a horizontal direction from a monopole or alternative support
structure shall be minimized.
a. Monopoles. Monopoles shall not exceed 160 feet in height at the
water tower site, or 75 feet in height at any other location where macro-facilities are
permitted. Unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the decisionmaker that it is
technically infeasible, monopoles shall be designed so as to allow at least two additional
carriers to co-locate at the facility.
b. Height Reduction. Notwithstanding the height standards
contained in this section, the decisionmaker may reduce the maximum height of macro
facilities including monopoles based upon the record, the predominant height of structures and
vegetation in the surrounding area, and the design standards and approval criteria contained in
this chapter and in Chapter 17.84, for Type III - CUP applications.
3. Mini-facilities. Mini-facilities generally should not extend above the
height of adjacent portions of the host structure by more than 15 % (except an antenna array
not wider than 48 inches may extend to the height limit for the zone in which it is located).
Mini-facilities which are attached to structures established for other uses should be in scale
with the host structure. In general, mini-facilities which are independent of other structures
should not have a footprint greater than 750 square feet in aggregate, including all constructed
and installed elements of the mini-facility (excluding buffers, landscape and screening
material, access drive and security fencing, if any.)
4. Micro-facilities. Micro-facilities consist of any or all of the following:
an antenna array; brackets for attaching the array to a street pole; a single associated
equipment cabinet; and cables not over one inch in diameter connecting the parts. Micro-
facilities shall be attached to a single street pole on a developed street. The equipment cabinet
shall either be mounted on the pole or installed completely below grade in a vault.
January 19, 1999 28 Ord. 2680
a. No more than one micro-facility shall be located on a single pole.
b. Micro-facilities may have an antenna an'ay consisting of a whip
antenna not more than six feet in length and not more than 3 inches in diameter; or
(1) consisting of not more than 4 panels, each mounted within 6 inches of the pole, with none
extending above the height of the pole and none wider than 6 inches overall; or (2) consisting
of not more than 3 parabolic antennas, each less than 12 inches in diameter, each mounted
within 12 inches of the surface of the pole, and none extending above the height of the pole.
C. Equipment Enclosures.
1. Macro Facilities.
a. Ground Mounted Equipment Enclosures. Ground mounted equipment
enclosures shall be painted a non-reflective color so as to blend in with the surroundings.
Ground mounted equipment enclosures shall be of the smallest size possible, but in no event
shall be greater than 12 x 12 feet in length and width. Unless otherwise specified in conditions
to a CUP, the floor elevation for a free-standing equipment enclosure Shall be below grade, at
grade, or elevated no more than 3 feet above the grade existing at the site before the
development of the facilities. The roof height, as measured per the Uniform Building Code,
of the equipment enclosure shall not be greater than 6 feet in height above the pre-existing
grade. However, enclosures of any configuration may be contained within new buildings
which conform to building and zoning code requirements for the zone in which they are
located or other existing lawfully established buildings. Any new buildings shall be designed
and constructed to be architecturally compatible with the buildings in the immediate vicinity
and to blend into the surroundings.
b. Equipment Enclosures Mounted on Alternative Support Structures.
Equipment enclosures attached to an alternative support structure shall not extend more than 6
feet above the height of adjacent portions of that structure which afford screening of the
equipment enclosure. When mounted on buildings, equipment enclosures should be concealed
within the interior of buildings, if possible. If located on the roof of a building, such
enclosures shall either be concealed or camouflaged into the building with an architecturally
compatible design. In no case shall equipment enclosures extend above the 75 foot height limit
established for macro facilities.
2. Mini-Facilities. Equipment enclosures shall be attached to the alternative
support structure and shall not extend more than 6 feet above the height of adjacent portions of
that structure which afford screening of the equipment enclosure. When mounted on
buildings, equipment enclosures should be concealed within the interior of buildings, if
January 19, 1999 29 Ord. 2680
possible. If located on the roof of a building, such enclosures shall either be concealed or
camouflaged into the building with an architecturally compatible design. In no case shall
equipment enclosures extend above the maximum building height in the underlying zoning
district.
3. Micro-facilities may have a pole-mounted equipment cabinet not larger in
profile than the pole on which it is mounted, and having no single dimension greater than 4
feet, or an equipment cabinet which is installed completely below grade in a vault.
