Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L98-0024 - NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS - CONDITIONAL USEL98 -0024 EXTEL COMMUNICATIONS CONDITIONAL USE 575 Corporate Dr. CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF A MONOPOLE AND ASSOCIATED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT PROPONENT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. IF ANY: ADDRESS: 575 ANDOVER PK W PARCEL NO: 262304 -9075 • SEC/TWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E98 -0011 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. * *•k•k•k******* ic* * *•k•*****•kk ** k ******:k:lc ** * * *•k*•k*•k** k*******•k*** **•k***** **** * * ** This. determination is final and signed this 1 t day of AU5, �j- 1 991 1 Steve Lancaster". Responsible Official City of Tukwila. (206) 431 -3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila. WA 98133 Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. ATTACHMENT 1 ,a .fit. 1U: c.) 1 N p., W W: w= Wo • _La • 1-- W z= z 0:. w w, w W' x Vi !LI.O_ Z ' A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N 6W•ef...d £42?4QJ,J/ hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet QPlanning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit ODetermination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 00f f icial Notice Other /()UI f� 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project L File Number 9F— ad?_ To: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION September 2, 1998 Nextel Communications, Inc. (applicant) Lowe Enterprises, Inc. (owner) King County Assessor, Accounting Division Parties of record (See Attached) This letter serves as a Notice of Decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. At their August 27, 1998, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Base Station comprised of 12 antennae attached to a monopole with associated operating equipment located in an adjacent structure. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The monopole shall be limited in height to 50 feet, with antennae extending no more than eight feet in height above the top of the monopole, corresponding to the permit authority of the City of Tukwila and the visual impact that would occur when the monopole is 100 feet. The monopole should be designed to accommodate at least one additional telecommunications carrier. The site plan should be revised to provide landscaping along the west property line, where existing landscaping is removed as a result of this project. The landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a building permit. PROJECT BACKGROUND a. Project file number: L98 -0024 b. The name of the property owner(s): Lowe Enterprises 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 September 2 1998 Notice of Decision L98 -0024 - Nextel Communications, Inc. , 375 Corporate Drive c. Project Description: Textual description as well as 8.5" x 11" site plans, building elevations and other appropriate characteristics. Application for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) base station d. Project location: 375 Corporate Drive, Tukwila, WA 98188 e. The permits submitted concurrently with this application: SEPA Checklist f. Environmental threshold determination (if any): DNS, issued August 11, 1998 Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Administrative appeals for the various permit Types are discussed below. The period for administrative appeals is 14 days, starting from the issuance of this Notice of Decision. The administrative body hearing the appeal is the City Council. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to received notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permit(s) are available for inspection at the Tukwila Dept. of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The project planner is Michael Jenkins, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3685 for further information. September 2 1998 Notice of Decision L98 -0024 - Nextel Communications, Inc. , 375 Corporate Drive Parties of Record Michael Lyons D. Garvey and Associates 1700 Westlake Ave N., Suite 430 Seattle, WA 98109 Liz Carrasquero Derek Dietz Nextel Communications 1750 - 112th Ave N.E., Suite C -100 Bellevue, WA 98004 David Hall 1920 E. Calhoun Seattle, WA 98112 - ...WC0===CM 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED AUGUST 20, 1998 HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA DETERMINATION: August 27, 1998 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director 65.?'• On May 8,1998 Notice of Application was posted and mailed to surrounding properties. Notice of Hearing was pbsted and mailed to surrounding properties and mailed to the Seattle Times for publication on August 13,1998 L98-0024 - Conditional Use Permit Nextel Communications, Inc. Lowe Northwest Investors, Inc. Conditional Use Permit approval for the installation of an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) base station, comprised of a 100 foot monopole, 12 antennae and associated operating equipment located in an adjacent equipment shelter. 375 Corporate Drive Development Permit DNS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) ZONE DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) STAFF: Michael Jenkins 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 z x z re al • 0, t ci • w •La I •W uj 0 g =J. LL < CO I a W X Z 0. z tu C.) 'II w u.. — 0 z Ic5 17: I 0 Staff Report to the. Planning Commission ATTACHMENTS: L98 -0024 Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive A. Title Sheet B. Overall Site plan C. Enlarged Site Plan D. Exterior Elevations E. 5 color copies of site photographs F. 8 Photosimulations of monopole G. July 5, 1998 letter to applicant regarding alternative sites H. July 15 letter to Michael Jenkins, with attachments I. August 11, 1998 SEPA Determination J. August 11, 1998 SEPA Memorandum K. Apri110,1998 SEPA Checklist with July 27,1998 amendment 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission FINDINGS Vicinity /Site Information Project Description L98 -0024 Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to install an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) base station in the west parking lot at the Southcenter Corporate Square, 375 Corporate Drive. T'iie`''applcanf =is`` Voposutg ei t,_ ationzof a:100..footanonopol #4 -,1, antennaerand a ssociated operating <;equipment :located;in.,an adjacent equipmenkbuilding. Two Global Positioning System (GPS) antennae will be attached to the equipment building. Existing Development The site is located at Southcenter Corporate Square, a multi building office complex. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding properties are all zoned Tukwila Urban Center, or TUC, and are dominated by retail, office and distribution uses. The site is also located near the Tukwila Pond. `BACKGROUND. The applicant originally proposed the monopole and operating equipment in the northwest corner of the property. This location was within proposed right -of -way, as indicated in the 1997 -2002 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan prepared by the Tukwila Public Works Department. Accordingly, the location was moved to the location presented in this report. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA The proposed project must conform with criteria detailed in TMC 18.64.050, (1 -5), concerning Conditional Use Permits: 3 Staff Report to the L98 -0024 Planning Commission Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive Ix— (1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is located. The applicant has included a Title Sheet (Attachment A),�Overall,Site Plan. (Attachment B), Enlarged :Site Plan (Attachment C) and Exterior Elevations (Attachment D) of the monopole, antennae and equipment shelter. The proposal will be located at the west side: of the :property, away from the predominate uses of the site. The:proposect monopole will be greater in:height than Embassy Suites .: Hotel;; Southcenter ::Plaza_Office.. Building, Doubletree Suites Hotel, also in the Tukwila Urban Center, and will be viewed from surrounding properties including the Tukwila Pond. The antennae and related equipment are telecommunications equipment that fall within the safety parameters set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. The maximum allowed height in the TUC zone is 115 feet. The-tallest point :of : theproposed;:monopole::with :attached;antennae`is 102 feet ', The applicant has, shown future antenrtae that would. extend:. the facility to' the 115 foot limit. The 220 square foot equipment shelter will be setback the required 10 feet from the side property line. The monopole will be located in the parking lot and will require the removal of one or two parking spaces to accommodate the development. This parking will be replaced by the removal of a curb and small landscape island along the north portion of the site. Staff has :reviewed,the rn n'imuiri parking requirement for the o'ffice.development and.has deterrnmed'that'Southcenter Corporate Square will stiil,meet,.theirminimum3 space per 1,000 usable square -feet parking (requirement To accommodate the proposed development, it appears that landscaping will be removed along the side property line. Sideyard:,.landscapingis.notspecifically reit: red`i'in. the= zone however the office site was originally developed: under - Design Review.. Guidelines .that.generally require such landscaping. z : Hw UO N t O w =� J I—, w O. g a: ci)d _. Z �. I— 0. Z w Lu 0 Ca U :O —. 0 H Sa -- wz z Staff Report to the L98 -0024 Planning Commission Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive (3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. L�1 IZ. As with similar uses, th ystem will generate trips during the construction period and, following th mpletion of construction, up to 1 trip per month for maintenance. No other impacts to pedestrian or transportation movements are anticipated. As ,'proposed the monopole will-be the most visually prominent use .developed, without the, benefit of Design Review. Attachment ment E are 5color copies of the current;site.:conditions and Attachment F are 8 photosimulations of the monopole and related equipment. The•.predominate development pattern in the immediate area includes buildings of up to 35 feet in height. There is vegetation in the immediate area that shields the view of the monopole from some portions of the immediate area but not all views from off site locations around the city. The site and the surrounding area are generally flat, however the site can be potentially viewed from hillsides to the north and west. There is some small vegetation along the west property line that may be removed. (4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan This project must comply with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and meet necessary Zoning Code regulations. 12.1.34. Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. 12.1.36. Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible. Implementation strategies include the use of shared infrastructure and existing structures. The applicant will be creating anew structure at this site, in lieu -of using. any existing structures. ;..As.referenced below; staff requested that the applicant provide information on what opportunities for co- location were explored. As indicated in Attachment H, the applicant indicates that none of the sites referenced in the letter were suitable given the 100 foot height assumption ".for this location. The facility should be designed to support at least one additional telecommunications carrier. The facility will be sited near the garbage /recycling facility. The operating equipment is being located within a new equipment building. Staff Report to the L98 -0024 Planning Commission Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive The proposed facility requires the construction of a monopole to support the antennae. Due to the proposed height and its visual impact on the surrounding properties, including the Tukwila Pond, staff requested (Attachment G) the applicant to provide a list of alternative sites, minimum coverage requirements and opportunities for co- location in the area. Attachment H is the applicant's response to this request, including: July 15, 1998 letter (H -1) A report from Nextel's Radio Frequency Engineer (H -2) The applicant's search ring for siting purposes (H -3) Coverage for the facility at 100 feet, 75 feet or 50 feet, respectively (H4 -H6) 75 foot coverage at Southcenter Place Office Building (H7) Coverage including adjacent Nextel sites at 100 feet, 75 feet or 50 feet (H -8 to H -13). Please note that Attachments H -8 to H -13 are views of Nextel's local system at 1 ": 30,000' and 1 ": 50,000' scales, respectively. The approximate coverage boundaries, as indicated in Attachments H -1 to H -15 when the monopole is at 100 feet, 75 feet and 50 feet are: 100feet' State Route 167 (east) Foster neighborhood / S. 144th (north) Military Rd. (west) S. 196th (south) 75 feef East Valley Rd. (east) Thorndyke neighborhood / Tukwila Hill (north) S 51st / McMicken neighborhood (west) S. 190th (south) a50 ;feet':; Oakesdale Rd / Boeing - Longacres (east) Thorndyke neighborhood / Tukwila Hill (north) 51st Ave S. / Crystal Springs Park (west) Segale Business Park / Tukwila Valley South zone (south) 6 etikfro Staff Report