HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2006-09-11 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET w g s y Tukwila City Council Agenda
.2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
:c: 4 0, iii
JD f Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilntentbers: Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Pam Carter Jim Haggerton
190$ Dennis Robertson, Council President Pamela Linder Verna Griffin
Monday, September 11, 2006; 7:00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included
COMMENT on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes).
To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please save your
comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
3. SPECIAL a. Fire Station #52 Restroom Project Bid Award. Pg. 3
ISSUES
b. Re- enactment of Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Pg. 11
(Please bring notebooks that were provided separately.)
c. Wireless Telecommunications Chapter Briefing. Pg. 21
d. Council 2007 Budget and Goals. Pg. 71
4. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
5. MISCELLANEOUS
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
7. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice
to the City Clerk's Office 206 433- 1800ITDD 206 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
COUNCIL A SYNOPSIS
e JAW w9
y rti Tnitiaf ITEM NO.
a Meiling Dale Pr ar d by 1iz or' nth Cnar j:l review
u 9/11/06 PBS4ffl A�11JaP i 1/,�'
9/18/06 C� i i
ITEM INFORMATION
I CAS NUMBER: 06-103 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Bid Award for the Fire Station #52 Female Restroom Project
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinate Bid Award Public Heating Other
Mtg Date 9/11/06 3Ug Daft ix Date Mfg Date MQ Dote 9/18/06 Mtg Date Aitg Date
I SPONSOR Council t1f jor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIT'/ I
SPONSOR'S Three contractors were solicited for bids through the Small Works Roster and Corsair
SUMMARY Construction submitted the lowest bid on August 14, 2006. The bid of $37,563.20 includes
building a separate female restroom and shower area within the existing Fire Station #52.
References indicate that Corsair has performed well on similar type projects and are
currently under contract for the Council Chamber remodel.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 8/28/06
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPoNsoR /ADM IN. Award contract to Corsair Construction.
CON nTTEE Unanimous approval, forward to COW.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGE! ED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$37,563.20 $50,000.00
Fund Source: 303 Facilities (page 72, 2006 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
9/11/06 1
1
9/18/06 1
I
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS I
9/11/06 1 Information Memo dated August 16, 2006 1
Short Form Contract 1
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from August 28, 2006 I
I 1
9/18/06 1 1
I 1
JNFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director)
Date: August 16, 2006
Subject: Fire Station #52 Female Restroom Proiect
Project No. 06 -BG10
BID AWARD
ISSUE
Award the bid for the Fire Station #52 Female Restroom project.
BACKGROUND
Tukwila Fire Department has requested that a separate female restroom and shower area be built within the
existing Fire Station #52 structure. Fire Station #52 has one shower area located inside the male restroom
and locker area. Firefighters assigned to this station have all been male in the past. However, temporary
assignments of females to this station have created concerns. To be able to assign female firefighters to this
station necessitates the construction of a separate gender specific restroom and shower facility
ANALYSIS/WORK PLAN
In 2006, we retained the architectural services of Wayne Ivary Architects and Associates to develop plans to
utilize a portion of the existing dorm area for the new restroom.
ACTION TAKEN
Contractors from the Small Works Roster as well as other qualified vendors met on location on July 20 to
review the project. Three (3) bids were received and opened on August 14, with the apparent low bid of
$34,525 submitted by Corsair Construction, Inc. The other two included Crown Construction at S45,563
plus tax and DP, Inc., at 562,284 72 plus tax. We have reviewed the bids, notified the apparent low bidder
of their opportunity to claim error within 24 hours, which they have declined, and checked the low bidder's
references. Corsair Construction is currently under contract for the Council Chambers Remodel project. The
estimated cost of S37,563.20, including sales tax, is budgeted in the 303 Fund, which has adequate funds for
construction.
BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY
Bid Results Budget
Bid Amount 34,525.00
Sales Tax 8.8% 3,038.20
Subtotal 37,563.20
Contingency 10% 3.452.50
Total 41.015.70 50,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Award the contract for construction of Fire Station 1152 Female Restroom to Corsair Construction, Inc., in the
amount of 537,563.20.
RR:ad
attachment: Short Form Contract
Scope of Work will be available at the 8/28/06 Transportation Committee meeting.
(ra .u'A -ec FEj.,“6 -1%10 Avs3 TC Yn)
1. CITY OF TUKWILA
Short Form Contract
Contractor/
Vendor Name: Corsair Construction Project No. 06-BG 10
Address: P.O- Box 66945
Burien, \Vashington 98166 Budget Item: 303.00.594.190.41.41
Telephone: 206 248 -7974 Project Name: Fire Station 52 ADA Bathroom
Please initial all attachments, then sign and return copies one and two to:
City of Tukwila, Facility Department, 6200 Souticenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188.
Retain copy three for your records until a fully executed copy is returned to you.
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into this 15 day of August 2006.
by and between the City of Tukwila, hereinafter called the City, and Corsair Construction
hereinafter called the Contractor.
The City and the Contractor hereby agree as follows:
L SCOPE OF WORK Build one restroom at Fire Station 52 for female firefighters, meeting ADA
specifications as outlined in the following attachment
A. City of Tukwila, Alternations to Fire Station?: 52
2. TIME OF COMPLETION
The work shall be commenced October 2` and be completed no later than November 5th.
3. CONTRACT SUM
The City shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work the sum of S 34.525.00 plus
applicable Washington State sales tax.
4. PAYMENTS
The City shall make payments on account of the contract at completion of project.
5. ACCEPTANCE AND FINAL PAYMENT
Final payment shall be due 30 days after completion of the work, provided the contract is fully
performed and accepted.
6. GENERAL CONDITIONS
The City and the Contractor agree upon the following general conditions which shall govern:
A. Contract Documents
The contract includes this Agreement, Scope of Work and Payment Exhibit.
The intent of these documents is to include all labor, materials, appliances and services of
every kind necessary for the proper execution of work, and the terms and conditions of
payment therefore.
The documents are to be considered as one, and whatever is called for by any one of the
documents shall be as binding as if called for by all.
The Contractor agrees to verify all measurements set forth in the above documents and to
report all differences in measurements before commencing to perform any work hereunder.
-I-
B. Materials, Appliances and Employees
Except as otherwise noted, the Contractor shall provide and pay for all materials, labor, tools,
water, power and other items necessary to complete the work.
Unless otherwise specified, all material shall be new, and both workmanship and materials
shall be of good quality
Contractor warrants that all workmen and subcontractors shall be skilled in their trades.
C. Surveys, Permits and Regulations
The City shall furnish all surveys unless otherwise specified. Permits and licenses necessary
for the prosecution of the work shall be secured and paid for by the Contractor. Easements for
permanent structures or permanent changes in existing facilities shall be secured and paid for
by the City unless otherwise specified. The Contractor shall comply with all laws and
regulations bearing on the conduct of the work and shall notify the City in writing if the
drawings and specifications are at variance therewith.
D. Protection of Work, Property and Persons
The Contractor shall adequately protect the work, adjacent property and the public and shall be
responsible for any damage or injury due to his act or neglect.
E. Access to Work
The Contractor shall permit and facilitate observation of the work by the City and its agents and
public authorities at all times.
F Changes in the Work
The City may order changes in the work, the contract sum being adjusted accordingly All such
orders and adjustments shall be in writing. Claims by the Contractor for extra cost must be
made in writing before executing the work involved.
G. Correcting of Work
The Contractor shall re- execute any work that fails to conform to the requirements of the
contract and that appears during the progress of the work, and shalt remedy any defects due to
faulty materials or workmanship which appear within a period of one year from date of
completion of the contract and final acceptance of the work by the City unless the manufacturer
of the equipment or materials has a warranty for a longer period of time, which warranties shall
be assigned by Contractor to City The provisions of this article apply to work done by
subcontractors as well as to work done by direct employees of the Contractor.
H. Owner's Right to Terminate Contract
Should the Contractor neglect to prosecute the work properly, or fail to perform any provision
of the contract, the City, after seven days' written notice to the contractor, and his surety, if any,
may without prejudice to any other remedy the City may have, make good the deficiencies and
may deduct the cost thereof from the payment then or thereafter due the Contract or, at the
City's option, may temlinate the contract and take possession of all materials, tools, appliances
and futish work by such means as the City sees fit, and if the unpaid balance of the contract
price exceeds the expense of finishing the work, such excess shall be paid to the Contractor, but
if such expense exceeds such unpaid balance, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the
City.
I. Payments
Payments shall be made as provided in the Agreements. Payments otherwise due may be
withheld on account of defective work not remedied, liens filed, damage by the Contractor to
others not adjusted, or failure to make payments properly to the subcontractors.
J. Contractor's Liability Insurance
Contractor will carry public liability and property damage insurance with carriers satisfactory
to the City, in the following amounts:
S50,000 property damage
500,000 public liability (each person)
SI,000,000 public liability (each occurrence)
with endorsements naming the City as an additional insured and will provide the City with
certificates of insurance prior to start of construction and with 30 days notice prior to
cancellation.
-2-
K. Performance Bond
The Contractor shall furnish to the City prior to start of construction a performance bond in an
amount of 100% of the contract in a form acceptable to the City In lieu of bond for contracts
less than 525,000, the City may, at the Contractor's option, hold 5% of the contract amount as
retainage for a period of 30 days after final acceptance or until receipt of all necessary releases
from the Department of Revenue and the Department of Labor and Industries and settlement of
any liens, whichever is later.
L. Liens
The final payment shall not be due until the Contractor has delivered to the City a complete
release of all liens arising out of this contract or receipts in full covering all labor and materials
for which a lien could be filed, or a bond satisfactory to the City indemnifying the City against
any lien.
M. Separate Contracts
The City has the right to let other contracts in connection with the work and the Contractor
shall properly cooperate with any such other contracts.
N. Attorneys Fees and Costs
In the event of legal action hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its
reasonable attorney fees and costs.
O. Cleaning Up
The Contractor shall keep the premises free from accumulation of waste material and rubbish
and at the completion of the work he shall remove from the premises all rubbish, implements
and surplus materials and leave the building broom clean.
P Indemnification
The Contra, ctor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and
employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorney's fees,
arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by an act, omission or
failure of the Contractor, its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by
this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the
City, its officers, agents and employees, the Contractor expressly waives its immunity under
Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its
employees and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for
in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the
contractor. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to
any damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the
extent any of the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the
concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend
and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the
Contractor, its officers, agents, and employees.
Q. Prevailing Wages
The Contractor shall pay all laborers, workmen and mechanics the prevailing wage and shall
file the required "Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages" in conformance with RCW
39.12.040.
R Discrimination Prohibited
The Contractor shall comply with all Equal Employment Opportunity regulations and shall not
discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, or any person seeking the
services of the Contractor on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin,
marital status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap.
-3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto executed this Agreement the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF TUKWILA
By� By:
g nanve Sigature £55,/
Printed Name: Printed Name:
Title: Title: (JAZ
Date: Date: 7/S 6
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
BY
Transportation Committee
August 28, 2006 5:00 p.m.
Present: Joe Duffle, Chair; Pam Carter, Joan Hernandez, council members.
Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works; Frank Iriarte, Deputy Director; Bob Giberson, Acting City
Engineer; Gail Labanara, Public Works Analyst; Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer; Nick Olives, Fire
Chief; Caroline Brabrook, HNTB Corporation; Chuck Parrish, community member; and Diane Jenkins,
Administrative Assistant to, the Council.
Business Agenda
A. KlickitatfTukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Update
Ms. Cyndy Knighton reported that staff has been working toward a design to improve traffic conditions at the
Klickitat Drive/Southcenter Parkway intersection. HNTB was selected in 2005 as an engineering consultant
for this project. She conveyed that 60% of the design is now complete and 100% design should be complete
by the end of September She pointed out that Westfield was given an option to pay for a °slip ramp" as well
as a dropped pedestrian walkway, estimated at $1.5 million. Westfield informed staff that they are declining
this option. Mr Duffle asked why Westfield declined. Ms. Knighton conveyed that it was an economical
decision. Many of the design options will be incorporated throughout the Tukwila Urban Center and other
areas of the City to provide a coordinated design. Ms. Carter asked about the pedestrian walkway.
Ms. Knighton noted that the sidewalks would remain in similar location, however, they will be widen to
6 -10 feet, narrower at some points due to physical constraints and need to maintain parking. Westfield does
not have sufficient parking, which is why they contributed $500,000 to the Tukwila Transit Center project (in
order to get approval of the reduced parking spaces). Ms. Hemandez asked if the slip ramp could be installed
at a later date. Ms. Knighton said that was possible, but it would be costly. Ms. Knighton noted that it is
preferred that construction would begin next year, prior to other major regional construction activities
occurring, but a 2008 construction date is still possible. Ms. Knighton related that they will be submitting a
Transportation Improvement Board (Tl8) Application for a $5 million grant Also, work will begin on the
formation of LID (Local Improvement District) to help fund this project. Ms. Hernandez asked why the city's
operating budget showed_$1 million negative amount in the years 2008 and 2009. Ms. Knighton replied that
because of Hurricane Katrina, there was a reduction of 15% from original grant awards and the funds will be
spread out over 5 years, so the City will forward fund part of the grant dollars and it shows a negative balance
because the City will be paying itself back. Discussion only.
8. Fire Station #52 Female Restroom Project Bid Award
Mr Nick Olives, Fire Chief, conveyed that a separate female restroom and shower area is required at Fire
Station #52. They currently only have one shower area located inside the male restroom and locker area.
The architectural services of Wayne Ivary Architects and Associates were retained to develop plans to utilize
a portion of the existing dormitory area for the new restrooms. Corsair Construction, currently performing the
work for the Council Chambers remodel project, submitted the apparent low bid. Fire station #51 and #53 can
accommodate both genders. As Corsair is currently remodeling the Council Chambers, Ms. Hernandez
asked when the Council Chambers would be complete. Mr Marrow noted that the cabinets should be
delivered September 14 and the project completed by the end of October Unanimous approval. Forward
to Committee of the Whole then to Regular Council.