D. Color and Texture. The facility (including all visible antennas, support
structures, and equipment enclosures) shall be in colors and textures that minimize visibility,
including against trees and sky.
E. Noise. Noise 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. In addition, if a noise ordinance is adopted by the city in the future, to the greatest
extent feasible the facilities shall comply with the standards and criteria of such an ordinance.
F. Screening and Vegetation.
1. Landscaping Plan. The BCD Director shall have the authority to require
a landscaping plan when deemed necessary to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of a personal
wireless service facility.
2. Screening of Facilities. Existing vegetation which helps conceal or
screen proposed facilities from view (including all visible antennas, monopoles, alternative
support structures, and equipment enclosures) shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible.
The BCD Director may require additional vegetation to be planted through landscaping plan
review to mitigate aesthetic impacts of the proposed facility: For all screening, the use of
trees with significant height and fullness upon maturity is required, The BCD Director may
also require the wireless facility provider to lease or secure an easement for additional land to
preserve existing significant vegetation or to allow the planting of additional landscaping.
3. Ground Mounted Equipment Enclosures. In all zones, equipment
enclosures shall be screened when viewed from adjacent rights-of-way, properties, and
waterways. Existing vegetation which helps conceal the equipment enclosure shall be
preserved, whenever possible. When additional screening is required, vegetation of similar
species (or as otherwise required by the decisionmaker) shall be re-planted immediately
following the construction of the facilities. In order to provide visual relief from the
equipment enclosure, the BCD Director, in his or her discretion, may also require landscaping
in a band of up to 20 feet in depth around the enclosure as part of the landscaping plan.
January 19, 1999 30 Ord. 2680
G. Lighting. In all zones, security lighting is permitted for equipment enclosures,
but shall be oriented downward and shielded so that the light falls only within the boundaries
of the property, and shall by triggered only by a motion sensor. No monopoles or other
antenna support structures shall be artificially lighted, except as required by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) or other governmental agency.
H. Signs, Symbols, etc. There shall be no signs, symbols, flags, banners or other
devices or things attached to or painted or inscribed upon any monopole or other type of
antenna support structure or building, except that the BCD DireCtor may require appropriate
signage indicating a telephone number and person to call for information or in the event of an
emergency, or for any other safety reason approved by the direCtor.
17.78.120 Wireless Permit - Approval criteria. The decisionmaker may approve or
approve with modifications, an application for a personal wireless service facility if the
following criteria are met:
A. For All Applications. The BCD Director (for Type II permits) and Hearing
Examiner (for Type III permits) shall find that the applicant has conformed with the design
criteria of seCtion 17.78.110 of this chapter and has demonstrated, through a visual impact
analysis if required or by other means set forth in this chapter, that it has done everything
feasible to minimize any visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed facilities. Such
deCisionmaker must also find that the applicant has complied with the FCC regulations related
to RF emissions, as set forth in the application section of this chapter, seCtion 17.78.040 Nos.
22 and 23, whichever is applicable; and has met the environmental noise standards of seCtion
17.78.110 (E) of this chapter.
B. Additional Approval Criteria for all Sites other than Preferred Locations or Co-
location. Based on the application information submitted under section 17.78.040 (20) and.
(21) of this chapter, the decisionmaker will not approve applications for such sites unless the
applicant describes, to the satisfaction of the hearing examiner or direCtor: (1) what preferred
location(s) are within the geographic service area; (2) why co-location is not possible under
SeCtion 17.78.070 of this chapter; (3) what good faith efforts and measures were taken to
seCure these more preferred locations; (4) How and why such efforts were unsuccessful; and
(5) How and why the proposed site is essential to meet service demands for the Applicant's
geographic service area. Co-location sites are exempt from this seCtion.
C. Additional Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Type III applications).
In addition to the criteria of subsections (A) and (B) above, the conditional use permits shall be
subjeCt to the approval criteria of SeCtions 17.84.050, 17.84.060 (as applicable) and 17.84.070
PTMC.
January 19, 1999 31 Ord. 2680
17.78.130 Additional Conditions - RF Monitoring, Noise Monitoring, Security and
Maintenance, Covenant of Good Faith Among Carriers.