to the Planning Commission Nextel - 375 Corporate Drive L98 -0024 5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts, which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. To provide added security for the building, the applicant's have indicated that a wooden fence will be installed that matches the existing fencing around the dumpster area. The existing 6 foot tall security fencing along the property line will not be removed. Some of the views of the proposed monopole, as indicated in southern views from portions of the common area at Tukwila Pond in Attachment F, will be blocked by existing vegetation. CONCLUSIONS (1) The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare... The development falls within ANSI standards. At 100 feet, the monopole will be one of the tallest structures in the TUC, visible from surrounding properties. (2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards... As proposed, the monopole is within the height requirements and meets setback requirements in its zone. There will be no impact on the parking requirements for the office complex. The removal of the side yard landscaping will impact the screening of the facility. (3) The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding... The lack of design review guidelines that can be applied to the structure Limits the ability to mitigate the visual and aesthetic impacts on surrounding properties. As proposed; the facility will be the tallest structure in an area where the predominate ,p,,, t, ets are buildings and structures of approximately 35 feet in height. The on -site vegetation will only block some off -site views of the monopole. (4) The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies... The proposed monopole should be designed for other carriers. The monopole is placed near other ancillary structures. The applicant has provided information indicating that a 50 foot monopole provides for users in the City of Tukwila. The City has no obligation to permit uses that will benefit other jurisdictions. 7 Staff Report to the L98 -0024 Planning Commission Nextel.- 375 Corporate Drive (5) All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts... Fencing will be provided that matches existing fencing around the garbage /recycling area. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved with.erte condition: The monopole shall be limited in height to 50 feet, corresponding to the permit authority of the City of Tukwila and the visual impact that would occur when the monopole is 100 feet. Aa(4. The monopole should be designed to accommodate at least one additional telecommunications carrier. The site plan should be revised to provide landscaping along the west property line, where existing landscaping is removed as a result of this project. The. landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of a building permit. SO Gt.10-k a44- e d 471( A. ttel ow /0-7 5 T7t6't its /y 9 a P01,7'7 -AJf -7-C. 9t I✓i/f,�L/, *4. o / ? /r!%v/t.f *fig 0 41-Gcoaki' —t' . 7 „em l3101 oe" .�usi.vGssEs 4/z .3" y.4,.e Gs f-Af" ,tr t;4J W ./ o� ctiy X02 -pc u.6. C.vt c c - ot-LC.o%v K4/N�S ,b tub T;Fvv /Z C4 .tc., -- Z. • .o o '.w H,: N LL g J. lL d, `: ::o 1- 'W. • AM • oI- i A F F I D A V I T C CYYZ Srn*'\'i Notice of Public Hearing LI Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet QPlanning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 0 Official Notice O Other • Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on v Name of Pro ' J ect &A4d (0A �rbv4 Signature File Number DO mow;. QQ J C=); O O` co w w= • a.; w 0 g J. u.¢ D. D. a, I- w. _, H- O U C); N:,. O ;w W HV. - O: w z` 0 -' 0~ z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on August 27,1998 located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd., to discuss the following: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L98 -0024 Nextel Communications, Inc. Conditional Use Permit approval for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Base Station, to include a 100 foot monopole. 375 Corporate Drive Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: August 14, 1998 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z • • mow; 6 2 C.) .01. Na. CO w; o: *21'1 . • . •?E- 0 o _)`. ww ZI• .z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: Steve Lancaster From: Michael Jenkin Date: August 11, 1998 Re: E98 -0011, SEPA review on application by Nextel for a 100 foot monopole in the parking lot of the Southcenter Corporate Square office complex, 375 Corporate Drive. MEMORANDUM Project Description: This SEPA review is for a proposal to locate a 100 foot monopole for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Base Station adjacent to the west property line in the west parking area at Southcenter Corporate Square, 372 Corporate Drive. A site plan is included. The proposed development will include the monopole accompanied by operating equipment located in an existing adjacent structure. Twelve (12) antennae will be affixed to the top of the monopole with up to 4 antennas mounted on each array. Two Global Positioning System (GPS) antennae will be affixed to the monopole. Agencies with jurisdiction: None Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth The entire site is generally flat with glacial till and topsoil in the area. • Air Negligible vehicle emissions will occur during construction. • Water No dredging or filling from surface water or wetlands. No discharge of waste materials to surface waters will occur. No withdraw or discharge of groundwater will occur. The site is located approximately 175 feet from the closest edge of the wetlands associated with Tukwila Pond. All construction in and around existing drainage field(s) must comply with Tukwila's Storm Water Management Ordinance. ATTACHMENT J 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 •z • �z ;W w • J V 00 (00, .co w =. J F.: 0V„ wo •w =� _: z�. O:. • Z • :0 O, o - w2 V: u. ~O . • w . 0 !' z E98 -0011 SEPA Checklist - Nextel 375 Corporate Drive August 11, 1998 • Plants No anticipated impact. Applicants have not proposed landscaping to screen the equipment buildings or monopole. Animals No animals found in the area. No threatened or endangered species known in area. The site is adjacent to the Tukwila Pond, which provides a habitat for a variety of birds and small mammals. Energy /Natural Resources Electricity will run electronic equipment and telephone services will be provided. Batteries are primary backup if power failure occurs. All equipment will comply with applicable state energy codes. Environmental Health No significant health impacts have been identified from proposed technology operating at 806 -821 and 851 -866 megahertz (MHz). Health impacts of telecommunication facilities are exempt from environmental review. Minor traffic and construction noise will occur during construction period. No other significant noise will be generated by project. Any noise generated during construction or operation of the facility must comply with Tukwila's Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). Land /Shoreline Use Proposed development is located in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zone. Surrounding uses are primarily office, retail and distribution. No demolition of structures is proposed. The proposal must also obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TMC 18.64). At its proposed height of 100 feet, the facility's coverage area will extend outside the City of Tukwila and beyond it's permit authority. Copies of coverage area based upon proposed heights of 50 feet, 75 feet and 100 feet are attached indicating how the telecommunication coverage are expands outside of the City of Tukwila as the monopole increases in height. • Housing No housing is proposed nor will development reduce housing. E98 -0011 SEPA Checklist - Nextel 375 Corporate Drive August 11, 1998 • Aesthetics The proposed monopole, with attached antennae, will be approximately 100 feet tall. The monopole will accommodate additional antennae that will extend the height of the monopole to 115 feet. The monopole will be the tallest structure within the Urban Center but is exempt from Design Review requirements (TMC 18.60). The monopole will be visible from surrounding hillsides, adjacent offices, hotels, retail and other commercial uses and the Tukwila Pond Park. The operating equipment will be located in an existing structure immediately adjacent to the proposed monopole. • Light and Glare The tower will not produce significant Tight or glare. No off -site Tight or glare will be produced. • Recreation The monopole is located adjacent to the Tukwila Pond, which has passive recreation features. • Historic /Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. • Transportation One vehicle trip per month is anticipated for service and maintenance. • Public Services Proposed development will not impact or require specific public services. • Utilities The facility will be served by electric and telephone services. In support of the City's Comprehensive Plan concerning non city -owned utilities (Policy 12.1.36), the facility should be designed to include the ability of other service providers to locate antennae on the monopole. E98 -0011 SEPA Checklist - Nextel 375 Corporate Drive August 11, 1998 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET • What are the objectives of the proposal To provide telecommunication services in the Southcenter area, as a link in the coverage area for Nextel's system in King County • What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives The alternative to erecting a monopole to support the ESMR antennae is to "co- locate" the antennae on an existing building, monopole or other structure. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action The applicant researched numerous locations within their "search ring" but none of the alternatives were acceptable due to technical or market driven problems. A copy of the applicant's statement concerning the alternative site is attached, as well as a copy of the "search ring" for possible locations. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts are None Recommendation: DNS Q _ H W' ne 6 ..J V; 'CO UP • J Wu_ w O; z: • 'off (0 I—■ .w w: H V! U ={ o~ z July 1998 Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner' City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Nextel Conditional Use Permit Application, 372 Corporate Drive N. (L98- 0024/E 98- 0011) Dear Michael: This is in response to your letter, dated July. 6, 1998 requesting additional information concerning the above- mentioned application. Attached is a letter, prepared by Derek Deitz a Radio Frequency Engineer for Nextel Communications, which addresses all of the radio frequency questions you raised. Additionally, the following responds to your question regarding other sites considered. 'Nom .,;• =■nr.. ,. .. ■■■l .,4■■■M.r.,. , ■■n Oranninraral- ■■■••■r 791■■■■m .D.` 2G' AR'`V` E Y 'CO RPO,R AT, 110N. PROJECT MANAGERS What alternative sites were reviewed in preparation for this proposal? Building roof tops considered and reasons no proposals were made to locate on them are discussed as follows: Southcenter Mall; 633 Southcenter Mall Only the flagpoles on top of the building were of sufficient height to meet radio frequency requirements and a stealth approach was considered. However, the Bon Marche, anchor tenant, was not interested in entering into "a lease with Nextel. DoubleTree Inn; 16500 Southcenter Parkway Considerable effort was made to locate on the DoubleTree Inn roof. However, the electrical service is at maximum capacity and no space, is available to accommodate the necessary equipment (see Deitz letter dated" 7 /15/98). Southcenter Place; 16400 Southcenter Parkway Negotiations were conducted and a lease agreement unable to be reached due to !RECEIVED c. CITY ©F TUKWILA JUL 1 6 1998. NWT ATTACHMENT H -1 1700 Westlake Avenue North • Suite 420 • Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 216 -3355 fax (206) 298 -9583 a.... i,i C..:k::.� -.?. i. r,. a.?•. ss; 15.`:,'..: i, �.': el•^: 3: s. 9: i+ Y:.. U. r.+'. �-'. uri1i? LZ.]. J' G::: �iiC. i= isua` f. ,2:i�.�L���i�:.7e:Y:.'•in•Fi:LY iiGtis�b "».,:.e•..m: Michael Jenkins Page 2 Southcenter Place; 16400 Southcenter Parkway, continued landlord terms and conditions which did not meet Nextel financing requirements (see Deitz letter dated 7/15/98 for RF comment). ..Centerplex; 6100 Southcenter Boulevard This site was considered but did not meet RF engineering requirements (see Deitz letter dated 7/15/98 for RF comment). 