C. 2006 Second Quarter Report
The Second Quarter Report for the Public Works Department was presented. Ms. Hernandez asked when
the card access system would be implemented. Mr Morrow replied that administrative services will be
printing the new identification cards. Ms. Carter inquired about the maintenance tracking system being used.
Mr Brodin noted that this is an in -house database. They are tracking maintenance of vehicles and
equipment Information will be shared at an upcoming Transportation Committee on the condition of the fleet.
Some vehicles are no longer on the depreciation schedule and are costly to maintain. information.
New Business
Ms. Carter inquired about the TIB bus shelter located across the Neighborhood Resource Center which has been
dosed for months and asked that contact information be provided at all bus shelters. Mr. Morrow noted that
Seattle City Light should be able to remove the pole by the end of the month and the shelter would re -open. Also,
he will have maintenance staff check on the status and make improvements to provide contact information for
Metro. The city is responsible to maintain the bus shelters on TIB.
Mr Morrow provided an update on an incident which occurred last week at the Sound Transit Construction site on
$2 Ave. S. The police are conducting an investigation of a noise complaint; the contractor went beyond the
10:00 p.m. noise variance due to alleged safety concems. Also, someone tumed off the light plant which posed a
safety risk and endangered workers on the site. He continued and pointed out that today the gantry was moved
and the Johnson Braund Building was evacuated.
Ad 5:45 p.m.
t Committee Chair Approval
;Minutes by DJ, Reviewed by GL and OK.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
r lln. Wqs y ITEMNO,
a
)g) Aketiiz Dale I Pr rd ht I Mer,or's rri7A) I co:era1 r:i:d
0
v in 't i iZ I 9/11/06 I JP 14 c lli I
I I I I
190E I I I I 3 b
I I i I
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER 06-104 I ORIGINAL AGEND A. DA 1E: 9/11/06
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Review of the Adult Entertainment Record
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Raolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg D&L 9 /11/06 hg Date Vtg Date lfrg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
I SPONSOR Council tlfa)'or Adrn Sts DCD Finance 9 Fire Le Pdtt Polir? PIV I
SPONSOR'S The Planning Commission recently reviewed the City's adult entertainment zoning
SU\LIIARY provisions for possible negative secondary effects as part of the City's process for
reviewing and supplementing the City 's code. At this time Staff is not recommending any
substantive zoning code changes and requests an adoption of the record to support the
existing regulations.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: August 24, 2006
RECOMMIENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Jack Pace 1
COMMITTEE COW
COST IMPACT FUND SOUR CE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
-0- 0
Fund Source: NA
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
9/11/06
MTG. DATE= ATTACHMENTS
9/6/06 Information Memo from Jack Pace dated September 6, 2006
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 24, 2006
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 11, 2006
Legislative Record (notebook) distributed separately.
1
1
w
o z' City of Tukwila
1.' G) S Steven M. Mullet Mayor
it
n
1
c �n s D e paltnzent of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908,
TO Mayor Mullet
Councilmenbers
FROM: Jack Pacl
DATE. September 6, 2006
RE. Review of the Adult Entertainment Record
Issue
Whether the City should adopt the adult entertainment record to support existing zoning regulations.
Background
Given the potential for adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment, the City regulates, through
zoning, where adult entertainment establishments may be located within the City These zoning
provisions, found in Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, have not been reviewed or updated
since their adoption in 1995. Given the length of time since these provisions were last reviewed, to
determine whether the adverse secondary effects that these provisions were meant to regulate are still
applicable, and to supplement and update the legislative record, Staff is bringing this issue before the
City Council for their review and adoption.
To assist the City Council in determining what negative secondary effects are associated with adult
entertainment and how to address them, attached is the legislative record compiled by the City of
Spokane as well as supplemental material prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
Discussion
In 2002 and 2003, the City of Spokane amended its zoning code related to the zoning of adult
entertainment. This legislative record was prepared as part of that process. Within the record are studies
conducted by other cities, declarations, a legislative record from the City of Federal Way, and other
documents collected specifically to show the negative secondary effects of adult entertainment.
As part of the City's process of reviewing and supplementing the City's code and legislative record, the
City may use the evidence collected by Spokane.
Recommendation
The City Council Adopt the Adult Entertainment Record.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206- 431 -3665
PLANNING CONIIIIISSION DRAFT
PUBLIC HEARING PvII1i TUTES
AUGUST 24, 2006
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Bill Arthur,
Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Margaret Bratcher and Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff: Jack Pace, Shelley Kerslake, and Wynetta Bivens
GEORGE MALINA MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARLNG
MINUTES, FROM JULY 27, 2006. CHUCK PARRISH SECONDED THE MOTION;
I'H.E MOTION WAS UNA1Nfii IOUSLY APPROVED.
PLANNING COTvIVi HSSION
CASE NUMBER. L06 -055
PURPOSE. Regarding a proposed update to Zoning Code regulations governing adult
entertainment establishments.
LOCATION: Citywide
Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony
Jack Pace, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development gave a PowerPoint
presentation. For the record, Mr. Pace requested a correction to the staff report, staff listed is the
City Attorney, Shelley Kerslake, which should be changed to Jack Pace. Mr. Pace gave a brief
overview on the existing ordinance, some basic concepts, and the material in the Planning
Commission packet. He listed the current uses that are regulated in Chapter 18 of the TMC,
stating that the purpose of the meeting was to look at how to deal with secondary impacts. The
method of regulation in Tukwila is a combination of' concentration and dispersion, which allows
adult facilities in specific districts, but within the district there are separation requirements. The
Planning Commission packet highlights where these types of facilities are allowed. In the
existing adult entertainment requirements, currently there is approximately 5% of land that is
non residential and is allowed for adult entertainment.
Staff is recommending re- enacting the adult entertainment ordinance and incorporating the
proposed updates as listed in the notebook provided in the packet, and forwarding the Planning
Commission's recommendations to the City Council for a public hearing.
There were no public comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Planning. Commission Minutes
August 24,2006
Page 2 of 2
Chair Ekberg made a motion to recommend re- enactment of the adult entertainment regulation
to include the updated record. received by the Planning Commission, with one correction, to
change Shelley Kerslake's name in the staff report to Jack Pace. Commissioner Arthur seconded
the motion. All were in favor.
Director's Report:
Reminder joint meeting on Tukwila Pond
Tukwila Station update
Update on funding for moving the railroad tracks
Meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M.
Submitted by Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
`st`N "'1745' City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
i;= Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
190
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COYLVIISSION
Prepared August 11, 2006
HEARING DATE. August 24, 2006
NOTIFICATION: Published August 11, 2006 Seattle Times
FILE NUMBERS: L06 -055
i
REQUEST. Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City CounciL
LOCATION: City wide
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Legislative Record Only SEPA is not required
STAFF: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT: Adult Entertainment Legislative Record
ARM rnuthrenter Roulevard. Suite 11100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206- 431.3670 Fax: 206- 431.3665
BACKGROUND
Given the potential for adverse secondary effects of adult entertainment, the City regulates,
through zoning, where adult entertainment establishments may be located within the City These
zoning provisions, found in Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, have not been reviewed or
updated since their adoption in 1995. Given the length of time since these provisions were last
reviewed, to determine whether the adverse secondary effects that these provisions were meant to
regulate are still applicable, and to supplement and update the legislative record, Staff is bringing
this issue before the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to Council.
To assist the Planning Commission in determining what negative secondary effects are associated
with adult entertainment and how to address them, attached is the legislative record compiled by
the City of Spokane as well as supplemental material prepared by the City Attorney's Office.
DISCUSSION OF SPOKANE'S LEGISLATIVE RECORD
In 2002 and 2003, the City of Spokane amended its zoning code related to the zoning of adult
entertainment. This legislative record was prepared as part of that process. Within the record are
studies conducted by other cities, declarations, a legislative record from the City of Federal Way,
and other documents collected specifically to show the negative secondary effects of adult
entertainment.
As part of the City's process of reviewing and supplementing the City's code and legislative record,
the City may use the evidence collected by Spokane.
REOUESTED ACTION
Review the City of Spokane's legislative record, hold a public hearing on the secondary effects
of adult entertainment, and supplement the City's legislative record. Staff is not recommending
any substantive changes to the zoning code at this time.
C:iDOCUME_MynettalLOCALS- 1\Temp \TU I .DOC Page 2
May 2006 Analysis
i
1
t/ i ti L
;C//////4- i Y
1
i
SJ L
Adult Entertainment Criteria j I
®Adult Entertainment Allowed
Tukwila City Limits'
i/ r i
SchoouDaycare Buffer 9-=41:, r L'` --011(y. 4
Tukwila Trails 7-iii J i
Trail Buffer i
Park Buffers ct
No Adult Zones /i i.i i ±4 X r.
Adult Allowed Zones 1 1 S! z ti
ZONE_ 1 i r
CAI
i HI f vi�j fi
in” I
1 LDR 4 r/
it I N.
MDR i f E-
MICA
et
MUO
d� ff
;MCC i
I0 i
F RC L
RCC it N
RCM a i
I TUC x GIS
i TVS Tukwila
.vai�a
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
0,.• 2 L;ftiaL jTE1iIlV0.
Ie 1 I Meeting Date I Pr dared bi Ma);r'snthw I ecomialretie; i
a 09/11/06 1 BM for SL
m ;o
Taoa I I I I
I I I I
ITEM= INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 06-105 IORIGLNALAGENDADATE: 9 /11/06
AGENDA ITEarTrrtr. Creation of a Wireless Telecommunications Chapter
CATEGORY Disawion Motion ❑'Rsoletion Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Meg Date 9/1]/06 Mg Date 1ftg Date ig Date Mfg Date tg Dare Mfg Date
SPONSOR Council major Adm Svn DCD Finance Fire Lsgal P &R Police 9 PIP" 1
SPONSOR'S The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of a Wireless
SUALA{ARY Telecommunications Chapter to regulate the placement, location, and design of future
wireless telecommunication facilities (cell antennas) within the City.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: PC 5/25/06, 6/22/06, and 7/27/06, CAP 8/28/06
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMEN. Set a date for a public hearing.
COMM ITTEE CAP forwarded the proposed chapter to COW for consideration.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N /A $N /A $N /A
Fund Source: N/A
Comments: N/A
L- MT&'DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1 9/11/06 1
1 i
1
1
1 MTG. =DATE ATTACHMENTS
9/11/06 1 Memo from DCD with Attachments
9/11/06 Draft Ordinance with proposed changes 1
CAP minutes dated 8/29/06
1
1
1
ra. wgsy
City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
h= Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
1908 STAFF REPORT
TO
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FROM. Steve Lancaster, Director
Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner
RE. Creation of Wireless Telecommunications Chapter
DATE. September 5, 2006
ATTACHMENTS. A. Map of Cell Facility Locations in the City
B. Planning Commission Minutes
C. Photos of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Introduction
DCD included a budget item in the 2006 budget to create a Wireless Telecommunications
Chapter within the City's zoning code. Planning staff began working on the chapter in
February of 2006 and staff briefed CAP in March. CAP forwarded the matter to the
Planning Commission.
Background
Cell phones have become an everyday item to the American public. In 1992 the number
of Americans using cell phones stood at 11 million. By 2005 the number of Americans
using cell phones had increased to 182 million.
Cell phones initially provided voice to voice communications. Today cell phones
provide more than just phone service, they also provide access to the internet, email, text
messages, IvIP3 player, digital cameras, location capability (GPS) and video.
The backbone of cell phone usage is the network of wireless antennas that allow users to
communicate with other cell users and landline users. The wireless antennas have a
limited coverage and capacity ability As more people use cell phones, more wireless
communication facilities are needed.
It is this explosion in cell usage that triggered staff's desire to examine how the City
reviews applications for wireless communication facilities.
B. Miles Page 1 09106/2006
*i.e! ^V
t'_ "r "ArrncroaT :006,09.1. L,_
6300 Southcenter Bouleva Suite :100 Tulnvila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
Under the City's current process, all new applications and certain modifications to
wireless communication facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP is
reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
The following are issues with using the CUP process for wireless telecommunication
facilities:
1 The criteria provides no standards directly related to the impacts of such
facilities.
2. By requiring the same process for all proposals they do not allow the City to
provide incentives such as streamlined review times for desirable projects such
as stealth facilities, collocations, and facilities located in industrial zones.
3 The CUP guidelines provide no clear direction to a potential applicant about the
City's preferences for the location and design of telecom facilities.
Plannine Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission was first briefed of the proposed chapter in April of 2006. A
public hearing was set for the May meeting and the public hearing was continued through
the July meeting.
Planning staff also attempted to solicit input from wireless communication providers and
their contractors. An invitation to an informal luncheon was mailed to all applicants for
CUPs related to Wireless Communication facilities for the past three years. Staff
provided draft copies of the proposed chapter all who sent in an RSVP The providers
who attended the meeting did provide good comments on the draft chapter and changes
were made as a result of those comments.
At the its July meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
adopt the draft chapter. The vote was 6 -0 with one commission member absent from the
meeting.
The following are the goals of the creation of this chapter
1 Protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
2. Establish clear regulations for wireless providers to allow them to have
predictability in the review process.
3. Streamline the review process for desirable projects.
4 Encourage providers to locate in commercial and industrial zones and to take
advantages of existing elevations (Utility Poles, Transmission Towers, Buildings,
etc).
5 Ensure that the City's regulations do not conflict with Federal or State laws
regarding construction and operation of wireless communication facilities.
B. Miles Page 2 09106/2006
Q \Telecommuications \COW +STAFF REPORT 2006.09A5.doe
Major Criteria of New Chanter
As noted, one of the goals of the new chapter is to encourage desirable facilities within
the City To provide an incentive to applicants the new chapter allows desirable projects
to have a streamlined review and thus allows an applicant to reduce their "time to
market" for new facilities.
The City's zoning code sets up five types of land use applications. Type I are small scale
projects while Type V applications require approval of the City Council. An example of
a Type I application is a sign permit and an example of a type V application would be an
unclassified use permit.
The Planning Commission identified certain wireless applications which should be
subject to a Type I application.