A. RF Radiation Monitoring.
1. Upon approval and construction of a personal wireless service facility,
initial field measurements shall be performed prior to placing the facility into service and the
initial compliance report shall be submitted to the BCD Director within 45 days of the facility
becoming fully operational.
2. Compliance reports shall be required on an annual basis thereafter.
Annual compliance reports shall be submitted to the BCD Director by January 1 st of each
calendar year. Provided, however, that a facility installed and initially tested within nine
months prior to January 1st shall not be required to submit an annual compliance report until
the following January 1st.
3. The city may retain a qualified technical expert in the field of radio-
frequency engineering to verify the RFR measurements and certification. The cost of such a
technical expert shall be borne by the licensed carrier or applicant.
4. If, at any time, the radio-frequency emission tests show that the facility
exceeds any of the RF emission limits and/or exposure standards established by the FCC or
triggers the FCC requirement for an EA, the licensed carrier shall immediately discontinue use
of the facility and notify the BCD department. Use of the facility may not resume until the
licensed carrier demonstrates that corrections have been completed which reduce the radio-
frequency emissions to levels permitted by the FCC.
5. Upon giving the underlying property owner and the wireless provider
prior written notice, or in an emergency without notice, the city or its authorized agent may
enter the subject property to obtain RF~radiation measurements for as long as a permit remains
in effect and/or the permittee continues operation. This authorization must be a condition of
any permit issued under this chapter.
6. If the FCC guidelines or federal law is changed to alter the RF-radiafion
standards or RF-testing or monitoring requirements, a permittee through written affirmation
shall demonstrate compliance with the current requirements within 60 days of the date the
permittee is notified of the revised standards/requirements.
B. Monitoring of noise.
January 19, 1999 32
Ord. 2680
1. A report demonstrating compliance with the noise criteria set forth in
Section 17.78.040(13) of this chapter shall be submitted by January 1st of the calendar year
after which the facility was installed, except that a facility installed and initially tested within
nine months prior to January 1 st shall not be required to submit an annual compliance report
until the following January 1st. In addition, based on citizen complaints or its own field
research the city may require additional compliance reports, except that it shall not do so any
more frequently than once per year. The city may retain a technical expert in environmental
noise measurement to verify the noise measurements and certification. The cost of such a
technical expert shall be borne by the permittee.
C. Security and maintenance.
1. It is the provider's and any co-applicant's responsibility to protect the
facility from unauthorized access through appropriate means, consistent with the purpose of
protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Such persons or entities shall maintain the
facility in a good and safe condition and preserve its original appearance and concealment,
disguise 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.
D. Good Faith Among Carriers Required.
1. As required by PTMC 17.78.070(B)(2) all wireless communication service
providers shall cooperate with other personal wireless service providers in co-locating
additional antennas on existing monopole towers, antenna-support structures, and/or on
existing buildings or other alternative antenna-support structures.
17.78.140 Time Limitation - Expiration of Permits,- Amendment - Assignment/Sublease
A. Time Limitation. A personal wireless facility permit shall automatically expire
and become void if the applicant (1) fails to begin and pursue construction diligently or (2)
complete construction and commence operation, within one year of the effective date of the
permit. The BCD 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 and
sets forth good cause for the extension.
B. Expiration. The permit for a personal wireless facility shall expire 3 years from
the date of the issuance, except that the permit expires immediately if the facility is abandoned
as set forth in section 17.78.170 of this chapter. Renewal for additional 3 year periods may be
authorized if application for renewal is made and applicable fees paid at least 90 days prior to
the expiration date of the original permit. The BCD Director will not withhold renewal
January 19, 1999 33 Ord. 2680
approval if it is demonstrated that all terms of the original approval are met and that the
structural integrity of the facility is sound. The BCD Director may, in his or her discretion,
require that the provider submit a structural engineering report prepared by an independent
structural engineer to verify the continued structural integrity of the facility.