2. Raw land sites considered and reasons no proposals were made to locate on them are discussed as follows: .. Southcenter Mall Monument sign; 633 Southcenter Mall A stealth approach was considered with antennas to be located in the signage monument at the Mall. It was concluded technically unworkable and the logistics of extending electrical and telephone service were prohibitive. . Prime Source Corporation; 355 Treck Drive A raw land site was identified and the landlord who had other plans for the property rejected the lease offer. Zee Medical;' 378 Upland Drive A raw land site was identified. However, an access easement was required to access the property and the adjacent property owner would not provide the easement. As discussed and formally proposed in the revised drawing submittal and photo simulations dated June 25, 1998 the specific monopole location has been relocated on the site in order to take full advantage of_the large tree screen (located on City property) to the-northwest and the office building to the east. The proposed monopole will be painted a brown tone with a cluster antenna configuration providing a " softer" visual image than the typical triangular top hat. Please advise me if this provides the necessary information in order for you to proceed with.the application. Sincerely, Michael S. Lyons, Project Manager Lrnr.. z w re JU U0 w 0 cn w' J LL`, w0. �Q co w' Z �. I— 0: Z �- LU UD 0r.. 0I- ww U' -O Z w U W. 01--. z NEXTEL Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 QuasiMoto Site System Design Neste! Communications 1750 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite C -100 Bellevue, WA 98004 425 452 -7400 FAX 425 452 -7404 7/15/98 The proposed site was selected to enhance capacity in Nextel's iDEN (integrated Dispatch Enhanced Network) digital radio network in the general area commonly known as South Center, and extending as far east as Hwy 167. Capacity enhancement is achieved through the process of cell - splitting. This process involves providing coverage replacement for surrounding cells, of which are at a much higher elevation with respect to average terrain. These "high" sites include Nextel's Bryn Mawr site located on Skyway Hill and South Seattle site located in McMicken Heights. Coverage replacement for these sites includes three sites in the Kent Valley located at Hwy 167/1 -405 interchange (in service), South Center Corp Square (proposed facility), and Hwy 167 and 214th St (not constructed). Attachment I depicts coverage relationships with key neighboring sites. Site Selection (Location & Antenna Height) Site selection is conducted through the establishment of a "search ring" (Attachment A). This ring is created based on key coverage objectives. The key objectives for this ring were 1) 1 -5 north to S. 144th St., 2) Hwy 518 west to approximately 44th Av. S., and 3) east from Southcenter to Hwy 167, and 4) in- building coverage at Southcenter and surrounding areas. Furthermore, item 1 required nearly complete line of site coverage. To achieve item 1 the ring was limited to a narrow north /south corridor in -line with the section of 1 -5 between 1-405 and S. 144in St. It was limited east and south due to terrain northeast and southwest of the interchange, respectively. Item 3 dictated the initial antenna height of 120'. This height requirement was submitted as part of the search ring requirements. It was initially thought that this height would be required to serve east across the valley to Hwy 167. Subsequent evaluation of empirical data determined that a 100' antenna height would meet requirements. Attached are computer predictions based upon local topography, clutter attributes (moderate vegetation), and antenna height. Predictions were done at heights of 100', 75' and 50' for the proposed facility, Attachments B, C, and D, respectively. Additionally, Attachments F, G, and H depict the relationship between the proposed site at 100', 75', and 50', respectively, and its two key neighboring sites. These are the same sites as described in the system design section above as coverage replacement cells. The Renton site is depicted in red, the proposed site as orange, and the Kent site as blue. The critical portion of coverage is the area between West Valley Hwy and Hwy 167, and north /south of 180th St approximately 30 blocks. A significant effect on coverage can be observed in these plots between the 100' and 75' antenna heights. At 100', service levels will be acceptable in most areas with few weak spots. In building coverage should be good with marginal coverage at selective locations. At 75' coverage gaps become very apparent, with very marginal to unacceptable coverage areas developing between 180th and 212th street exits just west of Hwy 167. Also note that coverage gaps open along the boundary between the Kent site and the proposed facility. sAerlaot ATTACHMENT H -2 z H W: tr . UO. 0 v� w J =' CO ur.. w 0 g Q: Z �. HO Z LLI UC Os I- 111 W O, w .z. O z Neighboring Site Relationships Overlapping signal between neighboring sites is very important to the design of a cellular network. This is because calls hand -off at the boundary between sites. If signals do not overlap well, dropped calls are the result. The gaps that developed between the proposed site with a 75' height and the Kent site as described above would result in a significant dropped call problem. Overlap to the northwest with our Riverton Heights and Elmo (SPAA) sites are also just as critical. However, the design of either of these sites has little effect on the design of the proposed facility. The hand -off boundaries for these two neighboring sites is completely defined by terrain. Specifically, the hill on 1 -5 at 144th Ave and the canyon like bend in Hwy 518 at approximately 46th Ave. Because of the significant terrain contours, the hand -off between sites will happen at these points irregardless of significant changes at either Riverton Heights (Lewis & Clark) or Elmo (SPAA). It is important to note that the 75' height at the proposed facility degrades the overlap point on Hwy 518 with the proposed Riverton Heights site. Refer to Attachments B & C for comparison. Evaluated Properties (Inside Search Ring) Many properties within the search ring were evaluated, but only one existing structure (Double Tree Inn) met the design requirements. However, other structures within the search ring were initially evaluated to determine if they would be acceptable. These included Southcenter Place and Southcenter Mall, all other structures were immediately identified as too low to achieve the desired coverage. Later, both of these structures were determined through evaluation of empirical data (actual measured signals) to be of insufficient height to cover east from the search ring. Southcenter PI, being at approximately 75', also was too low to cover other areas, specifically an area of 51st Av and to a lesser extent Hwy 518 near 46th Av. S. This is primarily a result of terrain shielding due to the site being close to the base of the hill that 51St traverses over (see Attachment E). Evaluated Properties (Outside Search Ring) The narrow constraints of this search ring eliminated possibilities of locating on any structures or existing wireless facilities outside of the ring. However, these facilities were identified and a brief comment is included per your request as to why Nextel could not construct a facility here. Centerplex (near Tukwila City Hall) is an existing ATTWS facility, rejected due to terrain blockage to coverage objective 1 listed above. Air Touch monopole on Andover Park East; rejected as too short, colocation separation issues and terrain blockage. ATTWS +120' monopole behind Embassy Suites, rejected due to terrain blockage. Consultants did identify other willing landlords outside the ring, but all were rejected due to tight constraints placed on site selection. These included transmission lines along W. Valley Hwy and Prime Source Corp near Andover Park East (raw land build). Conclusion Critical design constraints (a result of local topography) resulted in a small search ring and a minimum height of 100'. Movement of the site is limited to the search ring. Without the above constraints, overlapping signal with neighbor sites will be greatly diminished. Additionally, overlap with neighboring sites to the northwest (Riverton Heights, Lewis & Clark Theatre) is impacted. There are also expected building shadowing issues that would result with an antenna lower than the height of the Double Tree Inn structure. Finally, as stated above, the SPAA and Lewis and Clark Theatre sites will not allow the proposed site to be relocated outside the established search ring or reduced in height below the minimum 100' requirement. D Deitz r. RF Engfneer Nextel Communications z HZ re 00 (.0 o; U) W= J H u. w0 gQ =d. 1— _. Z H 0: Z �- U • i O N: O w LU 1-• U u. -O wz UN O 1-, z Michael Jenkins".. =Assistant Planner City'of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter•Boulevard, Suite #100, Tukwila,. Washington 98188 Nextel Conditional Use Permit Application, 372 Corporate Drive N. (L98- 0024/E,98 -0011) Dear Michael: This is in response to your letter, dated July 6, 1998 requesting additional information .. concerning the above - mentioned application. Attached is a letter, prepared by Derek . Deitz a Radio Frequency. Engineer for Nextel Communications, which addresses all of the radio frequency questions you raised. Additionally, the following responds to your question regarding other site considered. ■ ■■■■'■..'•.r:::::.: ••r•UU•UUU.U.U..r OMNI:NOMMEN,��.- ∎r •nI.- vNWW�- ■•• HMI . .. •iii unto.• . • .uo •om1 AMINNIMON. ■M•I NENNOINIININIMENNENNI MMMMM ES/ 'COR.PORATION. .PROJECT MANAGERS What alternative sites were reviewed in preparation for this proposal? . Building roof tops considered•and reasons no proposals were made to locate on them are discussed as follows: Southcenter Mall; 633 Southcenter Mall Only the flagpoles on top of the building were of sufficient height to meet radio frequency, requirements and .a stealth approach was considered. However, the Bon Marche, anchor tenant, was not interested in entering into a lease with Nextel. b. DoubleTree Inn; 16500 Southcenter Parkway Considerable effort was made to locate on the DoubleTree Inn roof. However, the electrical service is at maximum capacity and no space is available to accommodate the necessary equipment (see Deitz letter dated 7/15/98). REEIVED c' C CITt OF TUKWI A JUL 1 6 1998 rCENTER • Southcenter Place; 16400 Southcenter Parkway Negotiations were conducted and a lease agreement unable to be reached due to ATTACHMENT H -1 1700 Westlake Avenue North • Suite 420 • Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 216 -3355 fax (206) 298 -9583 7X4'Oh drg - s+rtss H i ix• ^ir • 15 = .'dt t 'i ,fl 44:a2A - o *''f:tOW z re wi JU 0 O' CO 0` vw w• J _ W w1 w O' Q: - a' �w s Z o:. uj 0 o. CI �: 111 u H-- L- 0, ..z ON 0H z Michael Jenkins Page 2 Southcenter Place; 16400 Southcenter Parkway, continued landlord terms and conditions which did not meet Nextel financing requirements (see Deitz letter dated 7/15/98 for RF comment). Centerplex;.6100 Southcenter Boulevard This site was considered but did not meet RF engineering requirements (see Deitz letter dated 7/15/98 for RF comment).. . • . Raw land sites considered and reasons no proposals were made to locate on them are discussed as follows: Southcenter Mall Monument sign; 633 Southcenter Mall A stealth approach was considered with antennas to be located in the signage monument at the Mall. It was concluded technically unworkable and the logistics of extending electrical and telephone service were. prohibitive. Prime Source. Corporation; 355 Treck Drive A raw land site was identified and the landlord who had other plans for the property rejected the lease offer. d. Zee Medical; 378 Upland Drive A raw land site was identified. However, an access easement was required to access the property and the adjacent property owner would not provide the easement. As discussed and formally proposed in the revised drawing submittal and photo 0 'simulations dated June 25, 1998 the specific monopole location has been relocated on the site in order to take full advantage of the large tree screen (located on City property) to the northwest and the office building to the east. The proposed monopole will be painted a brown tone with a cluster antenna configuration providing a "softer" visual image than the typical triangular top hat. Please advise me if this provides the necessary information in order for you to proceed with the application. S. Lrnr -� Michael S. Lyons, Project Manager City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 6, 1998 Michael Lyons D. Garvey and Associates 1700 Westlake Ave N., 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98109 Re: Nextel Conditional Use Permit application, 372 Corporate Drive N. (L98 -0024/ E 98 -0011) Dear Michael: We have completed our substantive review of your request to establish a 100 foot monopole for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) base station at the referenced property. We have a number of concerns related to your proposal that we believe will substantially impact our SEPA determination and recommendation to the Planning Commission. We believe that the monopole will have a significant impact on views in the general area. At 100 feet, it will be the tallest structure in an otherwise predominately low -rise development area between Southcenter Parkway and West Valley Highway. Without significant visual mitigation of the monopole and antennae we believe there will be a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of views in the area, including views of the area from surrounding hillsides. Since no information has been submitted concerning your required coverage area and the minimum height required, we are requesting that you provide the following information: • Why the proposed height is needed • What is the minimum height needed for your coverage needs in this area, given recently approved monopole at Seattle Police Athletic Assodiation • Will future expansion plans to co- locate on a previously approved monopole at Lewis and Clark Theater (L97 -0055) reduce the minimum height needed at this location • Will co- location on existing adjacent structures satisfy coverage needs • How far from proposed location can the antennae be moved to maintain coverage needs • What alternative sites were reviewed in preparation for this proposal ATTACHMENT G 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 z • Hz. J U: '00• • W z: 0 g.