These include:
1 Locating antennas on transmission towers.
2. Adding antennas to an existing tower.
3. Attaching antennas to an existing building within an industrial zone.
The Planning Commission recommended that the following facilities should be subject to
a Type II decision.
1. Utility Pole Collocations
2. Adding antennas to existing buildings in residential or commercial zones.
Perhaps no other land use application generates as much controversy as a proposal to
construct a standalone cell tower. The Planning Commission chose to only permit new
cell towers in the City, as a type IV permit with a public hearing and a review of specific
approval criteria.
Any decision by the City on a wireless communications application could be appealed to
the Hearing Examiner.
The chapter sets up specific design standards for wireless telecommunication facilities.
The design standards are based on the type of facility
The chapter also provides tools for the City to use in order to ensure that the overall goals
of the Chapter are met.
These tools include:
I The ability to require peer review for any wireless telecommunication application.
2. Flexibility on setbacks in order to preserve open space or to conceal a proposed
facility
3 Ability to require a noise study in cases where sound could be an issue.
B. Miles Page 3 09/06/2006
Q \Telecommuications \CO\ \?STAFF REPORT 2006.09AS.doc
Community Affairs and Parks
At the August 28 CAP meeting the committee fonvarded the draft ordinance to the COW
for consideration. At the CAP meeting there was some discussion on some proposed
language changes in order to clarify certain issues. Planning Staff and the City
Attorney's Office have made several changes to the proposed ordinance.
The version of the ordinance that was adopted by the Planning Commission is shown in
legislative format. Language that staff proposes to delete is shown with ctrilcethrough
and proposed new language is shown underline.
Next Sten
Planning Staff recommends that the proposed chapter be forwarded to the September 18,
2006 regular City Council meeting for a public hearing and possible adoption.
Alternatives
1 Request additional information from Planning Staff and have staff report back to
COW at the next meeting
2. Send the proposed chapter back to the Planning Commission with specific
instructions where additional information or consideration is warranted.
B. Miles Page 4 09/0612006
Q: \Telecommuications`.COW \STAFF REPORT 2006.09.05.doe
Cell Facility Locations in the City of Tukwila
s/•, 1
a n
I i �'l�_
,=i _u[ha 9 l r n WayS
A f :914
3 1
V �'1OB25 East Marginal Way[ l I
i
11030 East Marginal Wa?fis c
sljxs
7 I 109155lst AveS
5 113_t
e.
S E
ar j 5:15. S /1
_.j s7, I
-2230 7 Ili ,2 fill !,x °11
f c
c >l'it g,40051st 'et
J 4 8 12.s 1
,N N. n
s-; 1 g v 1 7
Ave c cis AveS
>I B r Y.
C''
'o c s \2'
l j i 1:fi_ >I mil 73400 1nferurban AVeS
513 n z-\ l l
r� o1 Az- 1 !vl
73910 u 1 1 I 5' cs \a
m e gqo l s <I 31 2
s1a 40a 4Oth St l n 4 4n;thAves
le N cI
N\i3,¢ g s y10 S id 5[
1 J I ,40451�fP. i s ^s <�351 5 746t St <I n s l. c� c i 'A_ t' 1 a o 14800 Intern $1 r n 5 MataaamndsrQ a s. 5 r: 4 900 1ntelurban A Ve ts 75215 zC S.' I Fn r v_ 07� as 51a SDV 1 1 r, �o „sl>,c �l s t00Si'–'
outh rat l 4 f 3 oI Pn I ^i Ave ce
3
N lema ti pOaFB I 3 :x3cy 1�i13 =.�,�I
>I 1 S:610 z, 2 '16038 West Valle Highaat
Z;`15.323 S ail O
a
I AIMO
x155 1 i E l 1 16400 E&S ?r Pk y
Legend i -3y 1,65 °sowlcent rand I 1
Stealth i f
O Facade Mounted 545And 44er Par .W
Monopole 2 i �l 3
t: r
i' w�x�o.a y
O Utility
Rooftop 'f Ta
1
O Communications Towel `y E -_a c.-:.au-
Streets
1 Tukwila Boundary 1 7 z24Ando,r Pen 1228 An !Ter Park
StigS A L SW 43'
0 6251,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 t sawn :2, A Ft -1 V
atek 4
PLANNING CONI IISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MAY 25, 2006
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Bill Arthur, Lynn
Peterson, Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Commissioners Margaret Bratcher and Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Nora Gierloff, Brandon Miles, and Wynetta Bivens
BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE WORKSESSION MINUTES AND
H KARING MINUTES FROM MAY 25, 2006. GEORGE }IALINA SECONDED THE
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony
PLANNING CON IISSION
CASE NUMBER: 3.06 -030
APPLICANT City of Tukwila
REQUEST Modification of chapter 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TIvMC) regarding
changing message signs at Public Facilities within the City
LOCATION: Citywide
Commissioner Arthur gave a public disclaimer that he received an e -mail from Steve Lancaster, Director,
Department of Community Development. Commissioner Arthur stated that the appearance of the e-mail was
different than what he would normally receive from Mr. Lancaster. Commissioner Arthur called Mr.
Lancaster and inquired whether the e-mail was from a third party After receiving confirmation that the e-
mail was from a third party, he informed Mr. Lancaster that he was going to delete the e-mail. He said, for the
record, that he does not open, receive, or read unsolicited e-mails. Commissioner Arthur also talked about
the rules, procedures and policies that the Planning Commission practice.
Mr. Lancaster responded to Commissioner Arthur's comments and gave clarification on what transpired.
He stated that the e -mail he sent to Commissioner Arthur was also forwarded to all of the Planning
Commission members for whom staff has an e -mail address. Mr. Lancaster forwarded the information to one
Planning Commission member whom staff does not have an e -mail address for by mail. He explained that
the matter was legislative and that he should have been clearer in communicating that to the Planning
Commission members.
Other Planning Commission members acknowledged that they too had received the e-mail, and that it
addressed a legislative matter, concerning a case that was on the 5/25106 agenda.
CASE NUMBER: L06 -030
APPLICANT City of Tukwila
REQUEST Modification of Chapter 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) regarding
changing message signs at Public Facilities within the City
LOCATION: Citywide
E'/
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25 2006
Page 2 of 4
Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave a presentation on the proposed
project. Mr Miles provided some background and answered numerous questions. Staff requests that the
Planning Commission provide direction in regards to a possible Sign Code amendment, after conducting a
public hearing. Staff has provided four options:
1. No Action.
2. Modify the definition of "animated sign"
3A, 3B Exemption for community event announcements.
4. Eliminate prohibition of animated sign.
The options were listed in detail in the 5/25/06 package.
Mr. Lancaster provided some additional information on the last paragraph in option 3A and 3B, which
reads `It should be noted that the courts have been increasingly critical of government sign regulations
that base privileges or restrictions upon the content of the message.' Mr. Lancaster explained that the
courts almost look at these kinds of cases as highly suspect and that they take a very careful and close
look with almost a presumption that it could be a constitutional problem. Therefore, he urged the
Planning Commission to be a little cautious, suggesting possibly limiting allowing signs that have public
service kinds of announcements, to not be subjected to the same regulations as signs that provide a
general message. Mr. Lancaster stated that option 2 would be on quite safe ground and staff could
support that. He stated that option 4 is pretty radical from past practices, but staff could support it.
BM Van de Bogart, School District Business Manager, gave the presentation for the applicant. Mr. Van
de Bogart addressed the matter concerning the e -mail that Mr. Lancaster forwarded to the Planning
Commissioners. He stated that he wanted to get the information to the Commission in advance, to
provide them time to read the school districts request. Mr. Van de Bogart said their mission is very clear
to work with the parents and teach the children the very best that they can. They struggle with how to
communicate with the multi languages in the community He gave a PowerPoint presentation, showing a
picture of the existing sign and the new proposed sign, calling the old sign worthless because it is time
consuming to change and unfeasible to change in several different Languages. The proposed sign would
change to several different languages to reach the children. Mr. Van de Bogart answered numerous
questions.
Kathy Znak, a citizen, expressed her concerns regarding the accident probability for non english
speaking people in the community trying to fmd something in their languages. She suggested that a
traffic study is done.
REBUTTAL: None.
ADDITIONAL COMLIIENTS:
Mr. Lancaster asked the Planning Commission, "If the applicant's request was accommodated how broadly
do you want to accommodate it?"
After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission determined they needed some additional information in
order to make a decision. Staff needs to follow up on the following:
1. Check with the City Attorney to see if allowing what is otherwise a static sign to change to different
languages permissible?
2. Provide additional information on brightness.
3. What are the variances of frequency for the changing message sign?
4. What would be a good timeframe for allowing animation?
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25 2006
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Lancaster suggested that the Commission take a look at what other Cities are allowing. Mr. Lancaster
stated that his goal is to bring back to the next meeting, a proposed ordinance for the Planning Commission to
look at. There was discussion on possible legal ramifications if a decision is challenged. The simplest thing
would be to apply whatever decision the Planning Commission makes across the board to any legal sign in
Tukwila.
There were no further comments.
Chair Ekberg continued the case to the June 22, 2006 Public Hearing.
CASE NUMBER. L06 -023
APPLICANT City of Tukwila
REQUEST Creation of a "Wireless Telecommunications Chapter" within the City's Zoning
Code. The chapter will regulate the placement and operation of wireless
communication facilities. The chapter will provide guidance on where such
facilities can Locate in the City, development standards, approval process, and
exception criteria.
LOCATION: Citywide
Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for staff. Mr.
Miles facilitated discussion on the seven areas of the ordinance as listed in the May 10, 2006 Staff Report to
provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to incorporate any revisions. The next step will be for the
Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
Commissioner Parrish raised the question whether staff had discussed the proposed purpose and intent with
the IT Department and Council Member Haggerton. Staff stated there has been discussion with
Councilmember Hageerton and that he has not provided them with any input at this time. There have also
been informal conversations with other Cities and departments.
Suggested Revisions:
Item 1: Purpose and Intent:
4 Remove the word `adequate'
Item 2: Exemptions:
2 Revise language
Item 3: Definition
9 (this section already exist in the Zoning Code, however, it will be amended in
order for Planning and PW to have the exact definition)
Take a look at Black's Law dictionary for the definition of Rights of Way
#10 Correct misspelled word.
Item 4: Permit Review Matrix
Staff was asked to return with a recommendation regarding the benefits, risk, and cost of changing
Type 3 decisions to Type 2 decisions.
Staff will return with some good design standards for Utility Pole Co- Location Possibly changing
from a Type 2 decision. Mr. Lancaster made the request that very very clear design standards should
be in place if it's a Type 2 decision. One possibility is that it has to be a metal pole with all of the
Planning Commission Minutes
May 25 2005
Page 4 of 4
cables concealed inside the pole to be a Type 2. If this guideline is not feasible, the decision type
bumps up to a higher level.
Staff shall provide a recommendation for the following option: If there are no design standards and
the utility pole co- location is changed only in a residential area, should it be a Type 4 decision?
Kathy Johnson, a Wireless Provider Consultant, provided some insight regarding utility poles because there
has been a bit of contention. Wood poles are preferred by the utility providers because of the time involved
in designing and engineering steel poles capable of holding the antennas. Most in the community find the
wood pole less intrusive in the area and there are ways to mount the antennas around them. Ms. Johnson
offered to bring in some pictures for the Planning Commission to review Ms. Johnson also offered to
arrange to have a RF Engineer come with her, to speak at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Item 5: New Monopoles:
The following sentence should be incorporated in the draft policy
Any new monopole within the City will be required to allow co- location of other providers who
wish to locate 011 the facility'
Incorporate language for a certain amount of growth to support co- locations.
Draft Ordinance Revisions:
Page 3, letter b. 'Sentence needs to be modified
Page 3, Type (table) Numbers need to be consistent in table in both the draft and the Staff Report
Page 5, No. 4 Parking Modify language
Page 5, No. 4 Antenna Intensity Modify language `Feed lines and coaxial cables shall
be attached securely and appropriately to one of the transmission towers
Page 6, No. 2 Antennas Aesthetics Modify language `The screening must be made
out of the same material and match the color scheme
Mr Miles recommended that the public hearing is continued and that staff return with additional
information.
There were no further comments.
REBUTTAL: None.
Chair Ekberg continued the case to the June 22, 2006 Public Hearing.
Director's Report:
Update on mall construction
Sound Transit Light Rail project going on
Update on Tukwila Station project
Chair Ekberg asked for an update on the Klickitat project
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM
Submitted by Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
Adopted 6/22/06
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING IVIINUTES
JUNE 22, 2006
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Margaret Bratcher,
Bill Arthur, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Commissioner, Henry Marvin
Representing
City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Brandon Miles, Sandra Whiting, Cyndy Knighton, and Wynetta Bivens
CODLMISSIONER ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT'PHE PUBLIC HEARING
i••IINUTES AS MODIFIED, FROM JUNE 22, 2006. COiLBIISSIONER BRATCHER
SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development, introduced Cyndy Knighton.
Cyndy Knighton, Senior Traffic Engineer, Public Works, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the
Klickitat Project, which is a significant project for the City Cyndy provided some background from
the beginning of the project, listing the goals that the City identified and wanted to accomplish. A
study was done to determine what could be done to the area, which resulted in the establishment of
the alternative 3B concept. Due to concerns from some consultants that the design wasn't the most
feasible to construct, the City came up with the idea of a design competition. ILvlTh Corporation
was awarded the contract and came up with the current design. The City strongly believes the
design has a lot of potential for an award winning design and construction. Ms. Knighton shared
many details of the project, and then answered questions.
Mr Lancaster also introduced Sandra Whiting.
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist, Department of Community Development, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the wetlands mitigation, which she has already presented to the City Council, whom the
program was endorsed by She provided some background on the program. It has been determined that
on site mitigation is not always practical and that off site mitigation might be a better solution. Part of the
project is to take a look at what areas could be used as mitigation sites. The objective of the program
that was developed is to help facilitate development for smaller developers. It would offer alternatives to
on site mitigation by providing some ideas where off site mitigation in Tukwila can occur. In addition, it
would provide increased environmental projects and increased wetland functions.
Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony
PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NUMBER. L06 -034
APPLICANT Cingular Wireless
REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
modify an existing wireless communication facility, which will be located on an
existing City Light transmission tower. The antennas will be located on the top of
the transmission tower. In order to meet minimum clearance from the high
voltage electrical lines, the existing tower will be extended five feet in height.
M7 fnfexfre--Z
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 2006
Page 2 of 6
The associated ground equipment will be located directly below the transmission
tower in a 400 square foot enclosure. A chain -link fence with barbwire will
enclose the 400 square foot enclosure. The enclosure will include a 256 square
foot concrete pad where the cabinet equipment will be located.
LOCATION: City Light transmission tower, adjacent to the United States Postal Facility
and State Route 99 King County Parcel Number 042304 -9130.
Commissioner Arthur made a declaration that his adult daughter that lives with him works for
Cingular Wireless. He stated he did not believe the relationship would have any bearing on his
objectivity
There was no objection to Commissioner Arthur hearing the case.
Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the proposed project. As a result of the merger between AT &T and Cingular
Wireless, a lot of the sites need to be upgraded to accommodate both networks. The maximum
height in the MIC/H district is 125 feet. The applicant is proposing that the antennas have a
height of approximately 153 feet. This type of application does not trigger compliance with the
height requirements because it does not trigger a building permit, since it's on City Light's
transmission tower. There is no impact to pedestrians. The need to move the antennas is a City
Light safety requirement, to make it safer for their employees to service the line. There was a
question raised regarding FAA lighting, which Mr. Miles deferred to the applicant. Staff
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, as presented, with one condition:
1. All equipment attached to the City Light Transmission tower shall be painted to match
the color of the tower.
Sara Telschow, for the applicant, Realcom Associates, addressed the question raised regarding
FAA lighting. There is no FAA lighting proposed for this project since it is only increasing by
five feet in height. The applicant agrees with staffs condition; however, Ms. Telschow
explained that it is very difficult to maintain paint on coaxial cables, therefore, requested that it
not be a condition to paint them.
REBUTTAL: Staff stated that if FAA lighting is necessary as a result of the proposed application, they will
address it and determine if it needs to come back to the Planning Commission.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission Deliberated.
CHAIR EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMiEIT
FOR CASE NUMBER L06 -034 WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOM MEN'DAT IONS, AND THE ONE CONDITION TO READ:
1. ALL EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE CITY LIGHT TRANSIIISSION TOWER
SHALL BE PAENTED TO MATCH IRE COLOR OF THE TOWER, WITH IHE
EXECPTION OF THE CO -AXLAL CABLES, WHICH SHALL MATCH THE EXSTING
CO -AXIAL CABLES ON THE SITE. COMMLSSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UN ANLMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 2006
Pate 3 of 6
Chair Ekberg asked staff to come back to the Planning Commission some time in the future with some
ideas on how the FAA is engaged in lighting situations and who may be responsible for such situations.
Steve Lancaster provided some information on what the process is if the FAA needs to be, or is involved
in, situations where lighting is necessary
Prior to opening the public hearing on case number L06 -030, Chair Ekberg called a recess.
The Planning Commission and Staff gathered outside to look at the proposed electronic
message board that the applicant had available for them to view.
5 -25 -06 PUBLIC DARING CONTINUED:
CASE NUMBER. L06 030
APPLICANT City of Tukwila
REQUEST Modification of Chapter 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
regarding changing message signs at public facilities within the City
LOCATION: Citywide
Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for staff. He
provided background on the May 25`' public hearing. At the May 25 public hearing, staff briefed the
Planning Commission ofi a proposal from the Tukwila School District. The request was for modification
of the Sign Code, to allow changing message signs at Foster High School. The school district's main
reason for the sign is to display important messages to students and parents in multiple languages. Following
the May meeting, the Planning Department spoke with the Parks Department concerning what needs they
may have for this type of sign. The Parks Department indicated that such a sign could be used at the Tukwila
Community Center to advertise events. Staff did some additional research on safety impacts for these types
of signs. However, the Staff Report showed inconclusive either way regarding safety impacts from these
signs. Information was mostly geared toward highways.
Staff has provided a Draft Ordinance (Attachment A 6/22/06 Planning Commission packet) with the
following proposed changes:
1. Modify TMC 19.04.20 to add the following purpose clause:
The City desires to provide sign options that encourage public agencies to communicate with
members of the public.
2. Add language to the definition of animated signs (19.08.030) Animated Sign:
Following temperature add `or those permitted under TMC 19.32.300'
Additional sign regulations for public facilities
19.32.300 Electronic Message Boards
A. Signs located at public facilities, which meet the criteria of TMC 19.32.300, may use the sign as a
changing message sign, provided the following:
1. The image on the sign may not change more frequently than once every ten seconds.
2. The image must appear and disappear as one image. The image may not appear to flash,
undulate, pulse, portray explosions, fireworks, flashes of light, blinking or chasing lights,
Planning. Commission Minutes
June 22, 2006
Page 4 of 6
appear to move toward or away from the viewer, expand or contract, bounce, rotate, spin
twist, scroll, travel or otherwise portray movement.
3. If the public facility is located within a residential zone, the use of the electronic portion of
the sign is limited to the hours of 7 am to 10pm.
B. Notice of understanding:
1. Any public facility that installs and operates a changing message sign must submit a letter to
the Department of Community Development, signed by the appropriate
manager /administrator that notes understanding of the above requirements and assurance
that the sign will be used in the appropriate manner as stated in section 19.32.300 (A)(1 -3).
C. Order of Removal:
1. The Director of Community Development shall order the removal of any sign erected
pursuant to TMC 19.32.300 if the sign is used in such a way as to violate the provisions of
this chapter.
Staff's Recommedation:
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conclude the public hearing that started at the May
meeting and that the proposed changes listed in the Draft Ordinance be forwarded with a recommendation of
approval to the City Council.
Alternatives:
The following alternative actions are available to the Planning Commission:
1. Continue the public hearing at the July meeting and request additional information from the Planning
Staff.
2. Any of the proposed altematives which were listed in the May Staff Report (Attachment B).
Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development, addressed the issue of proposed
alternatives. He indicated that, based upon the testimony and discussion at the Planning Commission's May
25 meeting, staff believed it was the Commissions desire to pursue an alternative allowing electronic
message boards to be displayed by public facilities. He indicated that the other options outlined in the staff
reports are still in play, and that it is up to the Commission to decide what it wants to recommend to the City
Council.
There was additional discussion regarding the proposed ordinance language and its effect.
Commissioner Peterson expressed concern about the perceived change in the color of the electronic
message as one travels past the sign. He asked if that would violate the restriction against the image changing
more frequently then every 10 seconds, or be used as precedence allowing messages to change more
frequently Mr. Lancaster indicated he would not interpret the proposed Language to create such a problem.
BM Van De Bogart, with the Tukwila School District, addressed questions concerning color and how the
image on the sign would change, he stated that all of the letters would change to amber.
Mohammed Hassan, a citizen, was in favor of the message sign for communication, in multiple languages
in the community
REBUTTAL: None.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 22, 2006
Pate 5 of 6
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission Deliberated.
Although they expressed some concems, the majority of the Planning Commissioners stated their support
for the project.
Commissioner Arthur expressed concern over the proposed Code Amendments, indicating his opinion
that the disadvantages of such changes outweigh the benefits. He indicated that throughout his tenure on
the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission has attempted to minimize visual clutter and
especially to limit such intrusions in neighborhoods. He believes this proposal would take the sign code
in a different direction. He also expressed concern about treating public facilities differently from
commercial uses.
Chair Ekberg proposed looking at each item in the proposed ordinance individually to see if there were any
changes.
Several possible modifications were suggested. One suggestion was to specify that there could be "no
perceived color change" on a message center.
Chair Ekberg re -opened the public hearing at 9:33 pm in order to allow Commissioner Parrish to ask the
applicant to address color and the language proposed by Chair Ekberg.
Jacob Tilton, employed by a manufacturer electronic message center, stated that brightness or intensity
would technically change the color of the text. He provided explanation of why the color appears to
change even when the letters are all the same color. However, he has never had any experience with the
color spectrum being an issue. Mr. Tilton recommended that the Planning Commission avoid anything
that related to the actual message or the color of the text. He suggested focusing on the style or the timing
issue, stating you should be able to read the full message in the time it takes to drive by once. The
amount of time allowed for the image to change also dictates the size of the sign. If the sign is not large
enough to include the entire message, then it's ineffective. Mr. Tilton usually recommends one second per
line of text because that's how quickly we can read and process data.
Mr Lancaster asked the Commission for clarification of their concern regarding the change in color
when walking back and forth, while viewing the sign that was on display He stated that he could not
support a clause that reads the perception in color cannot change, due to the extreme difficulty of
enforcing such a request.
There were no further comments.
The re -opened Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
It was determined that the prohibition against "perceived color change" should not be part of the
ordinance.
Chair Ekberg suggested a `Sunset Clause' (Item D) to read 'This ordinance change would sunset one
year from date of implementation'
Planning. Commission Minutes
June 22, 2006
Page 6 of 6
As explained by Mr. Lancaster, the proposed amendment would go away after one year if the City took
no action and no new signs meeting these standards would be allowed. Existing signs that were lawfully
erected under these provisions during that one year period would fall under section 19.300.30(a) and
would be allowed to continue indefinitely, as long as it is not destroyed to more than 50% of it's value. If
so, it would need to be removed. No changes could occur to the sign as technology changes. The
proposed new regulation could be reviewed a year later in lieu of a Sunset Clause.
CHAIR EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE TITLE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY
STAFF WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT THE ORDINANCE SHALL SUNSET I ONE
YEAR. COMMISSIONER PARRISH SECONDED THE MOTION. FIVE VOTED IN FAVOR
AND COMMISSIONER ARTHUR VOTED AGAINST
CHAIR EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE NUMBER L06 -023 TO THE
7/27/06 PUBLIC HEARING. COMbIISSIONER MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL
WERE IN FAVOR
Director's Report:
Update on Sound Transit
1 Looking at doing a study of running light rail from Burien to Renton and potentially further
East.
2. Full fimding for completion of the sounder station at Longacres.
3 A proposal td make street and traffic improvements for access from the FA stside.
4 Provide shadow service for the Sounder bus services to connect the stations outside of the
hours the trains are running.
5. Increase Sounder services up to 9 trips each direction.
The City supports all of the proposed projects.
Mall project update
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM
Submitted by Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
Adopted: 7/27/06
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
JULY 27, 2006
The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Molina, Commissioners, Margaret Bratcher,
Henry Marvin, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish.
Absent: Bill Arthur
Representing
City Staff: Nora Gierloff, Brandon Miles, and Wynetta Bivens
MARGARET BRATCHER MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES, AS MODIFIED, FROM JUNE 22, 2006. CHUCK PARRISH SECONDED 'ME
MOTION; THE MOTION WAS TJNANI IOUSLY APPROVED.
PLAiN'NL G COMMISSION
CASE NUMBER L06 -023
APPLICANT City of Tukwila
REQUEST Creation of a `Wireless Telecommunications Chapter" within the City's
Zoning Code. The chapter will regulate the placement and operation of
wireless communication facilities. The chapter will provide guidance
on where such facilities can locate in the City development standards,
approval process, and exception criteria.
LOCATION: Citywide
Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, continued discussion from the June 22,
2006 public hearing. He stated that the draft ordinance, which was a template for a future ordinance, was
incorporated into code language, and put into legal language, by the City Attorney's office. The City
Attorney's Office made recommendations for some minor changes. Staff incorporated the five design
standards, as listed in the memo from Brandon Miles dated July 19, 2006, in the July Planning Commission
packet. There was extensive discussion on the proposed changes to the Utility Pole Collocations. Mr. Miles
went over the current proposal for the following five outstanding issues:
1. Utility Pole Collocations
Originally staff had made this a Type 3 decision. As a result of concerns expressed by the Commission, staff
is proposing a Type 2 decision, for which they have provided specific design standards. SEPA would be
required if the project is not categorically exempt from SEPA review Height is the biggest design issue.
Within the residential zone, the height goes from 30 ft. maximum height to 45 ft. in the high density
residential zone. Information was provided on City Light's standard differences for residential utility poles.
There was lots of discussion, questions, and cwncems expressed pertaining to the design standard on coaxial
cable limitation of one -half inch in diameter.
Katie Johnson, Realcom Associates, on behalf of Cingular Wireless, provided some picture samples of
different utility installations and a sample of the coaxial cable. Ms. Johnson addressed the issue concerning
4777W-r.8-3
Planningrm
Commission Minutes
July 27, 2006
Page 2 of 4
the width of poles. She stated that the bulk of the pole is usually due to the room inside for the conduit not
because of the structure stability
Steve Webster, Realcom Associates, on behalf of Cingular Wireless, went over some of the technology of
wireless set He talked about antenna lines, what drives the extra sizes, cable requirements, and
providing the best service. He explained that cable companies want the antenna lines above the surrounding
clutter to have a clear signal around the pole.
Chair Ekberg asked Katie what her thoughts were regarding the design standard pertaining to height.
Katie Johnson, on behalf of Cingular Wireless stated that the design standard on height is really going to
remove the ability to utilize any of the utility poles in a residential zone. She stated that residential areas, as
set by the proposed ordinance, are the most intensively reviewed and that if they can find a way out of a
residential area, they will. She stated that a carrier might have one cell site in four square miles. Ms. Johnson
called these types of sites very expensive and said it is the last thing that Cingular Wireless tries to do. She
answered several questions for the Commission.
Upon further questioning from the Planning Commission, staff stated their intent is to provide basic
standards. If a carrier can meet the requirements, they can utilize the basic standards. Mr. Miles provided
explanation on how the proposed ordinance may have different impacts on various carriers.
Chair Ekberg stated he wanted everyone to recognize that cellular carriers will not be able to take advantage
of the design standard, unless they go through the exception process. What staff is doing is putting, within
the design standards, the ability for wireless interconnect for data internet connectivity Because there is a
half -inch conduit it is not necessary to go up as high on a telephone pole.