C. Amendment of Permits. From time to time, a permit holder may want to alter
the terms of an approved permit by changing or altering the appearance, size or operation of
the facility. If any change or modification to any portion of the site plan or the design of the
facility is being proposed, the applicant must apply for a modification of the permit. The BCD
Director shall process the requested amendment as a Type I permit. Before approving such an
amendment, the BCD Director shall make written findings and conclusions that all of the
following criteria are met:
1. The use will remain the same;
The total site coverage and the total area covered by the structures will
not increase;
3. The location and height of the facility will not change;
e
The use will continue to comply with all conditions of approval of the
original permit;
o
The use will comply with the then existing requirements of the zoning
code and this chapter; and
6. Viewscapes are not impacted by the proposed change.
Any proposed modification ofa permit not consistent with the above criteria will require full
review by the Hearing Examiner (for Type III permits) and BCD Director (for Type II
permits), pursuant to the requirements of this chapter.
D. Permit Transferrable - Assignment/Sublease of Permitted Sites. No facility, site
or permit may be transferred, assigned or subleased without notice to the city. In the event of
a transfer, assignment, or sublease, a copy of the land use agreement and FCC license shall be
submitted to the BCD department, as well as the application information contained in section
17.78.040 (1) - (3), and RF monitoring entry authorization as specified in PTMC
17.78.130(A)(5), and any other information deemed reasonably necessary by the BCD
Director.
January 19, 1999 34 Ord. 2680
17.78.150 Grandfathering of existing facilities.
All facilities existing on February 1, 1999 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 permitted; however, any physical change or alteration to the
appearance, size or operation of the facility shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter.
In addition, within 5 years from the effective date of this chapter, all facilities must submit to
the BCD department a description of the facilities, as well as the application information set
forth in section 17.78.040 (1), (2) and (4) of this chapter. Any abandoned facilities shall be
subject to the requirements of section 17.78.170 of this chapter.
17.78.160 Recovery of city costs.
Each permit granted pursuant to this chapter, is conditioned on the requirement that the
permittee reimburse the city for all direct and indirect expenses reasonably incurred in
connection with the modification, amendment, or transfer of the permit, and/or incurred while
monitoring the requirements of the permit.
17.78.170 Abandonment of facilities.
A. Notice. At such time as a provider plans to abandon or discontinue, or is
required to discontinue, the operation of a personal wireless facility, such carrier will notify
the BCD department by certified US mail of the proposed date of abandonment or
discontinuance.
B. Co-location. If there are two or more providers co-located at the facility, the
following subsections shall not be effective until all providers cease using the facility.
However, if abandonment occurs due to relocation of an antenna to a lower point on the
structure, the facility provider or property owner shall have 180 days to co-locate another
service or for another existing service provider to move up from a lower point on the
structure. If unsuccessful, the provider and/or property owner shall dismantle and remove may
unused equipment and all hardware and wiring, and repaint the structure'as necessary.
C. Removal of Facility. The provider and/or property owner shall remove any
licensed or unlicensed personal wireless service facility within 180 days of the abandonment or
discontinuance. Removal of facilities includes, at a minimum, removal and transportation
away of antennae, mounts, equipment enclosure(s), exposed utilities, power equipment,
security barriers and debris from the property, and, to the best extent possible, a restoration of
the property to its natural condition, replacement of topsoil and vegetation, and retention of
any remaining landscaping.
D. Costs. If the facilities are not removed within 6 months, or period of time as
determined in writing by the BCD Director, the city 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.
January 19, 1999 35 Ord. 2680
17.78.180 Enforcement and penalties.
Enforcement and penalties for violations of this chapter shall be subject to chapter 17.94 of
this PTMC Title 17.
(Ord. § 1, 1999; Ord. 2571 § 2, 1997.)
SECTION 3. 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 competent 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.
SECTION 4. Effective date, Repealer, Revival of Moratorium. Upon the effective
date of this ordinance, the moratorium imposed on the acceptance of applications for issuance
of any permits or approvals for any personal wireless service facilities established by
Ordinance No. 2638 is hereby repealed; provided however, that if this ordinance or any
portion of this ordinance is held to be void for any reason, the moratorium established in
Ordinance No. 2638 shall be immediately reinstated for a period of six months to allow the
city to formulate and adopt new regulatory requirements.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after the date of its publication
in the manner provided by law.
Read for the first, second, and third times and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Port Townsend, Washington, at a regular meeting thereof' held this ~/~ day of
..._ j ~ ~ , 1999.
Attest:
Pamela Kolacy, City Clerk
c:\code\wireless\WIRELESS. ORD
Juli cCulloch, Mayor
'cCulloCl
n, City Attorney
January 19, 1999 36 Ord. 2680