-J LLQ. (n . w I- i-: :0 H; Wuy w Z: • o'' z_ July 6, 1998 Michael Lyons Re: Nextel Monopole, 372 Corporate Drive Page Two Upon receipt of this information, we will retain a third party consultant at the expense of Nextel to review and comment upon the information that you provide. As this is additional information needed to evaluate the impacts of the monopole, antennae and related equipment prior to the issuance of a SEPA determination or the conditional use permit, the 120 day review period required under TMC 18.104.130 is suspended until the required information is submitted and determined to be adequate. Upon receipt of the information and completion of our review, a new hearing date will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner ......., Y..., w+ artrr• arcCi�s17M4:✓. LrSS�R' i_ m�Ct' rJ+*,• iyc�nrmrmvxr.+* r, ? qar. Y;,^ xi' ezt.": ga3rt rn.'.:¢ s": 3^:; M�F'; ti�: �'+ t�s :7!;I.Sa'�,'��7h.ni`::t�,r�v; �: �+ �, �. r: �:: c:.. 3, ai°`.`;SYait�'`f'ii:i'•�k::::= +jar -a: Appeals of Conditional Use Pei, i Decision an... Page 1 of 12 Comments Help Home Site Index Site Search What's New MRSC Municipal Research & Services Center A Resource for Washington Local Governments Office of the Hearing Examiner King County, Washington 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Telephone (206) 296 -4660 Facsimile (206) 296 -1654 Appeals of Conditional Use Permit Decision and SEPA ThresholdDetermination SUBJECT: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L97AC032 US WEST/LAKE SAMMAMISH PARKWAY SITE Location: 4300 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast Applicant: US West Wireless, represented by Ralph Long, Regional Real Estate Manager 450 —110th Avenue NE , Bellevue, WA 98004 Appellants: David T. Johnson and Stephen O. Simmons 14966 NE 31st Circle 4202 —181St Avenue SE Redmond, WA 98052 Bellevue, WA 98008 Intervenor: West Lake Sammamish Association, represented by David W. Marks and Diane Tibelius 1001 — 4th Avenue Plaza #3130 2650 W Lk Samm Pkwy SE Seattle, WA 98164 Bellevue, WA 98008 Department Representative: Paul Wozniak , 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, WA 98055 SUMMARY OF DECISION: • Department's Preliminary: Deny Appeals • Department's Final: Deny Appeals • Examiner: Grant in part; deny in part PRELIMINARY MATTERS: • Application submitted: May 21, 1997 • Notice of appeal received by Examiner: September 30, 1997 • Statement of appeal received by Examiner: October 7, 1997 EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Pre - Hearing Conference: November 21, 1997 • Hearing Opened: January 14, 1998 • Hearing Continued: February 26, 1998 • Hearing Continued: March 16, 1998 Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM z Wiz: w J C) C) y0. W • z:. N !L. w 0 = d" 1w z�; 0: z iff • 0 C) co 0 0 1- ww H 0 • O. Z. U co = 1 _ 0 z . Appeals of Conditional Use Pei c Decision an... • Hearing Closed: March 24, 1998 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. Page 2 of 12 ISSUES ADDRESSED: z. • Aesthetics w • Cellular towers 6 n U • Compatibility of use U o • Conditional Use i w w • Standing , -' f- NLL • Visual impacts o' FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the ga Examiner now makes and enters the following: w I w z I.. 1. General Information: w o Location: 4300 West lake Sammamish Parkway SE . ? STR: SW NW 18 -24 -06 (Parcel #864870 -0550) Zoning: R12 -P Community Plan: Newcastle w w Drainage Subbasin: West Lake Sammamish 1- W O.. 2. On May 21, 1997 US West Communications filed an environmental checklist and an application w co for a conditional use permit to authorize construction of a 125 -foot monopole communications tower F._-° with ancillary equipment cabinets on a 340 square foot leasehold located within the front yard of a 1.28 acre residential property. The Nikko parcel lies on the east side of West Lake Sammamish Parkway just south of its intersection with 181St Avenue Southeast. Due to its proximity to the Exit 13 interchange to Interstate 90, this neighborhood is characterized by mixed uses to the extent that properties which are both near the freeway and border the arterial are zoned for multi - family development. The properties lying west of West Lake Sammamish Parkway nearest the freeway are currently developed with institutional uses, including the Sunset Elementary School, a Fire District facility and a day care center. Properties on the east side of the Parkway, on the other hand, are exclusively residential, with single family homes predominating east of the hill crest which lies approximately along the eastern boundary of the Nikko parcel. These properties overlook Lake Sammamish, which is the primary view amenity in this area. 3. Although currently developed with a single family residence and outbuildings, the 1.28 acre Nikko property upon which the Applicant's leasehold is located is kon edfor;multi- familydeuelopmenlat a base density of twelve units to the acre. The property immediately to its south is also zoned R12 and is the location of the Sammamish Crown Condominiums. To the north and east of the Nikko property are single family residences on lots zoned R6, and the parcel to its west across West Lake Sammamish Parkway contains the elementary school. In terms of existing development patterns, West Lake Sammamish Parkway forms a clear boundary between residential uses located on its east side and non - residential institutional uses to the west. FINDINGS: Monday, June 29, 1998 ?jSj'liK�l:l:tyK.�w'ra i�yp��'J:f: ti u�ii?'q fi' yt?C #n`ir�lir`i4. fix i�: arYitgrA t.. � 3:19 PM Appeals of Conditional Use Pei i Decision an... Page 3 of 12 4. On September 16, 1997 the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) issued both a determination of non - significance under SEPA for the US West application and an administrative conditional use permit decision approving the monopole proposal. Two timely appeals were filed by area residents challenging the conditional use permit decision, one by David T. Johnson and the other by Stephen O. Simmons. Mr. Johnson also appealed the issuance of the determination of non - significance under SEPA. 5. A pre - hearing conference was held by the King County Hearing Examiner's Office on the above - referenced appeals on November 21, 1997, at which time they were consolidated into a single hearing procedure. The West Lake Sammamish Association, an organization representing residents in the West Lake Sammamish neighborhood, applied for and was granted intervenor status. 6. The conditional use appeal process for a telecommunications facility proposal within King County is an unusual procedure in that the initial conditional use permit decision by DDES is issued without the benefit of a public hearing despite the fact that the applicant is required to hold public meetings to solicit comments from concerned citizens. Therefore, at the point when the conditional use permit appeal hearing occurs it constitutes the first formal opportunity for public testimony, even though the application has already undergone a considerable history of public comment. 7. In response to the high level of public interest expressed concerning this application, a public hearing in the community was held January 14, 1998 to receive testimony from neighborhood residents, with the more restricted appeal hearing scheduled to occur thereafter. The pre - hearing order issued December 3, 1997 also endeavored to summarize and focus the range of issues raised. The SEPA appeal issues were identified as potential adverse visual, noise, traffic and construction impacts, with the primary conditional use permit issues being potential use incompatibility arising out of a proposed non - residential use within a residential neighborhood, visual incompatibility with regard to the facility's size, scale and appearance in relation to surrounding properties, and the question of whether the facility would discourage or interfere with permitted residential uses in the neighborhood. 8. Comprehensive Plan Policy ET -404 encourages co- location of antenna facilities when feasible, and consistent with this policy US West has indicated that its pole on the Nikko property would be made available to other service providers for co- location purposes. A maximum development of the proposed monopole facility, therefore, would include a set of six 42- inch -long antenna panels located at the top of the monopole, a second set of three antenna panels located below the top -most array to support anticipated future expansion of the US West system, then lower down a cluster of antennas belonging to a second carrier who has been granted permission to co- locate on the pole. The initial installation on the concrete pad at the base of the pole would consist of two equipment cabinets each 5 feet tall by 2'/2 feet deep and 2 1/2 feet wide, with two more identical cabinets likely to be installed at future expansion and another set of comparable equipment cabinets resulting from co- location. The 9 '/z by 12 -foot cement pad would be screened on its exposed sides by a ten -foot width of Type 1 landscaping, which would include evergreen plantings at least 6 feet high. The pole itself is proposed to be painted brown in order to blend in with nearby fir trees and is projected to have a diameter of nearly 45 inches at its base tapering down to 20 inches at the top. The principal issues raised by this application relate to its visual impacts on surrounding properties and on the neighborhood as a whole. The monopole and equipment array would entail the intrusion of an industrial - appearing development into a property which is presently entirely residential in character. As shown within various photographs, the Nikko property is currently characterized by Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM z _- ~w 6 00 CO u)w Jf=. co IL w J g? �d =w F-= z �. � o z� U• 0 O - O I- w w I- 0 II 0 .z. w =':. o� z Appeals of Conditional Use Pei .t Decision an... Page 4 of 12 'ntly rolling terrain dominated by lawn on the west side interspersed with tall fir trees near the northern boundary. Fruit trees also lie within the southwestern quadrant, which features a garden plot and a children's swing set. Further upslope to the east are sited the Nikko house and outbuildings. While there are light poles and power lines adjacent to the site along the West Lake Sammamish Prkway right -of -way, the arterial lies more than 100 feet west of the proposed facility location, and the poles within the right -of -way are far shorter than 125 feet. 10. From the west the monopole will be visible to passing traffic on West Lake Sammamish Parkway at a distance of 150 feet or greater and will fall within the territorial view from the Sunset Elementary School across its parking lot. The Nikko property is bounded on the north and east by five single family residences which will also have a view of the monopole. However, because the topography rises towards the northeast and the Nikko residential buildings are on the elevated eastern portion of the parcel, the three easternmost adjacent residences will only see the upper half of the monopole above intervening residential structures and vegetation. The two houses along the northern property line will have a closer view at about 160 feet, but again this view will be partially obstructed by evergreen trees and fencing. 11. Appellant Stephen Simmons lives approximately 500 feet north of the monopole and Appellant David Johnson about 700 feet to the east. Although these assertions were disputed by the Appellant and County staff, both Appellants testified that they would be able to see at least some portion of the monopole from their properties. Mr. Simmons testified that the monopole will be visible from his deck and from his bedrooms and dining room. Appellant Johnson testified that he can see the roof of one of the Nikko outbuildings from his living room and, extrapolating from its height, superimposed a monopole upon a photograph taken from his house looking west. It shows the top of the monopole visible from his property above the trees. Neither the Applicant nor King County staff did a site - specific analysis of visibility issues from the Simmons or Johnson residences, and there is no competent evidence refuting the assertion that the monopole will be at least partially visible from such properties within their territorial views. 