Mr. Miles stated that under the Communications Act of 1996 there cannot be discrimination against
functionally equivalent providers. He said it would be very unlikely that one could argue that Cingular are
functionally equivalent providers. They provide different services and technology, therefore, different design
standards may apply If it impacts one differently than another, it's because they are not functionally
equivalent
Commissioner Peterson raised several questions that were addressed by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Webster, and Mr.
Miles.
Commissioner Parrish asked for clarification on whether the intent is to steer installation away from high
density areas into other areas.
Mr. Miles stated the overall goal of the chapter is to encourage providers to Locate in industrial zones or on
existing monopoles.
He addressed a question that was raised on the lack of enclosure language. He stated it was not included in
his memo because it was unchanged from what was originally discussed. He gave an overview of the
previous language.
He also provided some clarification on transmission towers and utility towers. He explained that the
provisions being addressed are for utility towers, which staff defines as anything that provides electric service
of less that 115 KB. Anything greater then 115 KB would be considered a transmission tower, which must
meet Type 1 requirements.
Commissioner Malina asked if there is a clause under the franchise when a pole has to be removed, for it to
be relocated.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2006
Page 3 of 4
Mr Miles indicated that a franchise agreement applies to a specific location and a new one would be
obtained if it was moved.
Commissioner Malina made addition comments unintelligible.
Ms. Johnson responded to comments raised by Commissioner Malina.
Mr. Miles continued with his overview on the remaining outstanding issues listed in his memo.
2. Setback Waivers
The Commission had no comments on this design standard.
3. Height Waivers
The Commission had no comments on this design standard.
4. Structure Type
The Commission had no comments on this design standard.
5. Modifications to approved facilities
The Commission had no comments on this design standard
Next Mr. Miles gave an overview of the proposed changes to the ordinance. He stated that the City
Attorney's Office added some Iegislative intent, which will be included in the chapter. One modification was
pointed out, on page four, listed under provision number 1, `King County' was added in the verbiage
pertaining to exemptions.
Commissioner Parrish asked for clarification on the difference between provision 2 and 3, under
exemptions.
Mr. Miles explained that the City Attoney's Office added a catch all, for any type of satellite, or any type of
private receiving antennas.
Mr. Miles addressed several more questions as he continued with the overview of the ordinance, discussing
the following: clarification on what is considered a monopole; permits required; third party expert review;
changes made to the matrix, utility poles were initially a Type 3 decision and is now a Type 2 decision; new
verbiage for the meaning of residential, commercial, and industrial zones; what an applicant must do in order
to submit a waiver, general requirements;
permitting new towers in the City; antennas located on transmission towers; existing tower specific
development standards; requirement for concealed building mounting development requirements for non
concealed building mounting development utility pole collocation; tower specific development standards;
using non concealed building attached in lieu of a concealed building attached; landscaping and screening;
zoning setback; height waiver, expiration; and the removal of abandoned wireless facilities.
Commissioner Peterson had questions regarding the 6 foot chain link fence used for enclosure.
Unintelligible.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 27, 2006
Page 4 of 4
Katie Johnson, on behalf of Cingular Wireless responded to the question regarding the height of the fence
enclosure. She stated that the manner in which the language was written allows for a tot of review Ms.
Johnson stated that in a residential neighborhood cedar fences are what you would usually see.
In conclusion, Mr. Miles stated that the ordinance will go in various chapters. There is going to be a new
chapter 18.71. And Chapter 18.06 will be modified. In addition, Chapter 18.104, regarding the types of
applications, will be modified.
Unintelligible.
Commissioner Molina asked a question regarding striking some language pertaining to
landscaping.. .unintelligible Mr. Miles agreed that the language could be striken.
Katie Johnson on behalf of Cingular Wireless had some issues that she requested that Mr. Miles address.
I. In response to Ms. Johnson's first question Mr. Miles confirmed that the type of landscaping
installed would not require approval from a certified landscape architect.
2. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Miles to remove the following verbiage regarding the new tower criteria.
`Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be
presumed to render the technology unsuitable' Mr. Miles stated that would be up to the Planning
Commission to consider for modification.
3. unintelligible. .Ms. Johnson addressed modification safety and site identifying
signs...unintelligible. Chair Ekberg suggested adding the language, `mandated identification
signs'
4. unintelligible. .Ms. Johnson requested not to be required to underground equipment. Ms. Johnson
proposed modifying the language to read, `feed lines and equipment that connect to the tower be
located underground, except if located within the same compound' Mr. Miles agreed to the
proposed language.
There were no further comments.
The Public Hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission Deliberated.
Commissioner Marvin asked for clarification on the Draft Ordinance, Page 13, Item I.
COMMISSIONER MALL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER L06 -023
WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECO,ILIIENDATIONS, AND
MODIFICATIONS AND TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR
REVIEW. COM IISSIONER MARVIN SECONDED I'HE MOTION. ALL VOTED LN FAVOR.
Director's Report:
Worksession in August on Adult Entertainment City Attorney will attend and discuss adding
some legislative record to the code.
Commissioner Parrish inquired about a joint worksession with the City Council Nora will
discuss with Jack and the City Attorney
Sound Transit lunch bus tour Friday August 18
Meeting adjourned at 9 P.M.
Submitted by Wynetta Bivens
Secretary
Adopted: 8/24/06
also
Picture A.
a.-s
mac- _s- u.. r
..sue_ t
mss'
1��
is
I ay`" t
I_ 7 1 Wireless
Antennas
N
f
i
A
t Ff- �t
The above is an example of Wireless Communication Facility located
on a Seattle City Light Transmission Tower.
G
Picture B.
12 i
E t.. ll z +i r." lilt' rci;
f f I r
CO% .1 l {i :l I'` 1 t i
3 t .(1 r1. 't' 'i
t; I t
I I Hi
I
2 1 4 :9 f.,‘ I
Y
r i
Existing Monopole in Allentown. Attaching antennas to the existing
pole would be a type I decision. Constructing a new monopole or tower
in the City would be a type IV decision.
Picture C.
Example of concealed or "stealth" facility The proposed chapter would
permit this facility as a type II decision.
Picture D
,rt,-,4. I
y I I j t` P e c
Ff fl i I k -R R <T4I r
wCt
t f
f It 5 1 I
I t
41 T-V ,'r
i. A
I
i
1 1
_ms's
t"
t t
1
Ail
The above facility is a non concealed building attachment. Under the proposed
chapter the above facility would be permitted as a type II decision in commercial and
residential zones and will be outright permitted in industrial zones.
1
Picture E.
3 er 3 'a
z= 3 r-
gst tea"
�c a
b.
i: .S t AA
1 s—r
W.c 4E
.j
The above facility is a utility pole collocation. The new chapter will perm such a
facility as a type II permit.
Draft L 9-6-06 Revisions CDB Kenyon Disend, PLLC
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 1 [1 LE 18,
ZONING REGULATIONS, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER TO
BE KNOWN AS CHAPTER 18.71, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILI'11hS, AND REGULATING THE SITING OF WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN ENFbCTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City has received or expects to receive requests to site wireless
communication facilities within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that Congress, pursuant to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, has imposed requirements that local governments not
unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal
wireless services or act in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services, while at the same time preserving traditional
state and local authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless
communication facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the provisioning of personal wireless services to the
residents of the City of Tukwila is in the public interest and that permitting the
placement construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within
its boundaries is necessary to support such service; and
WHEREAS. it is the Citv's intent therefore to oermit the placement, construction,
and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City also finds that placement, construction, and modification of
wireless communication facilities could adversely affect the character, aesthetics,
property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community; and
WHEREAS, the City also finds that construction /installation of new towers to
su000rt antenna installations is likely to have a more significant adverse impact noon
the character. aesthetics, orooertv values. historic significance, and environmental
duality of the community than use of existing towers, structures, and Dower poles and
use of alternative technology for such installations. and
t re:,,x_ :r. ti;e pkc..-- w,�— =d to ::fic±
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a review of its existing zoning code and
determined that the existing zoning code provisions are technologically dated, unclear,
or non existent regarding wireless communication facilities, and do not adequately
implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan or
adequately protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to protect and promote the public health, safety,
and welfare by adding a new chapter to the City's zoning code for the purpose of
...m _mr, 2
R'IILELE -1.. .r__, �_iIIC_, ���,9 /6 /OLSJ_z,.,5,1
regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication
facilities within its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after conducting three public hearings on
May 25, June 22, and July 27, 2006, recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed new wireless communication facilities chapter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Community Affairs and Parks Committee conducted
a public meeting on the 29th day of August, 2006 at which time it heard a presentation
from staff and reviewed the proposed new wireless communication facilities chapter,
and upon such review recommended modifications to Section 18.71.0 (New towers)
and Section 18.71.180 (Height Waivers) and other minor modifications be made. and
WHEREAS. the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing during
the regular meeting on and subsequently continued further
consideration of the proposed text amendments; and
WHEREAS. the City Council has based its findings and conclusions noon
consideration of. among other things. the existing topography and geography of the
city. existing land uses, available wireless communication technology. existing wireless
communications facilities and coverage. public testimony. presentations by staff.
applicable laws. rules. and regulations including. without limitation. the National
Environmental Policy Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. anolicab_le court
decisions. and the records on file with the office of the Citv Clerk:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Wireless Communication Facilities, Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18
(Zoning) is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 18.71, to be known as
"Wireless Communication Facilities," to read as follows:
18.71.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement construction,
and modification of wireless communication facilities in order to protect
the health, safety, and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably
interfering with the development of the competitive wireless
telecommunications marketplace in the City The purpose of this Chapter
will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives:
1. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory Local regulations
concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are
consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to
telecommunications providers;
2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse
impacts that wireless communication facilities may create, including, but
not limited to, impacts on: aesthetics; environmentally sensitive areas;
historically significant locations; flight corridors; and health and ^afety of
persons and property
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to
locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on
the community is minimal.
4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in
non residential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in
residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of
the telecommunications industry;
1 WIRELE-- 1W4R€L.:12_C^.'_:n.L" C-ATI vv 9/6/055/ 2.4f06, 2
5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities
in residential areas;
6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary
option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites, and suitable
structures, to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative
negative impact upon the City;
7 Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way
that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication
facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design,
landscape screening, minimal impact siting options, and camouflaging
techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location
options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques,
and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City;
8. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications
services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively,
and efficiently;
9. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that
are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building
Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these
abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed to protect the
citizens from imminent harm and danger;
10. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower
failure through engineering and careful siting, and maintenance of
wireless communication facilities; and
11. Provide a means for public input on major wireless
communications facility placement, construction, and modification.
In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to
the comprehensive land use plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and
environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of
communication towers and antennas.
These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact while
furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in
the City These objectives were designed to comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not
intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of
prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied
in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of
functionally equivalent personal wireless services.
To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts
with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this
Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and
regulations of the City
In reviewing any application to place, construct, or modify wireless
communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of
time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the
nature and scope of the application_ Any decision to deny an application
shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a
written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny
the application in accordance with Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal
1 WI RELE- 1WgREP2I_C:,'\llf J t? `_:^C\_ 2:2?E6, 9, 3
Code, this Chapter, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive PIan, and other
applicable ordinances and regulations.
18.71.020 Authority and Application.
The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the placement, construction,
or modification of all wireless communication facilities except as
specifically exempted in T ivIC Section 18.71.030.
18.71.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following.
1. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication
facilities, excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of
antennas, towers, or buildings; provided that, the wireless communication
facility received approval from the City of Tukwila or King County for the
original placement, construction, or subsequent modification. Changing
of antennas on wireless communication facilities is permitted provided
the new antennas have the same area or less of those removed. The total
number of antennas must remain the same. Additional ground
equipment may be placed within an approved equipment enclosure,
provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening
fence.
2. An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite
service,- including direct to-home satellite services, and that is one meter
or less in diameter or diagonal measurement.
3. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming
services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel
multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services,
and local multipoint distribution services, and that is one meter or less in
diameter or diagonal measurement.
4. An antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast
signals.
5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices
or HAM radios; provided that, the antennas meet the height requirements
of the applicable zoning district and are owned and operated by a
federally licensed amateur radio station operator or are used exclusively
for receive only antennas. In order to reasonably accommodate licensed
amateur radio operators as required by Federal Code of Regulations, 47
CFR Part 97, as amended, and Order and Opinion (PRB -1) of the Federal
Cornmunication Commission of September, 1985, and RCW 35A.21.260, a
licensed amateur radio operator may locate a tower not to exceed the
height requirements of the applicable zoning district provided the
following requirements are met for such towers located in a residentially
zoned district
a. The tower and any antennas located thereon shall not
have any lights of any kind on it and shall not be illuminated either
directly or indirectly by any artificial means;
b. The color of the tower and any antennas located thereon
must all be the same and such that it blends into the sky, to the extent
allowed under requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation
Administration;
1 W4 FLE -1WT' EL✓f_CC':^. Z C :1T `;_I C 6, 9J61CCC;'_' -6 4
c. No advertising logo, trademark, figurines, or other
similar marking or lettering shalt be placed on the tower or any wireless
communication facilities mounted or otherwise attached thereto or any
building used in conjunction therewith;
d. The tower shall be located a distance equal to or greater
than its height from any existing residential structure Located on adjacent
parcels of property including any attached accessory structures;
e. Towers must be at least three quarters (3/4) of its height
from any property line on the parcel of property on which it is located,
unless a licensed engineer certifies that the tower will not collapse or that
it is designed in such a way that in the event of collapse, it falls within
itself, and in that event, it must be located at least one-third (1/3) of its
height from any property line;
f. No signs shall be used in conjunction with the tower,
except for one (1) sign not larger than 8 I12" high and 11" wide and as
required by federal regulations;
g. Towers shall not be leased or rented to commercial users
and shall not otherwise be used for commercial purposes; and
h All towers must meet all applicable state and federal
statutes, rules and regulations, including obtaining a building permit from
the City, if necessary
6. Emergency communications equipment during a declared public
emergency, when the equipment is owned and operated by an
appropriate public entity
7 Any wireless intennet facility that is owned and operated by a
government entity
8. Antennas and related equipment no more than three feet in
height that are being stored, shipped, or displayed for sale.
9. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and
navigation.
18.71.040 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter 18.71 of the Tukwila Municipal Code
"TMC the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall
have the meaning given herein; words not defined herein which are
defined in TMC Title 18, shall have the same meaning or be interpreted as
provided in TMC Title 18. Words not defined here or in TMC Title 18
shall, except as may be otherwise provided, have their ordinary and
common meaning. A reference to TMC Title 18 or this Chapter 18.71 TMC
refers to the same as amended from time to time or as may be re- enacted.
When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense
include the future, words in the plural number include the singular
number, words in the singular number include the plural number, and the
use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders whenever the sense
requires. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the word
"may" is permissive. References to governmental entities (whether
persons or entities) refer to those entities or their successors in authority
If specific provisions of law referred to herein are renumbered, then the
reference shall be read to refer to the renumbered provision. References
WIRELE -1 e_ ET 'CET 222CC, 9/6/068/24/CG,5
to laws, ordinances, or regulations shalt be interpreted broadly to cover
government actions, however nominated, and include laws, ordinances,
and regulations now in force or hereinafter enacted or amended.
1. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facilities Any facilities,
component, part, equipment, mounting hardware, feed lines, or
appurtenance associated with, attached to, or a part of a tower, antenna,
ancillary structures, or equipment enclosures, facilities equipment
compound, and located within, above, or below the facilities equipment
compound.
2. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facility Structure Any
form of development associated with a wireless communications facility,
including but not limited to: foundations; concrete slabs on grade; guy
anchors; and transmission cable supports; however, specifically excluding
equipment enclosures..
3. Antenna(s) Any exterior system of electromagnetically tuned
wires, poles, rods, reflecting disks, or similar devices used to transmit or
receive elc“tr.,...agnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio
frequencies (excluding radar signals), wireless telecommunications
signals, or other communication signals between terrestrial and /or orbital
based points, including without limitation: directional antennas (also
known as "panel" antennas) which transmit and receive radio frequency
signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees; onmi-
directional antennas (also known as "whip' antennas) which transmit and
receive radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radial pattern, but do not
include antennas utilised specifically for television reception; and
parabolic antennas (also known as "dish" antennas) which are bowl
shaped devices for the reception and /or transmission of radio frequency
communication signals in a specific directional pattern.
4. Antenna Array One or more antennas and their associated
ancillary facilities, which share a common attachment device, such as a
mounting frame or mounting support.
5. Building Mounted Wireless Communication Facility A
wireless communication facility that is attached to an existing commercial,
industrial, residential, or institutional building.
6. Collocation The practices of installing and operating multiple
antennas and antennas of multiple utility companies, wireless carriers,
service providers, government wireless and /or radio common carrier
licensees on the same tower using different and separate antennas areas,
feed lines, and radio frequency generating and/ or receiving equipment.
7 Feed Lines or Coaxial Cables for Wireless Communication
Facility Cables used as the interconnection media between the
transmission /receiving base station and the antenna.
8. Flush Mounted Antennas Any antennas or antenna array
attached directly to the face of the tower or building such that no portion
of the antenna extends above the height of the tower or building.
9 Public Entity Any federal, state, or local government body or
agency
10. Public Right of Way All public streets, alleys, and property
granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use for streets and alleys,
together with all public property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to
1 WIRELE -1W ELESS_Cc.'_.',MT 4C IC` 222C;;, 9 /61068R49-66, 6
public use including but not limited to, walkways, sidewalks, trails,
shoulders, drainage facilities, bike ways and horse trails, whether
improved or unimproved, including the air rights, subsurface right, and
easements related thereto.
11. Public Safety Communications Equipment Radio or other
communication equipment that is owned and exclusively used by public
entities for emergency communication or communication between fire,
police, and other rescue personal.
12. Significant Gan in Service A large geograohic area within a
service area(s) of the applicant in which a large number of applicant's
remote user subscribers are unable to connect or maintain a connection to
the national telephone network through applicant's wireless
telecommunications network. A "dead soot" (defined as small areas
within a service area where the field strength is lower than the minimum
level for reliable service) does not constitute a significant gao in service.
13. Tower Mounted Facilities A wireless communication facility
that is mounted to a tower.
14. Tower, Electrical Transmission Any facility owned by Seattle
City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries
electrical lines which carry a voltage of at least 1151cv
15. Tower, Guy A tower that is supported with cable and ground
anchors to secure and steady the tower.
16. Tower, Lattice A tapered style of tower that consists of
vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross bracing and
metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas or similar antenna
devices.
17 Tower, Monopole A freestanding tower that is composed of a
single shaft usually composed of two or more hollow sections that are in
turn attached to a foundation This type of tower is designed to support
itself without the use of guy wires or other stabilization devices. These
facilities are mounted to a foundation that rests on or in the ground.
18. Tower, Wireless Communication Facility Any structure that
is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one
or more antennas, induding self supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or
monopoles. The term includes, without limitation, radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular
telephone towers, and alternative tower structures.
19. Utility Pole Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget
Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which
carry a voltage of less than 115k or any Qwest facility which carries
telephone lines.
20. Wireless Communication Concealed Facility A wireless
communication facility that is not readily identifiable as such and is
designed to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the
existing building(s) on a site, or a wireless communications facility
disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a
monopole or tower; or, a wireless communication facility that is placed
within an existing or proposed structure or tower or mounted within
trees, so as to be significantly screened from view or camouflaged to
WIRELE- 14 __CJ\ ^.72 C_1- C`; G9 C23O;,, 916/0„ 6,
appear as a non antenna structure or tower (Le., tree, flagpole with flag,
church steeple, etc.).
21. Wireless Communication Facility (Wtl`) Any tower, antenna,
ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof,
which is used for the transmission of radio frequency signals through
electromagnetic energy for the purpose of providing phone, intemet,
video, information services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced
specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission,
broadband, unlicensed spectrum services utilizing part 15 devices, and
other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be
developed.
22. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Compound An
outdoor fenced area occupied by all the towers, antennas, ancillary
structure(s), ancillary facilities, and equipment enclosures but ekciuding
parking and access ways.
23. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Enclosure Any
structure, including without limitation, cabinets, shelters, pedestals and
other devices or structures, that is used exclusively to contain radio or
other equipment necessary for the transmission and/ or reception of
wireless communication signals, including without limitation, air
conditioning units and generators.
24. Wireless Telecommunication Carrier Any person or entity
that directly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or manages any plant,
equipment, structures, or property within the City for the purpose of
offering wireless telecommunication service within the City
18.71.050 Permits Required.
1. No person may place, construct or modify a wireless
communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in
place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as
otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in
addition to the applicable requirements of TMC Title 18.
2. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be
reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public
or private property The Director of Public Works or his /her designee
shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are totally
within City right of way If a project is both on private or public property
and City right of way, the Director shall review the application.
Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is
reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated
pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from
any other appropriate governing body (i.e., Washington State Dept of
Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
4. This Chapter provides guidelines for the placement and
construction of wireless communication facilities not exempt as set forth
in TMC Section 18.71.030 from its provisions and modification of wireless
communication facilities.
5. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow a
wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking or
Landscaping on a site.
1 WwELE- 1TrRnrsg tGMMTd .ra%.: `c_:_ &-off8w 9/6/ 6882.4 u, 8
6. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this
Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 18.72 TMC. Any
request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or
waivers set forth in this Chapter.
7 Third .Party Expert Review Applicants use various
methodologies and analyses, including geographically based computer
software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to
be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such
as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and
topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a
third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical
data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its
discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a
permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the
applicant.
8. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual
agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the
City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties
to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications. The
third party expert review is intended to address interference and public
safety issues and be a site- specific review of engineering and technical
aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and /or a review
of the applicants` methodology and equipment used and is not intended
to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant.
Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to
the application. The expert review shall address the following
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and
methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use
intended by the applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated
by the City
9. Any decision by the Director, Director of Public Works, or
Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal
of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or
deny any application for a wireless communication facility
10. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by
the Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission without
approval from the City Minor changes which do not change the overall
project may be approved by the Director as a minor modification.
18.71.060 Types of Permits/Priority/Restrictions.
1. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless
communication facilities requested to be permitted. The types of wireless
communication facilities and the corresponding types of review are
described in the following matrix:
[Type of Permit Required Based on Type of
ta�nrrrc C?2
J1:I r.r. n 9 ,nom
E1`[ RELE- �1- �aR- c e�z_..<.r,;..__-_.__.`: '�f3' ,9 %6J,,,�o
!Wireless Communication Facility
Type of I Location
Facility
Zoning Oesidential ;CommercialrtdustrialI
Transmission Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
Tower
Collocation
Adding Type la Type la Type la
Antennas to an
dsting tower
'Utility Pole [Type 2 Type 2 (Type 2 I
Collocation
oncealed Type 2b Type 2b Type 1
Building
Attached
Von- Concealed type 2 Type 2 Type 1
Building
Attached
New tower or IT
ype 4 !Type 4 }Type 4
waiver request
Residential shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, LDR,
MDR, or FIDR.
Commercial shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, 0,
MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, Rcf, TUC, C/LI or TVS.
Industrial shalt mean any private /public property or right of way zoned LL HI,
MIIC /L, or MIC /H.
a. Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square
footage of the enclosure area does not atcreace.
b. An applicant may request to install a non concealed building
attached, under MAC Section 18.71.150.
In the event of uncertainty on the style of a wireless facility, the
Director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is
incorporated into the matrix.
2. The priorities for the type of wireless communication facility
shall be based upon the above matrix. Any application for a wireless
communication facility must work down from the above matrix. For
example, an applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that
using a transmission tower collocation is not possible before moving to a
utility pole collocation, and so forth, with the last passible siting option
being a new tower or waiver request.
3. The City's preference for locating new wireless communications
facilities are as follows:
a. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings,
towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers.
b. Place wireless communication facilities in non-
residentially zoned districts and non residential property
c. Place antennas and towers on public property and on
appropriate rights of ways if practical; provided that, no obligation is
1 r rrmcrrwCO3 3& o /2,
6VIRELE- �l�r�- ����EP °boa, 9/b/0,`,., CS, 10
created herein for the City to allow the use of City property or public right
of way for this purpose.
4. City Property /Public Rights of Way The placement of personal
wireless communication facilities on City owned property and public
rights of way will be subject to other applicable sections of the Tukwila
Municipal Code and review by other Departments (Le., Public Works and
Parks and Recreation).
5. Wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted on
property designated as landmark or as part of a historic district.
6. Applicants shall submit all of the information required pursuant
to TMC Section 18.104.060 and the following:
a. Type I.
i. A completed application form provided by the
Department of Community Development;
ii. Four sets of plans prepared by a design
professional. The plans shall include a vicinity
map, site map, architectural elevations, method of
attachment, proposed screening, location of
proposed antennas, and all other information
which accurately depicts the proposed project.
Minimum size is 8.5" by 11" Plans shall be no
greater than 24" x 36
iii. A letter from the applicant outlining the proposed
project and an evaluation from the applicant with
regard to the City's code requirements;
iv Sensitive Area Studies and Proposed Mitigation (if
required);
v If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report
prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating
compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC "Noise', and
vi. SEPA Application (if required).
b. Type LI. Applicant shall submit all information required
for a type I application and the following.
i, Four sets of photo simulations that depict the
existing and proposed view of the proposed
facility;
ii. Materials board for the screening material;
iii. Landscaping plan;
iv Letter from a radio frequency engineer that
demonstrates that the facility meets federal
requirements for allowed emissions;
v If the facility is located within a residential zone,
a report from a radio frequency engineer
explaining the need for the proposed wireless
communication facility Additionally, the
WIRE'LE-1 e. 'O\ YL C2 222.96,916102/24,T5,11
applicant shall provide dethiled discussion on
why the wireless communication facility cannot
be located within a commercial or industrial
zone; and
vi. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a
landscaping plan prepared by a Washington
State licensed architect.
c. Type IV The applicant shall submit all the information
required for type I and type II applications and the following:
i. All information required for new towers under
TMC Section 18.71.070;
E. The radio frequency engineer report shall
include a discussion of the information required
under TMC Section 18.71.070. The report shall
also explain why a tower must be used instead
of any of the other location options outlined in
Table 1;
iii. Provisions for mailing labels for all property
owners and tenants /residents within 500 feet of
the subject property;
iv Engineering Plans for the proposed tower;
v A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of
the service area;
vi. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of
the proposed tower and ancillary structures and
ancillary facilities from five points within the
impacted vicinity Such points are to be
mutually agreed upon by the C'.`.
Director of DCD and applicant. All plans and
photo simulations shall include the maximum
build -out of the proposed facility;
vii. Evidence of compliance with minimum Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)
requirements for radio frequency emissions;
viii. Evidence of compliance with Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) standards for height and
lighting and certificates of compliance from all
affected agencies; and
ix. Evidence that the tower has been designed to
meet the minimum structural standards for
wireless communication facilities for a minimum
of three providers of voice, video, or data
transmission services, including the applicant,
and including a description of the number and
types of antennas the tower can accommodate.
18.71.070 New Towers.
1 WIRELE -1 `_'1 "�-a--src 1CC--.'` 0 L: e, 916 /^=OO _'/c^6, 12
1. New towers are not permitted within the City unless
_._n gthe Planning Commission finds that
the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(11 Coverage Objective: There exists an actual (not theoretical) significant
gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate
such significant gap in sen7ce =n c 3Ia_ C_
network-. and
(2) Alternates: N=o existing tower or structure, or other feasible
site-a or other alternative technologies not requiring
s ct4rcza new tower in the City can accommodate the applicant's
proposed ant awireless communication facility; and
(3) Least Intrusive: The proposed new wireless communication
facility is designed andlocated to remove the significant gap in service in
a manner that is. in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations
set forth in this chanter, Title 18 TMC, and the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. the least intrusive upon the surrounding area.