12. The closest and most direct views of the monopole and its ancillary facilities will be experienced by the twelve units within Building H of the Sammamish Crown Condominiums, which lies directly south of the proposed monopole location. As shown by the Applicant's topographic survey, the northern wall of the easternmost three units within Building H will lie approximately 95 feet from the pole, while the westernmost three units will view the pole from a distance of about 130 feet. The condo structure is a three story building; thus the view from the first floor units will be over the top of an intervening wooden fence about five feet high, while the view from the upper two stories will be unobstructed 13. As described by the five condominium unit owners within Building H who testified at the public hearing and as supported by the photographic evidence, on the north side of each unit is a small outdoor deck accessed by a full- length glass door with dining room or living room windows also adjacent thereto. Currently, the view from the decks to the north and northeast is of the Nikko yard, lawn, garden area and trees, with the Parkway, the school and the fire station seen to the west. The five condominium owners unanimously identified the semi -rural nature of the Nikko yard as an important major visual amenity contributing to the enjoyment of their respective units. 14. Both the Applicant and the Appellants submitted to the record photographs of the US West site from various distances and angles which had been modified to show monopole structures superimposed thereon in an effort to represent the effect of the proposed facility on various Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM Appeals of Conditional Use Pei .t Decision an... Page 5 of 12 surrounding properties. Of particular interest were two photographs taken by Sammamish Crown resident Deborah Smith from units 204 and 304 at the eastern end of the Building H. In an effort to depict the impact of the monopole on these units, US West consultants superimposed a brown pole structure with a row of small evergreens planted at its base. The accuracy of these simulations was challenged by Appellant Johnson based on his scaling of the pole's diameter relative to other known objects observable within the pictures. 15. Because US West did not have access to the condo units where the photos were taken, the Applicant's simulations were also based on a comparison with other objects within the visual field. Specifically, its con - sultant focused on an evergreen tree lying west of the proposed monopole location in about the same plane when viewed from Building H. The US West planner roughly estimated the diameter of the tree at breast height to be 24 inches, and the Applicant's graphic artist doubled this diameter to represent a width of approx - imately 44 inches. 16. With respect to Exhibit 63A, Mr. Johnson contended that the pole diameter simulated on US West in actuality scaled at approximately 30 inches based on its relationship to the known dimension of the garden border also appearing in the photograph. However, Mr. Johnson did not take into account that the garden border lies some 25 feet in front of the pole, a fact which would require a scaling adjustment to about 40 inches width. But Mr. Johnson's position is supported by map key photo number 11 within Exhibit no. 68, one of the Applicant's photo simulations of the site looking east from across the Parkway which was based on the onsite placement of a truck- mounted crane extended to an approximate elevation of 125 feet. Owing to the use of the crane boom the Applicant's consultants expressed a higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of the pole simulation within key number 11. According to the Applicant's location map this photograph was taken at a distance from the pole of approximately 300 feet. Accordingly, one would expect the pole simulation in Exhibit no. 63, which is three times closer, to be three times as large. In fact, the Exhibit 63A simulation is only about two times as large as that shown in key number 11 in Exhibit no. 68, also suggesting that the Exhibit 63 pole simulations are understated. Finally, the testimony of the Applicant's consultants was that the arbor vitae plantings shown at the base of the pole within the Exhibit no. 63 photographs were not scaled to size, a fact which tends to explain why they appear to be oversized in comparison with the simulated pole diameter. 17. Two peripheral matters relating to view issues involve the Applicant's market study (Exhibit no. 74) and the testimony of various individuals regarding potential stealth techniques for disguising monopoles. With respect to the latter concern, while monopole stealth technology appears to be a growth industry, there was no compelling evidence that such technology would work well at this site. Everyone who had actually seen attempts to disguise a monopole as a tree agreed that the results tend to be garish and unnatural, a consequence that would be exacerbated if co- location were permitted at this site. Disguising monopoles as flagpoles or utility standards also was suggested as a possibility, but this strategy works better at lesser heights and seems to depend for its success upon being in a location where such a facility would normally be expected to exist. Mr. Gibson's market study, on the other hand, while it tends to support a general conclusion that visibility within a five block radius is not a factor in reducing housing resale values, did not seem to be directly comparable to the situation under present review with respect to the distances involved, the commercial settings of the poles studied, and the orientation of nearby housing vis -a -vis the monopole structure. 18. The noise, traffic and construction impact issues raised by SEPA appeal seem to have little basis in reality. The only noise currently anticipated to be emitted from the site would be from facility cooling fans whose noise levels would be well beneath adopted County thresholds when measured at Monday, June 29, 1998 w•:,w:y.._c ^n: 3:19 PM Appeals of Conditional Use Pei .c Decision an... Page 6 of 12 the property boundaries. In addition, the Nikko property is already subject to a high level of ambient noise due to arterial and freeway traffic, so the noise from project cooling fans would likely not be discernible against the ambient level. Moreover, at a distance of 700 feet there is no reason to believe that Mr. Johnson would be affected by noise from the site. In like manner, the construction impacts attendant to erecting the monopole will be short term and minor, and maintenance traffic would normally be limited to one site visit per month. Although major power outages could result in the temporary importation of portable gasoline or diesel generators to the site, the facility is proposed to be supplied with power back -up in the form of 8 -hour batteries, thus making the potential of generator noise an infrequent occurrence. 19. While County regulations do not specifically require an alternative site analysis, consideration of locational factors is not irrelevant to the review process. KCC 21A.26.040 requires that conditional permit review for a monopole proposed within the R12 zone shall include a demonstration by the Applicant "that the proposed facility ... requires placement at a particular location to meet the needs of the cellular telephone system." Further, as noted previously, Comprehensive Plan Policy ET -404 encourages telecommunication facilities to co- locate. The Applicant introduced testimony indicating that its drive -study tests demonstrated that this service area could not be adequately covered from a 90 -foot high pole, but at a height of 125 feet the area would be adequately served. It is also clear, however, that the Nikko property is not the only location within the Applicant's search ring which would satisfactorily support its service needs. Nearly the entire area lying between West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Interstate 90 would produce adequate coverage for the Applicant, and some of the parcels therein are large enough to meet County setback requirements. The Sunset Elementary School has already agreed with another purveyor, Western Wireless, to allow construction of a monopole on the back side of its property between the school buildings and the I -90 right -of -way, a site which might be available to this Applicant for co- location purposes. In addition, although dealing with the Washington State Department of Transportation may not be a quick and easy process, a WSDOT representative testified that its right -of -way was subject to lease for cellular tower use and that the Exit 13 location did not appear to present insurmountable barriers to lease approval. If available, portions of the WSDOT right -of -way would appear to offer a service capacity as good as, or perhaps better than, the Nikko property. CONCLUSIONS: A. Standing. 1. The Applicant has challenged the standing of both Appellants Simmons and Johnson to maintain their appeals. With respect to Mr. Johnson's SEPA appeal, he has offered no evidence which would suggest that any noise, construction or traffic impacts from the Applicant's project would be perceptible at his property. He therefore has not demonstrated the requisite standing to raise such issues within his SEPA appeal. With respect to visual impacts, Mr. Johnson's unrebutted testimony is that the top of the monopole will be visible from his living room above the trees. While not a major impact, it is nonetheless an adverse aesthetic effect of the proposal falling within the range of interests protected by SEPA and which will cause him immediate and perceptible harm. Mr. Johnson therefore has standing to raise the visual impact issue within the SEPA appeal. It is not an objection to such standing that the visual impacts of the proposal may affect other non - parties more directly and seriously. Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM Appeals of Conditional Use Pei. : Decision an... Page 7 of 12 2. The standing issue with respect to the conditional use permit appeal has a broader dimension to it because the interests to be protected are more of a communal or neighborhood nature. Conditional use permit review is essentially concerned with issues of neighborhood compatibility, or as stated at KCC 21A.44.010.F, the "protection of the general character of neighborhoods." Therefore, membership within a definable neighborhood is sufficient to confer standing with respect to conserving the neighborhood's viability from attempts to degrade it. The West Lake Sammamish area is a distinct neighborhood featuring an exclusively residential character east of West Lake Sammamish Parkway. A goal of the Appellants and the Intervenor is to preserve the integrity of this neighborhood by limiting non - residential development to those areas lying west of the Parkway and adjacent to the freeway. This neighborhood interest confers standing on residents of the West Lake Sammamish community who live east of the Parkway to oppose within a conditional use permit proceeding any non - residential development which is proposed in the vicinity of their properties. B. SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal. 3. The basic standard to be applied to the review of a threshold determination appeal is that the SEPA record must demonstrate the actual consideration of relevant environmental impacts. With respect to those relevant impacts shown to be actually considered, the decision of the SEPA official is entitled to substantial weight on review and shall not be overturned unless clearly erroneous based on the record as a whole. tea....,•+•'" "....:z V...... m uamws sn �rabWy .a. tervota+}nm.ro ankvi•cx ,,......� • - '-'?s4!!O�. Riz e SEP record discloses actual consideration by the DeparTment -of bevel pmerit' and "` Environ- mental Services of the potential aesthetic impacts of this proposal. Accordingly, the burdetn ' f proof on the SEPA Appellant is to demonstrate that the determination of non - significance is,eitl er trary?to�law or inadequately _supported>bythe ?recordand; therefore.. c1early..(erroneous.Kf ,, �.�r.±LnY1�5 tC�Fj�Fs J} isC'Y• Fly'::! t'(=' r,:" C. Rf' t�+ j;:! t!: rg'• �t•?? s2N, 'r,75z�;t;:7;ww_- -.�C","?f`: ;t. ';,f:,.::;,v..,,:,r,:, :,,,, .;•:.,,,., si °�27;Y:.. . 4a. \9,.a� � i� .:t"{ �� ..t;a3:• ;�.p.�: j" ,:.[�. 't f � i , . a '..��.r y.. r , r... 1�`t(ji In he revie . of -..... -,-t- -- "YY "" `kiiiS �-_ _______._ __ _ii__i____a___ __ ___ _ _ .. ..r.„.,v,.:. +e'rw 11 ;% ,-^af Lihe rule that has been consistently applied in Hearing Examiner proceedings has been that no' O :;vv e gsignificant aesthetic impact occurs unless a valuable view is impaired. This means that the mere fact, wl • G ,,kr that a tower may be visible from neighboring properties does not constitute in itself a significant _`,,\ \-1 verse impact. Because monopoles are thin structures that do not normally produce major blockage, 1` ey do not have a significant adverse visual impact unless a view of specific`importance isimpaired A` i t... 1 5 6 vi>if` • ,ttlie facility yis so�c1oseatoitlie viewer:that:it dominates the: perspective: .6b „, \• I ... .. ......... ,nwu:wxw+v�mcune z. •t�r�t+cu- :sr..„.,..c+..sTw ...,.<z.rras _, —.„, :.•.:�a.n. <. . 0 t_” NJ, �,m.�• =6 A1though views of Lake Sammamish exist in the neighborhood, because of topography no properties which view the monopole site would also view the Lake within the same scenic vista. Therefore, impair -ment of a significant view is not at issue within this appeal. This means that the intrusion of the monopole into the territorial view from local roadways, the school property, and single family residential properties to the north and east may be adverse but will be less than significant. '-'-- - ,,,.n...N , .._.- ,,.... -.,,, . -_.. _.__..__.__ - .____..... -__. -- -_._–__—....,--- A 7. On the other hand, the view of the monopole and its support structures to the north from the eight units on the second and third floors of Building H within the Sammamish Crown Condominiums will be significant and adverse because the monopole facility will be so close to the residents of such units that it will dominate their view. The view from the decks and dining rooms of these units north into the Nikko yard may not be a unique one, but it is a pleasant and valuable amenity owing to its vegetated and rural quality. Placement of a monopole within this viewscape at such close proximity will, due to its great height and industrial appearance, become the dominant feature of this scene and significantly impact the aesthetic interests of the condominium owners and residents. The decision of Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM Appeals of Conditional Use Pei. ...t Decision an... the SEPA official that the proposed monopole facility would impacts to the owners and residents within Building H of the not supported by the evidence and is clearly erroneous based C. Conditional Use Permit. Page 8of12 not have significant adverse aesthetic Sammamish Crown Condominiums is on the record as a whole. 8. Turning to the conditional use permit standards, the creation of significant adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent permitted residential uses resulting from the location, size and height of the proposed monopole facility would have the effect of discouraging the full residential enjoyment and use of neighboring properties and would be inconsistent with the requirements stated at KCC 21A.44.040.B. Such impacts also mandate the conclusion that the proposed conditional use has not been designed in a manner which is compatible with the character and appearance of existing development within the vicinity, in violation of KCC 21A.44.040.A. 9. The record also demonstrates that the West Lake Sammamish community is one which is subject to conflicting development pressures. On the one hand, the core land use in this area is residential, with single family residential uses predominating in those areas which are near to Lake Sammamish. However, the neighborhood is also bordered on its southern side by the Interstate 90 freeway, and the interchange exits where traffic accesses the freeway are inevitably subject to high vehicle use and intensive pressures for commercial and institutional development. Within the context of this application, West Lake Sammamish Parkway provides a clear boundary between the dominant residential area and the institutional service areas nearer the freeway. If approved, the proposed monopole facility would constitute the first major non - residential use sited on the east side of West Lake Sammamish Parkway. As such it would be incompatible with the character of that area and would create a precedent for non - residential development on the east side of the Parkway which in the long term would impair the continued pursuit of residential development. We conclude that these impacts to the integrity of the neighborhood are also incompatible with the requirements of KCC 21A.44.040.A and .B. 10. Finally, KCC 21A.26.040.B requires that conditional use permit review of a monopole application within an R12 zone contain a finding that the proposed facility "requires placement at a particular location to meet the needs of the cellular telephone system." The record in this proceeding demonstrates that while the Nikko property is an acceptable location for the proposed US West facility in terms of meeting its network service requirements, the properties lying west of West Lake Sammamish Parkway, including the Sunset Elementary School, other institutional properties and the I -90 right -of -way, are equally satisfactory service locations and are available to lease for cellular and related service facilities. While we do not regard this provision to be a rigid or inflexible standard, in view of the relatively greater impacts which would be generated at the Nikko property and within the residentially developed area of the neighborhood generally, the potential availability of satisfactory tower locations, including a co- location opportunity on the elementary school site, supports a conclusion that the showing of locational necessity required by KCC 21A.26.040.B has not been made. 11. Customarily, a finding of significant adverse impacts resulting from a proposal necessitates the per - formance of an environmental impact statement to study the scope and effect of such impacts. In the instant case, however, the visual impacts of the proposal are adequately identified, and no apparent public benefit would be derived from their further study and analysis. The factual record is sufficient to determine that, in view of the significant adverse visual impacts, a conditional use permit ought not to be issued for this application. In the interest of not imposing upon the Applicant Monday, June 29, 1998 . + i'R+.�':S':•�i:7:ii�:X���i�ii�. �Nfi' i' !^ �: rt3:`. �tfi7riR�� '+.YVF ✓'M�khlA1'��'` -�'' c'G`.�`' 3:19 PM ixw !;3 °Phi f w24 == r * REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT Advance property owner responsibility in the maintenance and management of existing housing by combining City code enforcement with partnerships Z �Z re 2 The City will coordinate code enforcement with the rehabilitation c.) O; of and purchase of multi- family properties in order to rehabilitate ` Cl, O poorly managed and substandard developments. This strategy will w =< consist of a dual program of: —' t— o) u. • diligent enforcement of code requirements and improvement w O incentives to current property owners, and 2 • active pursuit of partnerships with new property owners and a; quasi - public and nonprofit housing advocates. to d =w Responsible Department and their Role ? i z °` The main tool?the Uniform Housing Code and the Tukwila w Municipal Code Nuisance Chapter are the primary codes that are 2 D; enforced with respect to existing housing. This function is 0 performed out of the Mayor's Office. Other codes however are O 52 . also critical components for minimum living standards or o w w w requirements and will play a role in the implementation of this H c� strategy. The Police Department's Crime Prevention officers who u. ~O provide security reviews and recommendations as part of the Z.. Crime -free Multi- housing program, the Fire Department, who Cu inspect property annually for fire safety, each has a separate code 1 F or responsibilities. Z The Mayor's Office will be responsible for a coordinated City code enforcement program. This responsibility will be combined with the responsibility to coordinate and encourage housing investment and partnerships with non -City agencies and investors. The City will use the Pacific Highway "site selection criteria" (see page X,) and will pursue available housing funds and housing advocates to match programs with properties in the corridor. Stimulate maintenance and improvement of property in the Pacific Highway corridor by offering rehabilitation funds An important challenge in the Pacific Highway corridor is that history and appearance of the area form the basis for the region's perceptions. The purpose of this strategy is to create an incentive for private property owners to improve the physical conditions and appearance of their properties. The City will develop and sponsor a grant program for site Draft Council Strategies F:!rtCr7>+!.v$7�S%a'ti;FC�tu` . �;Pa}iL�sla.tY''.'r'e 'w`.�.�Z' .A.�Gki Ctiit#i;Gt1,0.`l .c:*.iisF.w'1,44 ."*f Page 13 Appeals of Conditional Use Pet Decision an... Page 9 of 12 unnecessary and costly requirements, the performance of an environmental impact statement will not be ordered as a consequence of this set of appeals, and a final decision on the merits will be entered. DECISION: The threshold determination appeal of David T. Johnson is GRANTED with respect to the proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts in the area of aesthetics. Mr. Johnson's appeal is DENIED with respect to alleged noise, traffic and construction impacts. The conditional use permit appeals of David T. Johnson and Stephen O. Simmons are GRANTED. The report and decision dated December 16, 1997 issued by the King County Land Use Services Division with respect to the application of US West Wireless under file no. L97AC032 is reversed, and the conditional use permit is denied. ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1998. Stafford L. Smith, Deputy King County Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 3rd day of April, 1998 to the parties and interested persons shown on the attached list. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, FEBRUARY 26, MARCH 16, AND MARCH 24, 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L97AC032 — US WEST/LAKE SAMMAMISH PARKWAY SITE: STAFFORD L. SMITH was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating at the hearing were Paul Wozniak and Barbara Heavey, representing the County; Ralph Long, Mark Poletti, Greg Patrick, Helene Johnson, Ward Thompson, Deborah Smith, Steve Schars, Paul Best, Larry Brown, Fran Denison, Neysa Blackwell, Chris Wolcott, Sharon Goldberg, Harry Young, David Marks, Richard McCann, Heidi Neimos, Steve Simmons, Tom Manning, Mike Unger, David Johnson, Diane Tibelius, Mike McMurtray, Curt Wines, Jeff Birnhof, William Stewart, Michael Witek, John Milton, and James Gibson. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record on February 26, 1998: Exhibit No. 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Division Report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit No. 2 Determination of Nonsignificance for L97AC032 (E97E0109) issued September 17, 1997 Exhibit No. 3 Environmental Checklist dated April 8, 1997 Exhibit No. 4 An appeal of the DNS for L97AC032 (E97E0109) was received September 30, 1997 Exhibit No. 5 Site plan dated May 20, 1997 Exhibit No. 6 SEPA/Conditional Use filed (submitted at hearing) Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM Accountability Have City efforts on Pacific Highway been productive and effective? Do they reflect the desired direction of its citizens? 2 Appeals of Conditional Use Pe. .t Decision an... Page 10 of 12 Exhibits Nos. 7 -25 have been omitted. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record January 14, 1998: Exhibit No. 26 "Keep Cell Towers Out of Our Neighborhood" prepared and submitted by Greg Patrick Exhibit No. 27 Fax transmitted January 13, 1998, from Fritz Kantschi to Hearing Examiner Exhibit No. 28 Letter dated December 4, 1997, from Boyce Heidenreich * *(Sunset Elementary School) Exhibit No. 29 "Model Wireless Communication Facility Siting Ordinance" submitted by Larry Brown The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record February 26, 1998: Exhibit No 30 Sheet with structural specifications prepared by Paul J. Ford & Co., Structural Engineers Exhibit No. 31 Sheet A -2 entitled "Detail" of outdoor equipment and monopole antenna Exhibit No. 32 Photographs Nos. 6 -16 of various cell tower sites submitted by Johnson Exhibit No. 33 Photograph No. 3, submitted by Johnson and showing what he thinks monopole would look like on the site Exhibit No. 34 Photograph No. 2, Northwest to site from adjacent property submitted by Johnson Exhibit No. 35 Photograph No. 1; view from Johnson property with monopole drawn in by hand Exhibit No. 36 Notes from telephone conversation between Johnson and Issaquah Assistance School Superintendent Doug Snyder submitted by Johnson Exhibit No. 37 Copy of lease between Western Wireless and Issaquah School District Exhibit No. 38 Notes from telephone conversation between Johnson and Pam LaCook, Western Wireless Exhibit No. 39 Richards Road to Lake Sammamish Right of Way and Limited Access Plan Fully Contained Controlled Map (sheet 10 of 13 sheets) Exhibit No. 40 Richards Road to Lake Sammamish Right of Way and Limited Access Plan Fully Contained Controlled Map (Sheet 11 of 13 sheets) Exhibit No. 41 Freedom of Information Act request to WSDOT and February 3, 1998, response Exhibit No. 42 Composite (2) photographs showing view of cell tower location from West Lake Sammamish Parkway and H Building of Smallish Crown Condominiums. Exhibit No. 43 Composite (3) photograph showing view of cell tower from Unit H -204 — Sammamish Crown Condominiums Monday, June 29, 1998 3:19 PM For a number of years the City has focused its resources on improving public safety throughout Tukwila, but with particular emphasis in the Pacific Highway Corridor. As a result, the City has become a national leader in reducing crime and has been featured in national news reports for being innovative and progressive. Serious crimes have dropped over the last two years, in particular within the last year, there was a 28% drop in violent crimes. Moreover, public safety is only one measure of the City's commitment and zQ effectiveness. The following list shows the breadth of actions being taken. _ W. it 2 Safety and Human Services • Launched a community policing program, including hiring six additional police officers. UO • Instituted a Multi- housing Crime Free Program. Reported crimes in certified Crime Free co w: • Multi- housing is down 57% from 1995. -J H Nu-. • Support a "Citizen's Patrol" by training and equipping a group of residents and business w O. owners who walk the highway in order to create a presence and report suspicious activity. g E. J LL- '< • Regulate "Adult Entertainment" uses through detailed licensing, operating and location U d'. procedures. _ Engage in Police Emphasis Patrols and enter into Criminal Trespass Contracts with property owners. z� I- O. Z Established a "Neighborhood Resource Center." Staff with a crime prevention officer, community volunteers and the City's bicycle patrol. The Center also houses the video 0 �. monitors for the cameras mounted along the highway, keeping an electronic eye on corridor o F" activity. (Picture Resource Center) x w.