The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the
application to construct a new tower and shall determine whether or not
each of the above reouirements are met :7.1 :L.__
L f .__%icy
acv?= Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing
reauirements include. but are not limited to, the following:
the: ieic
tea:...
4
=ea:t o the nn n .21, cc.:= _That the tower height
is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective;
b.
That no existing towers or structures or alternative sites ere
located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's
engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective (regardless of the
geographical boundaries of the City);
c. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient
height or could not be feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet
the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective;
d. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient
structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and
ancillary facilities;
e. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause
electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or
lArLRELE -1 Y e_ .3! C92 2• 9 /6 /08 /21,'C6,13
structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause
interference with the applicant's proposed antenna;
f. That the fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by
the owner or operator in order to share an existing tower or structure or to
locate at an alternative site or to adapt an existing tower or structure or
alternative site for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower
construction by 25 percent (23%) are presumed to be unreasonable;
g. That an alternative technology that does not require the
use of z'r __,:c. sa new tower, such as a cable microcell network
using multiple low powered transmitters /receivers attached to a wireline
system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new
tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the
technology unsuitable; and
h. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that
render existing towers and structures or other sites or alternative
technologies unsuitable.
All engineering and technological evidence must be provided and
certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly
demonstrate the evidence required.
la The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, shall
either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, or
remand the application back to staff for further investigation in a manner
consistent with the Planning Commission order.
18.71.080 General Requirements.
The following apply to all wireless communication facilities regardless of
type of facility
1. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device,
which will create noise, must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 8.22
TMC (Noise). A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer shall be
submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless
communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The
City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the
expense of the applicant.
2. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation, or
entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall
have a valid business license issued by the City annually Any person,
corporation, or other business entity which owns a tower also is required
to obtain a business license on an annual basis.
3. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by other
government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities.
No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication
facilities.
4. Parking. Any application must demonstrate that there is
sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the
proposed facility
5. A tower shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or,
subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a
neutral color, so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness.
1 r. mcrrcc Ct
F�'IILEL.E— Ir,- �a�,� _Z�C.�TI^ti 9 /6:O5C; =3 14
6. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use
materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the
tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment.
7 All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or
structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to
or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to
make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as
possible.
8. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the
FAA, FCC, or other applicable authority If lighting is required, the
reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the
design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas.
No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower,
9. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility
sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment compound.
10. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall be limited to an
equipment enclosure of 360 square feet at each site. However, this
restriction shall not apply to enclosures located within an existing
commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building.
18111.090 Electrical Transmission Tower Co- Location Specific
Development Standards.
1. Height. There is no height requirement for antennas that are
Located on electrical transmission towers.
2 Antenna Aesthetics. There are no restrictions on the type of
antennas located on the electrical transmission tower. The antennas must
be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower.
3. Antenna Intensity There is no limit on the number of antennas
that may be located on an electrical transmission tower structure.
4. Feed lines and co-axial cables shall be attached to one of the legs
of the electrical transmission tower. The feed lines and cables must be
painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower.
5. Cabinet Equipment. Cabinet equipment shall be located
directly under the electrical transmission tower where the antennas are
located. The wireless communication equipment compound shall be
fenced and the fence shall have a minimum height of six feet and a
maximum height of eight feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels,
or other materials to screen the equipment from view Barbed wire may
be used in a utility right of way that is not zoned residential.
6. Setbacks. Since the facility will be located on an existing
electrical transmission tower, setbacks shall not apply
18.71.100 Adding Antennas to Existing Tower Specific Development
Standards.
1. Height The height must not exceed what was approved under
the original application to construct the tower. If the height shall exceed
what was originally approved, approval from the Director is required for
any height which will be less than the maximum height of the zone.
1 W[RELE-- 1WTRr` 1 C: \T ^ti__n CN "-3'96, 9 /6 /Oc°,�_S,'CC, /5
2 Antenna Aesthetics. Antennas shall be painted to match the
color scheme of the tower.
3. Antenna Intensity There is no limit on the number of antennas
that may be located on an existing tower.
4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and coaxial cables
shall be located within the tower. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables
(such as when extended out of the tower to connect to the antennas) must
be painted to match the tower.
5. Cabinet Equipment. A new cabinet shall be located within the
equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original
application, If the applicant wishes to expand the equipment enclosure
from what was approved by the City or County under the previous
application, the applicant shall seek a wireless communication facility
(type II) application for only the equipment enclosure increase.
6. Setbacks. Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs
new antennas on an existing tower and uses an existing equipment
enclosure. If the equipment enclosure is increased it must meet setbacks.
18.71.110 Concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements.
1. Height The proposed facility must meet the height
requirement of the applicable zoning category The antennas can qualify
under TMVIC Section 18.50.080 (Rooftop Appurtenances) if the antennas are
located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower,
mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances
usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human
occupancy Stand alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop
appurtenances.
2. Antennas Aesthetics. The antennas must be concealed from
view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could
include steeple like structures and parapet walls. The screening must be
made out of the same material and be the same color of the building.
Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s).
3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be
located below the parapet of rooftop.
4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located
within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be
located, then the City's first preference is to locate the equipment on the
rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the
equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If
screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent
with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and
material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the
equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and materials shall be
used to screen the equipment from view Barbv.ire may be used in the
TVS, LI, Hl, bIIC /L, and MIC /H zones.
5. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities
facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the
facility is to be located.
1851.120 Non- concealed Building Mounted Development
Requirements.
222.2C„ cp 9/61 '0a-,1-24/-05, 16
1. Height. The proposed facility must meet the height
requirements of the applicable zoning category If the building where the
facility is located is at or above the maximum height requirements, the
antennas are permitted to extend a maximum of three feet above the
existing roof line. Non-concealed building mounted facilities shall not
qualify as 'Rooftop Appurtenances" under T14C 18.50.080.
2. Antenna Aesthetics. The first preference for any proposed
facility is to utilize flush mounted antennas. Non -flush mounted antennas
may be used when their visual impact will be negated by the scale of the
antennas to the building. "Shrouds" are not required unless they provide
a better visual appearance than exposed antennas. Antennas shall be
painted to match the color scheme of the building(s).
3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be
Located below the parapet of rooftop. If the feed lines and cables must be
visible, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s).
4. Cabinet Equipment If cabinet equipment cannot be located
within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be
located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the
equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet
walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then
the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in
terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet
equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced
with a- six-foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the
equipment from view Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, IC/L,
and M[C /H zones.
18.71.130 Utility Pole Collocation.
1. Height. The height of a utility pole collocation is limited to ten
feet above the replaced utility pole and may be not greater than 50 feet in
height in residential zones. Within all other zones the height of the utility
pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the
underlying zoning, whichever is greater.
2. The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the
utility pole to support its utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced
utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles
in the area.
3. The replaced utility pole must have the color and general
appearance of the adjacent utility poles.
4. Coax cables limited to one -half C7'2) inch in diameter may be
attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than one -half (44)
inch must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the
total size of all coax cables being utilized on the utility pole.
5. The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the
pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian
improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be
made to improve the pedestrian environment if necessary
6. Cabinet Equipment. Unless approved by the Director of Public
Works, all cabinet equipment and the equipment enclosure must be
placed outside of City right of way If located on a parcel that contains a
i T) building, the equipment enclosure must be located next to the building.
ii
1112 E"'1T�-InL'T rcc Ci n 8 2
rracccv� -c:,_ L'.r .�T`^\ C �B 9/6 /Cwt; e o, 17
The cabinet equipment must be screened from view The screening must
be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style,
architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located
on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and
materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view Barbwire may
be used in the PIS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and bIIC /H zones.
7 Setbacks. Any portion of the wireless communication facilities
Located within City right of way does not have to meet setbacks. The City
will evaluate setbacks on private property under the setback requirements
set forth in TMC Section 18.71.170.
18,71.140 Towers- Specific Development Standards.
1. Height Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the
height standards of the zoning district where the tower will be located.
2. Antenna and Tower Aesthetics. The applicant shall utilize a
wireless communication concealed facility The choice of concealing the
wireless communication facility must be consistent with the overall use of
the site. For example, having a tower appear like a flagpole would not be
consistent if there are no buildings on the site. If a flag or other wind
device is attached to the pole it must be appropriate in scale to the size
and diameter of the tower.
3. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities must
meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If an exception is
granted under TMC Section 18.71.180 with regards to height, the setback
of the proposed wireless communication facilities will increase two feet
for every foot in excess of the maximum permitted height in the zoning
district.
4. The color of the tower shall be based on the surrounding land
115P5.
5. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. All feed lines and cables must
be located within the tower. Feed lines and cables which are not located
within the wireless communication facility equipment compound that
connect the tower to the equipment enclosure must be located
underground.
18.71.150 Request to Use Non concealed Building Attached in Lieu
of a Concealed Building Attached.
The use of concealed building facilities shall have first priority in all
residential and commercial zones. However, an applicant may request to
construct a non -concealed building attached wireless communication
facility in lieu of a concealed wireless communication facility The
following criteria shall be used:
1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the
antennas, the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in
relation to the building.
2. Cables are concealed from view and any visible cables are
reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where
they are located.
3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view
CD,, °-2226 9/ 6/0;.°; x,18
4. Due to the style or design of the building, the use of a concealed
facility would reduce the visual appearance of the building.
5. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet
from the Duwamish /Green River.
18.71.160 Landscaping/Screening.
The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated
and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base
of the tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures, and
ancillary structures, with the exception of wireless communication
facilities located on transmission towers or if the antenna is mounted flush
on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other
equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director, Director
of Public Works, or Planning Commission, as appropriate, may reduce or
waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility
that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation,
topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same
degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the
visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and, in those locations
where large, wooded lots, and natural growth around the property
perimeter may be sufficient buffer.
Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing
vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may
be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening
requirements. The following requirements apply
1. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of
the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum ten foot portion
of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to
the enclosure.
2. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width
around the perimeter of the enclosure.
3. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum
of six feet tall at the time of planting.
4. Applicant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance
schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years
from the date of planting.
5. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant
materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development
proposal and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the
facility
In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the
Director, after giving thirty (30) days advance written notice, may
maintain or establish the landscaping at the cost of the owner or operator
and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in
full.
18.71.170 Zoning Setback Exceptions.
A. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private
property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some
WIRELE-'1 TPELDI_COAaIL T2, I:20X, 916/068124/-06, 19
circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the
goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view
B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of
application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when:
1. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can
demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will
provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided
under the existing setback requirements; or
2. The modification will aid in retaining open space and
trees on the site; or
3. The proposed location allows for the wireless
communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially
zoned (LDR, MDR, and'HDR) properties.
C. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to
waive /modify any required setback required under the State Building
Code or Fire Code.
18.71.180 Height Waivers.
Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships,
practical difficulties, or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would
result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the zoning
code, of the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent
by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these
regulations; provided that the applicant demonstrates that the waiverfsl
will substantially secure the values. obiectives, standards, and
requirements of this Chapter. TIvIC Title 18. the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. and demonstrate the folloxinP:.-
1. The granting of the height waiver will not be detrimental to the
public safety, health, or welfare, or injurious to other property, and will
promote the public interest,
2. 1
and ,2_.LL-= of these
3—A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific
circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered
in determining the existence of a. hardship shall include, but not be limited
to:
a. Topography and other site features;
b. Availability of alternative site Iocations;
c. Geographic location of property; and
d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and
availability of collocation.
In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may
impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the
objectives of the values. objectives. standards. and requirements of this
Chanter. TMC Title 18. and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan#_
WIRELE�1WIR SS_ M ?.^.1 T C-8 9/6 C 20
A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by
the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review The
petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts
relied upon by the applicant
18.71.190 Expiration.
Any application to install or operate a wireless communications facility
shall expire exactly one year from the date of issuance of the application
unless significant progress has been made to construct the facility The
City may extend the expiration period by up to one additional year due to
circumstances outside of the control of the applicant. However, the City
shall not issue an extension if any code revisions have occurred to the
zoning chapter which would affect the wireless communication facility
approved application.
18.71.200 Removal of Abandoned Wireless Communication
Facilities.
Any antenna or tower that, after the initial operation of the facility, is not
used for the purpose for which it was intended at the time of filing of the
application for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be
considered abandoned and the owner of such antenna or tower shall
remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City
notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove such
abandoned tower shall result in declaring the antenna and /or tower a
public nuisance. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this
section shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower.
Section 2.. TMC 18.104.060, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.060
is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph "m" following section
18.104.060(4)0) to read as follows:
m. Wireless communication facility permits, see Chapter 18.71 TMC.
Section 3. Severability If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by Taw
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day c f 2006.
ATTEST/ AUTHEi TICA
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Shelley M Kerslake, City Attorney Ordinance Number:
1 WWELE -1W4' F S—G .P.£b`\ i 3 C_ 9 /6!0Q /06, 21
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
August 29, 2006 5:00 p.m.
Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffle, -and Pam Linder
Steve Lancaster, Director of Department of Community Development; Brandon Miles,
Assistant Planner; Chris Bacha, Assistant City Attorney; and Diane Jenkins, Administrative
Assistant to the Council.
Business Agenda:
A. Wireless Telecommunications Chapter Briefing
Mr Lancaster reminded the committee that a 2006 Budget Goal was the creation of a wireless
telecommunications chapter within the city's zoning code. Mr Miles indicated that Planning staff
began working on this project and briefed the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee in
March 2006. CAP referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Mr Bache has extensive
background and expertise on this subject and has reviewed drafts of the proposed ordinance. The
explosion of cellular device usage has triggered the need for the City to examine the process used to
review applications for wireless communication facilities.