�. ~O' w z. H : • Staff an Apartment and Motel Managers Network that meets monthly to share information 0 l- and build skills on property management techniques. Spend $275,000 annually in assistance programs that provide emergency assistance as well as job and education skill building. _ infrastructure and Facilities Investment • Spending $8.65 million in local funds to improve 42 Avenue S. with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, intersection improvements and street illumination • Obtained $ in state and federal funds for the Pacific Highway reconstruction project. • Installed pedestrian paths and improved storm drainage on S. 152, S. 150 S. 148 Streets and 37 and 33 Avenues South. • Spent $280,000 on street and storm drainage improvements to 32 Av. S. between S. 135 and S. 137 Streets. The City has also spent several years planning and updating its codes to reflect the new Tukwila. Development Incentives • Modified sections of the Zoning Code to allow a wider range of commercial services along the corridor. • Established a City Enterprise Zone (See Zoning Map for boundaries) along the corridor that allows the City to pay the costs of improving public infrastructure when typically required of private development. 3 .44:004iPi 4.A Y� x • :- "rte z Appeals of Conditional Use Pert Decision an... Exhibit No. 44 Photograph of cell tower location from Unite 201 — Sammamish Crown Condominiums. Page 11 of 12 Exhibit No. 45 Composite (2) photograph of view of cell tower location from Unit H -304 of Sammamish Crown Condominiums Exhibit No. 46 Photograph No. 11 of truck with extended pole Exhibit No. 47 Article entitled "Phone Companies Try to Soften an Antenna Invasion in Suburbia" from New York Times, Friday, January 11, 1998 Exhibit No. 48 Photograph of monopole disguised as light pole Exhibit No. 49 Underground cellular facility photograph Exhibit No. 50 Photograph of cellular tower disguised as traffic light standard Exhibit No. 51 Photograph of two shorter monopoles disguised as light poles Exhibit No. 52 Photograph of Three Sectored Susan flagpole Exhibit No. 53 Photographs of Nokai mini -cell Exhibit No. 54 Resume' of Mark J. Poletti, U.S. West engineer Exhibit No. 55 US West Power Density and Maximum Permissible Exposure Calculations prepared by Mark Poletti December 11, 1997, to City of Bellevue Exhibit No. 56 Radio frequency propagation model at 90 feet above ground level (AGL) Exhibit No. 57 Radio frequency drive test at 90 feet AGL Exhibit No. 58 Radio frequency propagation model at 125 feet AGL Exhibit No. 59 Radio frequency drive test at 125 feet AGL Exhibit No. 60 Aerial photograph (from Applicant's notebook R -29) of subject property and vicinity The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record March 16, 1998: Exhibit No. 61 Photograph of cabinets US West uses — "Base Station Equipment" Exhibit No. 62 (6) Photosimulations showing pole from various angles Exhibit No. 63 Photosimulations based on Simmons' photograph Exhibit No. 64 Landscape plan (Type 1) Exhibit No. 65 Assessors map marked with 14 points where photographs taken (key map) Exhibit No. 66 Photographs A -H of site from various directions showing crane Exhibit No. 67 Photographs (A -M) from various directions of site (supplemental crane photos) Monday, June 29, 1998 ; zfs a i...Airk;v4. S;.1it'`'" ' ',nt .n"? 3:19 PM z z. ct J U; OO 0) 0, w =: J N LL • O' se = d; z� zoI uj co 1 0 w W� z: Wes. U= O~ z 1 Public Involvement A. comprehensive planning process was undertaken to establish a direction for the City's strategic efforts in the Pacific Highway area. There were over 65 public meetings that included some or all of the following groups: z. • business owners _ • property owners t — Z • residents re 2 • affected govenment agencies 6 D J V' • Tukwila Planning Commission c) 0 • Tukwila Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) , N G cnw; • Chamber, of Commerce ' w z • real estate, housing, and transportation experts co ti' • neighborhood community groups and the w 0 Tukwila City Council 2 Ji. Although not the end of the City's efforts, this Revitalization Plan is u) D the culmination of four years of discussion and debate and marks an important mid -point in .= C' City actions. There will be continued discussion and involvement with property owners and z x the community as the strategies are implemented. Z 1—:: 4 • tci.1+;.M vet, -,.4 x 's,..i. r,;1;„ 4,:kgiii:4,: d vpm. V• N;. W al, • U, Z; U _co; 'z 1 Appeals of Conditional Use Pei_ ..t Decision an... Page 12 of 12 Exhibit No. 68 Photosimulations of (supplemental crane photos) pole at site of crane Exhibit No. 69 Resume' of Michael Unger Exhibit No. 70 Resume' of Jeff Birndorf Exhibit No. 71 Resume' of William Stewart Exhibit No. 72 Acoustical Report prepared by William Stewart of BRC z. Exhibit No. 73 A. Qualifications of Palmer, Groth & Pietka re 2 D: B. Professional Qualifications of James Gibson v o N 0 Exhibit No. 74 Market. Study prepared by James Gibson (Palmer, Groth & Pietka) w _ Exhibit No. 75 Photograph submitted by Johnson of Finn Hill tower site as mentioned in Palmer w 0 Market study. u. Exhibit No. 76 Resume' of Ralph Long 5.f1 a` W Exhibit No. 77 US West Site Selection Process z Zo Exhibit No. 78 Site maintenance statement prepared by US West w oExhibit No. 79 Site summary of Timberlake Park prepared by Lucent Group (multi le page packet) '0— Exhibit No. 80 Facility Use Application (multiple page packet) = W 0 z U cn Exhibit No. 83 US West's response to the Examiner's second order on discovery completed by z Ralph Long. Exhibit No. 81 US West FCC license Exhibit No. 82 Summit Manufacturing pole analysis packet The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record March 24, 1998: Exhibit No. 84 Topographic survey map annotated and submitted by Johnson Exhibit No. 85 Photosimulation based on Simmons photograph (Exhibit No. 63) with Johnson distance calculations {Comments] [Help] [Index] [Main Menul [Search] [What's New] Monday, June 29, 1998 '& tie` Shc' rgVi< dtYil '4gr r;S3ti'Si4.1*,27i.:`i( .iX,- <:.T:tia`,K'rit 3 :19 PM Partnerships Communities are complex environments of individuals making independent decisions. These varied autonomous decisions resulted in the corridor as we know it today. In recent years, individuals have begun acting as partners with common goals. The residents effort to annex this area to the City of Tukwila presaged future measures aimed at improving the neighborhood including its commercial core. Residents, businesses, property owners and their managers, and organizations have individually and in partnership taken steps to improve the Pacific Highway corridor. Below is just a small sampling of the people or groups making a difference in the area. Richard Simpson Richard moved into the Cascade View neighborhood thirty-six years ago when he was employed by the Boeing Company. He remembers buying his house in a real estate office that now houses the Neighborhood Resource Center. He was involved in the annexation effort for the Cascade View neighborhood and was a proponent of providing a public presence on the highway. Retired now, he donates considerable time to civic efforts by serving on the Library Advisory Board and the Community Oriented Policing Board and by spending six hours a week at the Neighborhood Resource Center. Cathy Bell Cathy moved here twelve years ago because it was close to a job and she was impressed with the street, the look of the neighborhood where her house is located and its convenient location. When she had her last child she began work at home full time and began volunteering, first as a "McGruff House," which is an after school safe house for children, as a Block Watch captain, as a volunteer with the Citizens Patrol and now at the Neighborhood Resource Center. She thinks that maintaining a community that is healthy requires everyone to "pitch in together as a community." Although school statistics show a high turnover of students, she has a strong network of friends in the community who help each other and have been in the community for a long time. According to Cathy, things are going well for the area but she feels strongly about the need to beautify Pacific Highway. She is also frustrated about the properties that remain eyesores and wonders if we could be persuasive with recalcitrant property owners by using incentives. As things continue to improve, she hopes to see a neighborhood park on the west side of the highway. Hometown True Value Hardware Lynn Livengood and his wife Jo Ann bought the hardware store from the previous owner in 1961 and since then have remodeled six times, expanding the store from 4,800 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Their new garden center has been their biggest growth department and was the lasted remodel. ,z,no>v 4.014:,!5:4 &'411tAik:+ `S4 He has a self- reliant attitude and feels that businesses need to do things on their own to see business growth. For example, to compete with the big box retailers like Home Depot and Eagle, he offers superior customer service, convenient rental products and services, competitive pricing, etc. Mr. Livengood thinks that more businesses in the corridor would be of value to him as a retailer and that the surrounding neighborhood, which is his customer base, is good. The 5 Mir z �w ft• 2: 6 0 0 O, u)o w ='; w O: g.1 N D. = d. z� 1-O z►- w 2o w` U' u. O Z Uco P H .O • z June 1, 1998 Michael Lyons D. Garvey and Associates 1700 Westlake Ave N., Suite Seattle, WA 98109 Re: Nextel Conditional Use Permit application, 372 Corporate Drive N. (L98-0024/ E 98-00_) Dear Michael: We have completed our substantive review of your request to establish a 100 foot monopole for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) base station at the referenced property. We have a number of concerns related to your proposal that we believe will substantially impact your application and our recommendation to the Planning Commission. The City has numerous policies in the Comprehensive Plan (1.10.10, 10.2.2, 10.3.2 and 13.2.1) that designate the proposed location of the monopole in potential right-of-way. The project to establish a new street (S. 168th) has also been identified (Project 84-RW08) in the 1998-2003 Capital improvement Plan. Compliance with these policies will be one condition in the SEPA determination, to be issued this week. Staff is also concerned about the proximity of the monopole to the Tukwila Pond Park. This park has been created under the premise that the park and its surroundings are to be as natural as possible. To this end, there have been limitations on the areas of development within the park and the critical review of the impact of adjacent development on the park surroundings. Given the proximity of the proposed monopole to the park, we believe that the height and nature of the monopole would intrude on the natural concept for the park. ; ' • Stail e lealamorogfrawskolot In addition to the impact on views from the park, we believe that the monopole will also have a significant impact on views in the general area. At 100 feet, it will be the tallest structure in an otherwise low -rise development area between the Tukwila Pond and West Valley Highway. Without significant visual mitigation of the monopole and antennae, we believe that it will have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of views in the area, including the view from surrounding hillsides. We believe there are several alternatives available to mitigate the impacts of your proposed base station. Some of the practical alternatives include: • Alteration of existing adjacent monopoles at 566B Industry Drive and S. 158 /Nelsen Place • Co- location on the facade of adjacent buildings (Doubletree Suites, Embassy Suites, Southcenter Plaza Office Building, Southcenter mall buildings) • Co- location on Seattle City light right -of -way towers • Incorporate the tower into an architectural design feature at the proposed development site or at appropriate developments in the general area All of the options detailed above are within an approximate one mile radius of your current proposed location. We believe that this initial list of alternatives will help to reduce the impact of locating the monopole where it is currently proposed. To allow ample time to study the alternatives that are detailed above or any alternatives that may be developed by you and your client, ewe hanged the hearing date on this proposal from June -25 7-1998 t Sincerely, T(4- .) t rr&n,. ' -/„ i, `,, e 1-` �,, _�. (' ie- ►ns- Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner City of Tukwila CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLAN for 1998 -2003 OTHER PROJECT TITLE (Fund 104/02) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL SOURCES CBD Transit Center 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 