The Planning Commission has held'three public hearings as part of the process of developing the
new telecommunications chapter As a result of those hearings and much discussion, the Planning
Commission recommended restrictions on how new cell towers are permitted. Mr tvtiles reviewed the
draft ordinance and responded to questions. He explained that one of the provisions of the ordinance
is that a third party expert review be made of pen applications, for which the applicant would be
required to pay Currently, the City pays for a third party review Ms. Linder suggested that this
language be incorporated into other ordinances. Discussion of the proposed ordinance language
continued. Ms. Linder asked how long it would take to process an application under each category
Mr Miles replied that Type 1 would take approximately 28 days; Type 2, 3 months; and Type 4, 4 -5
months. Ms. Hernandez asked what would be classified as a 'Waiver request? Mr Miles noted that
that would constitute height variances. Mr Miles continued and noted that there has not been a
request for a new tower since 1990. A new tower is typically the last option for companies since it
requires a large capital investment and a lengthy application process wherein they must demonstrate
that a stand alone monopole is the only way they can provide service in a particular area.
Mr Bacha relayed information concerning telecommunications litigation and topics that have or have
not been addressed by the courts.
Ms. Linder referred to new towers, `The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the
application to construct a tower and shall receive evidence demonstrating the following when acting
on an application to construct a new tower in the City (although nothing should be construed to infer
that meeting one, some, or all of the following shall entitle the applicant to approval) Ms. Linder
noted that even if the applicant met all of the requirements, a permit could be denied. Mr Bacha
replied that an applicant would have to meet the standard set by the 9 Circuit Court. Ms. Linder
asked that this language be reviewed. Mr Duffie expressed concern with height of cellular towers
and placement of antennas on buildings with historical significance. Forward to Committee of the
Whole.
Adjournment: 5:50 p.m.
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by DJ.
,K ICA COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
a y biti,& ITEM NO.
MM Date 1 Aunty by 1 maws >e 'iew 1 /Cjzral rr w 1
.a In'-'4 08/28/06 i
er;\ j 1 1 Dennis I 1 0(144
:i 1 0_ I 09/11/06 1 Dennis :-4--0� 1 X3
,,,,9oa_ 1 1 1 3, C
1
ITEM INFORMATION
ICAS NUMBER: 0 1 (00 I ORIGINALAGEIDADATE: 8/28/06
AGENDA ram TI Council Goals for 2007 Budget
CATEGORY Disassiai p Maya: p Raa'a&ion p Oz&wxe Bid Ava rl P,IiicHe iirg 01z-
AftgDae8 /28/C6 lftgDate AfigDate Aftgfve ,:foD e AftgDae AfgDate
I SPONSOR Council Mapr AdnSza DCD Fira ce Fite Lega l P&R Polite Pit'/
SPONSOR'S It is appropriate at this time of the year to discuss and establish the Council Goals and
SUMMARY Budget for the 2007 Budget Document. The goals were first reviewed at the August 28
Council meeting.
REVIEWED BY COW Mt GMT ante F&S CnAte Transportation Crate
Utilities Crate Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE:
RE COMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADAm Dennis Robertson
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPE 'NDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
i I
I 1
1
MTG. DATE l ATTACHMENTS
1 8/28/06 2006 Council Program Description, Budget Narrative, 2006 2005 Program Goals
9/11/06 Revised 2007 Council Program Description, 2007 Focus /Goals, 2006 200 Program
I Goals and draft of proposed 2007 Legislative Budget
I
I
Department: City Council Program. Legislative
Division: N/A Account: 01 -511 -600 Fund 000 General
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: {current program description}
The City Council represents citizens by setting overall policy direction for the City The
Council also represents the City in regional intergovernmental affairs and meets with
state and federal legislators and City lobbyists to strengthen ties through regular
contacts and communications.
Policy direction is given by the Council through passage of motions and ordinances,
and adoption of resolutions and ordinance;. Approving the annual budget with its
implied policies is another Council responsibility In addition, the Council also
approves comprehensive plans and capital improvement plans.
It is the Council Administrative Assistant's duty to accist the Council in it's dutics by
providing provide staff support to the City Council
2007 FOCUS or Goals
Adopt information technology policies to develop automatic processes for on -line
access of Council Packets.
Consider options for starting a City telecommunications operations.
Continue to evaluate personal technology options for Council members so they can
participate in evolving City automation processes.
Research current information and effective strategies for City participation in
controlling "global warming."
Adopt policies to set physical and appearance standards for city-owned property "lead
by example."
Provide meaningful capabilities to promote traffic enforcement and calming in
residential neighborhoods.
Continue to adopt zoning and comprehensive plans policies regarding Tukwila Valley
South.
Adopt policies that address safety (crime) and appearance issues on Tukwila
International Boulevard (including Tukwila Village.)
Advocate and develop campaign to address perceptions on Tukwila International
Boulevard.
Develop comprehensive plan for a Neighborhood Resource Center
Focus on development of policies to improve housing stock for both single and
multi family housing.
Work with King County and state agencies to overcome gap on public health issues
advocate for teen health center
Implement the old "Residential Streets Program."
Secure funding for a permanent Neighborhood Resource Center on TIB.
2006 PROGRAM GOALS:
Adopt zoning and comprehensive plan policies regarding Tukwila Valley South.
In work.
Strengthen ties with state and federal legislators through regular contacts and
communications. Completed.
Adopt comprehensive plan policies for Transit Oriented Development. In work,
planned for fall '06
Consider options for starting a City telecommunications operation. Deferred.
Provide a counter defense to federal efforts proposing limitations on Cities ability to
control its rights -of -way In work.
Promote traffic calming in residential neighborhoods. Partially completed, but under
funded.
Evaluate personal technology options for councilmembers. Completed.
Get monthly briefings on Washington, D C. lobbyists' work. Partially completed.
2005 PROGRAM GOALS:
Schedule a facilitator to conduct a team building and process exercise for Council.
Deferred indefinitely.
Continue to refine City ordinances and policies to strengthen the City's residential
community Completed.
Adopt budget policies and refine Council procedures and schedules to strengthen
financial planning in the City Completed.
Work with other organizations to ensure that future state and federal policies and
processes are beneficial to Tukwila citizens. Completed.
Get monthly briefings on Washington, D C lobbyists' work. Completed.
Schedule and hold an AWC financial planning workshop in early 2005. Deferred
indefinitely.
Promote traffic calming in residential neighborhoods. Partially completed.
Department Legislative
Total 2006 Budget Allocation
Total 2007 Budget Allocation
Total Budget Increase 2007
Vs. 2006
Account
000.01.511.600.11.00
000.01.511.600.13.00
000.01.511.600.21.00
000.01.511.600.23.00
000.01.511.600.24.00
000.01.511.600.25.00
000.01.511.600.25.97
000.01.511.600.31.00
000.01.511.600.41.00
000.01.511.600.42.00
000.01.511.600.43.00
000.01.511.600.49.00
Description
Salaries
Overtime
Total Salaries
FICA
PERS
Industrial Insurance
Medical, Dental, Life, Optical
Self- Insured Medical & Dental
Total Benefits
Supplies
Total Supplies
Professional Services
Communication
Travel
Miscellaneous
Total Services
Total Legislative
$ 250,388
$ 250,388
2006 2007
Budget Budget
Allocation Allocation
$ 160,647 $ 147,720
$ 160,647 $ 147,720
$ 12,289 $ 11,301
$ 4,932 $ 9,070
$ 1,773 $ 1,773
$ 17,376 $ 17,664
$ 22,971 $ 19,504
$ 59,341 $ 59,312
$ 2,000 $ 2,956
$ 2,000 $ 2,956
$ 3,000 $ 3,000
$ 400 $ 400
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 5,000 $ 17,000
$ 28,400 $ 40,400
$ 250,388 $ 250,388
Lo0islallvo 01,511.xls 1 9/7/2006 8:50 AM
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MONTH MEETING 1=- MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEE11NG 4
REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR CO AA:
September 5 (Tuesday) 11 18 25
Special Presentations: Soedal Issues:
Labor Da Update on All Nations Tukwila Urban
(Ci offices closed) Sze agenda packet Cup event Center Signal
hJ cover sheet for this Interconnect and
week's agenda Tukwila Pond concept ITS Project
(September 11, 2006 Plan
Committee of the Proclamations /Aunts.: Bid award
Whole meeting). APpoinbnent of Full-time
Lavern Peterson to construction
Equity Diversity management
Commission services
Proclamation supplemental
designating 9 -30-06 agreement
as Mayor's Day of Part-time on -call
Concern for the construction
Hungry support services
Consent A eon da:
Final acceptance of
\taule Ave./58th Ave.
South /Campbell Hill
Waterlines Project
completion
Public Hearing:
Re- enactment of adult
entertainment ordinance
O ctober 2 9 16 23
30e
ci
Sneal Presentation:
Fifth Monday of the US. Mayors' climate
month—no Council protection agreement
meeting cheduled (Kim Drury, City of
S Seattle, Office of
Sustainibility and CO>BUI1E =OFTHE
Environment) wHOtE \Lc HNC TO
BE FOLOV.TD S
SFEcan MEETING
November 6 13 20 27
npi—
Veterans Day
(City offices closed)
23a
Thanlcsgivmg.
and day after
Thanksgiving
(City offices do
Upcoming Meetings Events
SEPY'EiMBER 2006
I1th (Mondav'1 12th (Tuesday) 13th Wednesday) 14th (Thursdav) 15th (Friday) 1 16th (Saturday)
Transportation Community FARMERS MARKET Tukwila Rotary Human Senices Chipper
Corte, Affairs Nib Corner of .144th St. and Benefit Golf Providers, Day PM Corte, Tukwila Intl Blvd Tournament at 11:30 AM 5
(CR =l) 5:00 PM Every Wednesday Foster Golf Links Tukwila 10:00 AM to
CR 4Community 1:00 Pm 3 (now [brooch Sept t 27) ty
Civil Service 3:00 to 7:00 PM Center l J
Arts Commission, 7 -1
00 PM 5:00 PM Y
Commwv y`
(CR h3) Cerva)
REsCHEDLLED l'
mcmatuk wilax-aay Sign up with a
City Council FROM SEPT. 5TH t eam or as an
Committee of FJUGrmersmarkethtm indhddaaL
the Whole Mtg., Highway 99 For more
A ction Corte, Sister City Cmte,
7:00 PM information visit
(Cowcil 7:00 PM 530 PM www.utilarotary
Chamber) (Cornmwn(ty (CR '3) .o>o
Censer) 1 E TRAMEE -LNG!
18th (Mondavi" 19th -(Tuesday) 20th (Wednesday) 21st IThiiridayl 22nd (Friday) 1 23rd (Saturday)
Finance& Utilities Cmte, /lime Hot Spots Domestic
Safety Cmte, 5:00 PM Task Force Mtg., Violence Task
5:00 PM (CR 10:00 AM (CR 43) Force,
(CR =3) 12:00 NON
FARMERS MARKET (CR 45)
City Council Corner of 144th SL and
Regular Mtg, Tukwila Int'I. Blvd
7:00 PM Every Wednesday
(Council (now through Sept 27)
Chambers) 3:00 to 7:00 PM
Parks Commission,
5:30 Pat
(Community Center)
Library Advisory
Board, 7:00 PM
(Senior Game Room
at Community Cm)
NOTE SPECL4L
MEE
THIS MONTH
Sister City ante,
5:30 PM (CR #3)
Ex7RA MEETNG!
Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center- Conran Kimberly %fatej at 206- 767 -2342.
Chipper Daps, sponsored by the Wash. State Dept of Agriculture: 3rd Sat, 10 :00 AM to 1:00 PM, Foster HS main parking. lot.
Dispose of pnmings and plant materials from the longhomed beetle quarantine area. Drive your truckload of mArnrials to the lot and
betp will be provided to unload, chip, and dispose, of materials free of charge- Be sure to bring ID with quarantine area address.
>City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
City Council Regular Meeting: 1st 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
Civil Service Commission: 2nd Mon., 5:00 PM, Cont Room =3. Contact Bev gridiron at 206 -433 -1844
Community Affairs Parks Committee: 2nd 4th Tues_ 5:00 PM, Con£ Room 41 Agenda items for 911106 muting:
(A) WRIA9 interinrnl agreement (B) Initfatn a 933.
>COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 4th Wed, 6:30 PM, Conf. Rm 45. .farja 1 fwray (206 433 -7175)
Crime Hot Spots Task Force: 3rd Wed, 10:00 AM, Cont Room 45. Contact:Narja Murray at 206433 -7175.
Domestic Violence Task Foxe: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon Cent Room -5- Contact Ev(e Boylan or Stacy Hansen m 205- 433 -7780-
>Equity Diversity Commission: 1st Thurs., 5:00 PM, Showalter Middle School Library. Conkr_J Diane.Ientins at 206 -433 -1834
Finance Safety Committee: 1st 3rd Mon, 5:00 PM, Conf Room a3.
>Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Corat ChiefDave Haynes at 206- 433 -1812
>Human Services Advisory Brd: 2nd Fri. of even months 10:00 1st, Human Services Office. Contact Evte Bay:kan at 206433 -=180
>Human Services Providers: Quarterly, 1130 AM, TCC (2006 3:17, 6'16, 9115, and 1218). Contact Stxy Hansen at 206 -433 -718!.
Library Advisory Board: 3rd Wed., 7:00 PM, Foster Library. Contact Bruce Fletcher at 206- 767 -2343
>Parks Commission: 3M Wed, 5:30 P3!, Senior Game Room at Community Center, Contact Kimberly :fate] m 206. 767 -2342
>Planning CommissionBoard of Architectural Review: 4th Thurs.. except god Thursday in Nov. Dec., 7:00 PM.
Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact JPyr-tta Bryn at 206431:3670.
>Sister City Committee: 1st Wed, 5:30 PM, Conf. Room 43- Context Bev Plillison at 206- 433 -1844.
>Transportation Committee: 2nd 4th Mon., 5:00 P3!, Conf. Room ?l. Agenda items for 9/11106 meeting: (A) Tukwila Urban
Center Signal Interconnect andllS Project: (I) Bid ai:ard a) Full-time corrzs(nicfon mar„agement Supplemental
agreement. (3) Pan -tine on-call construction support services.
Utilities Committee: 1st 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room =I.
Court Busy Court and/or Jury Calendar (noted to alert employees and citizens of potential parking difficulty).