East Marginal Way (BAR -NCL) 207 0 0 0 0 0 207 6289 Annual Overlay and Repair 730 1400 1170 1200 1200 1050 6750 1098 Pacific Hwy (S 116 Wy - S 152 St) 1898 1147 1836 1920 6080 0 12881 11598 • 0Green River Valley Signal Coordination 647 150 150 150 0 0 1097 1022 Annual Traffic Signal Program 145 70 70 70 70 70 495 0 S 168 St (Andover Pk W - Southcenter Pkwy) 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 id West Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd 625 0 0 0 0 0 625 510 Andover Park East/Industry Dr. Intersection 220 0 0 0 0 0 : 680 540 S 144 St Rockery 60 0 100 300 0 0 460 0 Strander Extension to SW 27 St (Oaksdale) 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 S 133 SUSR599 SB off Intersection 0 30 320 0 0 0 350 300 Traffic Signal Interconnect 0 100 800 0 0 0 900 720 Minkler Blvd (Andover Pk W - Southcntr Pkwy) 0 425 0 0 •0 0 425 425 West Valley (1-405 Strander Blvd) 0 0 580 0 0 0 580 530 ISouthcenter Parkway Signals 0 0 205 97 0 0 302 0 Transportation Plan 195 0 0 0 0 0 195 0 Pacific Hwy /S 116th Wy /SR599 on -ramp 0 0 0 0 100 0 4675 3250 • Andover Park West (Tukwila Pkwy to Strander Blvd) 0 0 0 0 100 0 800 400 Ill E Marginal Way (BAR - S 112 St) 0 0 0 0 35 0 1955 1360 West Valley Hwy /S. 156 Street 0 0 0 0 0 725 725 600 57 Ave S (S 180 St - SCL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 250 S 143 St (Interurban - Duwamish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 S 134 St (S 133 St - 48 Ave S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Strander Blvd /58 Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 140 0 S 130 PI (56 Ave S - 50 PI S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 Interurban (S 139 St - Fort Dent Way) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8800 6020 } S 180 St/57 Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 100 S 180 St and Andover Park West 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 130 •Pac Hwy (BAR - S 116 Way) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000 2400 Nelsen Place (S 158 St - S 156 St) 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 S 156 St (W Valley - SW 16 St) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Grand Total 4847 3322 5231 3737 7585 1845 47467 37682 .` x'ir'i::•l1`•,� r:. hs:;. V4:;;: L�' 3c.': tiTtc.. �`,• Iki�i{ S' l: ilRgi:./ g; �tUiYf? I. v' :5."t�^�Mt+stts9Ja,�.rAViaFS.: L. 36 • CIP104 2.XLS 1/12/98 .mow. ,;.... Date: 27-May-98 11:32:02 From: MICHAEL-J (MICHAEL JENK. 3) To: DON Subject: RE: Cell tower near Tukwila Pond Message-id: B2F96B3501000000 Application-name: MHS >Date: 26-May-98 17:10:35 >From: DON (DON WILLIAMS) >To: MICHAEL-J >Copies-to: STEVE >Subject: RE: Cell tower near Tukwila Pond >Message-id: 8BF76A3501000000 >Application-name: MHS »Date: 26-May-98 16:53:09 »From: MICHAEL-J (MICHAEL JENKINS) »To: DON »Subject: Cell tower near Tukwila Pond »Message-id: 75F36A3501000000 »Application-name: MHS • >> >> • »when we met on the topic, you had indicated that you were going to send »the SEPA out to Seattle Audobon for comment. Do you know if your • »contact has received the packet? >Michael, I talked with the Mayor about the tower because he is very >interested in the pond park. He does not want the tower in the proposed >location and wanted me to past along that response. We did talk about >"hiding" it in the very SE corner of our pond property to hide it in the >trees, and getting paid to have it there, ( $ for the park's >construction) so I contacted the project manager and told him my dept. >could not support the location that they identified and asked if he'd be >interested in looking at our corner. He said he'd have to get back to >me. He hasn't yet. 1 plan no other action until 1 get an answer. Call >me if you have questions. Don W. Don - I spoke to Jack and what both of us think would work best is that we not go too far with any formal discussions with the applicant about moving onto city property, because we will have a hard time looking them in the face to say that staff will recommend denial to the Planning Commission, but if you move it onto city property we will approve it! After working this issue with Jack and Steve, we want to wait until the Planning Commission actually denies their request based on not being able to adequately screen, that it is located in potential right of way indicated in the Comp Plan, etc. and then work with them to put it on city • property. I'll keep you posted. mj 20000- team - options: R 242Send -to: JACK Date: 26- May -98 17:10:35 From: DON (DON WILLIAMS) To: MICHAEL -J Copies -to: STEVE Subject: RE: Cell tower near Tukwila Pond Message -id: 8BF76A3501000000 Application -name: MHS 20MCB- options: NNYNA Re- sent -by: MICHAEL -J; on 27- May -98 08:20:41 >Date: 26-May-98 16:53:09 >From: MICHAEL -J (MICHAEL JENKINS) >To: DON >Subject: Cell tower near Tukwila Pond >Message -id: 75F36A3501000000 >Application -name: MHS > >when we met on the topic, you had indicated that you were going to send >the SEPA out to Seattle Audobon for comment. Do you know if your >contact has received the packet? Michael, I talked with the Mayor about the tower because he is very interested in the pond park. He does not want the tower in the proposed location and wanted me to past along that response. We did talk about "hiding it in the very SE corner of our pond property to hide it in the trees, and getting paid to have it there, ($ for the park's construction) so I contacted the project manager and told him my dept. could not support the location that they identified and asked if he'd be interested in looking at our corner. He said he'd have to get back to me. He hasn't yet. I plan no other action until .l get an answer. Call me if you have questions. Don W. a.�Y 1H2 tt..1' r.5 5w.rnw l.+• ec row.<.ruo<+unt,!t m! 16...t ere{ ' .0.. q1 N..:Jtt#si ",::d9.';•e<P. ".� • • a .1 • w' ,J U: 0 .(0C3; co • w =: H' N w ,w 0 • J'. • • •f-:w. 1-0 :.• • Z i--; • w w • U o N:. U 01' UcA. h-- _ • z. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila •Prr,QS -e RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAY 1 lc 1993 PERMIT CENTER 1E? (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal 'Code requires me top st thefproperty no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I fn I certify that on the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with $fiction 18.104. } 10 and other applicable lines were posted on the property located at 96.-- ((os '- Qnc�v (-61r � � w QSt. so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for T kwf k application file number ( '— 00 �I SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this (3'—day of t-dU ieose_ �► / ffiant (Applican, Signs 19 n NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at 36eS AJW c6 c-34 '/07 My commission expires on „I-' ( ? ` C �— z real` .0 0D. 0O' • NW W=;. w 0' g lL¢: = d` w • !— _: z� I-0.• •zI- • •i wV ; AL"' IliZ • .f, _. • O ~' •7 • ~1 A F F I D A V I T WeV,dy 3,II Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet rn D Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non - significance LJ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Othe rAC Ut-App CAI W \ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 54---9k Name of Project (V e-X+ . File Number 1.---90- 0024 Signature z :z Z; 6 U O_ cn w; • =, J • LL w O 1 J¢` n = � a: E- _; z o; 2 DI D , w w: W O:. .1; c/)` O~ City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED MAY 10, 1998 The following applications have been submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and decision. FILE NUMBER: L98 -0024 (Conditional Use Permit), APPLICANT: Nextel LOCATION: 372 Corporate Drive North PROPOSAL: Installation of up to 12 antennae mounted on to a 115 foot monopole, with accompanying operating equipment located in a building immediately adjacent to the monopole OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA checklist (E98 -0011) Development Permit These files are available for review at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on June 25, 1998. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact.the Department at (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Michael Jenkins, the Planner in charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department at 431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. The Department will provide you with information on appeals if you are interested. 6300_ Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 _--._........_...- w+•+ .— +.«••..+�^.... ^+w+.w.uae..«» WnNRwso'nAT•Hr9'Alli4i+IhNW �FF14lRmlif197: �iT/ 7,. P" I%" J1,. 2i.'.'�RNxS!?'.SA�4%(1!�1%(1i�1 April 28, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Michael Lyons D. Garvey and Associates 1700 Westlake Ave N., Suite 420 Seattle, WA 98109 RE: Application for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Base Station, 372 Corporate Drive North (L98- 0024). Dear Mr. Lyons: Your application, on behalf of Nextel, for an Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Base Station, 372 Corporate Drive North, has been found to be complete on April 28, 1998 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Michael Jenkins and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 25, 1998. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is also available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 206 -431 -3685. Sincerely, iee`c4Le Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 s:ja4 4.37..i.V41 H:t: (iirtiti 5.i{,At G aS80,404.4 -fJ: C+' e oi•. z • • crw, 00; r N0 •.rn w+ w= H: w0 , z I- io N, :w W' • H•V ~O' • 1.11 • H z MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, File FROM: Michael Jenkins DATE: April 23, 1998 RE: Proposed location of Nextel Monopole • The following is a list of locations within a mile of the proposed Nextel Monopole at 372 Corporate Drive, immediately south of the Tukwila Pond, that could potentially accommodate a co-location of Nextel Antennae in lieu of a new monopole: Location: 566B Industry Drive Distance: Approximately 1/2 mile Cellular Carrier: US West Height: 78 feet File: 91-4-CUP Location: S. 158/Nelsen Place Distance: Approximately 1 mile Cellular Carrier: Cellular One Height: 100 feet File: 90-1-CUP Location: 15901 West Valley Highway Distance: Approximately 1 mile Use: Embassy Suites Hotel Height: Approximately 90 feet C.: l (- Y Or- I u t% 1 L i-A DcwrtnloI1t c_ 7o171'7uJI;ity Oevcgoptiunit t»UU' Svutilc;cilrcrr Telephone: (206) .131 -3670 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: I File Number: C7i -e,c/f Receipt Number: I Cross - reference files: Pq6 -60J� Applicant notified of incomplete application: Applicant notified of complete application: Notice of application issued: A. NAME OF PROJECT %DEVELOPMENT: Nextel Communications, Quasimoto /Southcenter Corporate Square (WA0234 -3) • B:•-LOCATION OF PROJECTIOEVELOpMENT: (address andaccessorsparcelnumber(sk f .. 372 Corporate Drive N., Tukwila, Washington 98188 Parcel 1: 2623049075 Quarter: SE Section: 26 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your fax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a 115 -ft. communications tower and installation of associated radio equipment inside an existing storage building. D. APPLICANT•► • (\AME: Michael. S. Lyons, 1). Garvey -Corporation for Nextel Communications ADDRESS: 1700 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 420, Seattle, Washington 98109 PHONE: SIGNA ruRE: J . _.L� t p DA r E : 206 -716 -1151 ATTACHMENT K .,•: M;: 7.;% Ys.."'•4...^. : ��Xi!. 5;: r. 54Y, �5L�nrd.+ P. irr.: H. �: :.' i�: 5 (�°':�'�`.°4`.f.�?{1�SvtdAii.c � . �E?s�Jw.� ., f:�rk�7:. "w . u edklt+P.:+Q�s' �il.�fd�F&'�uias+Lb'r j;, yt qr A. BACKGROUND SEPA CHECKLIST City of Tukwila 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Nextel Communications ESMR Facility: Quasimoto /Southcenter Corporate Square (WA0234 -3). . Name of applicant: Nextel Communications 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Contact Person: Nextel Communications 1750 112t Avenue NE, Suite C -100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 452-7400 Michael Lyons D. Garvey Corporation 1700 Westlake Avenue N., Suite 420 Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 216-3353 Date checklist prepared: March 31, 1998 Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington Department of Community Development Proposed timing or schedule for completion of the proposal (includes phasing if applicable): Summer 1998 Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: The facility may be expanded in the future to include up to three (3) omni - directional (whip) antennas. Future expansion may also include the installation of one (1) microwave dish. The location of all future expansion equipment is specified on the attached project plans (Attachment 10). There is no anticipated change to the existing storage building that would house the associated radio equipment. Expansion of the facility is not a certainty, but is dependent upon customer demand and /or technological change. Q ~w J U 00; t moo; LIJ Unw: w = -d. I- -O. ZH`. ut U - 0 ; 0 E-1 w w. H w O w co 0 z 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal: None. However, an Environmental Checklist was prepared by the City of Tukwila and a DNS issued, May 1,1997 for Tukwila Pond Park Project, adjacent to this site. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: None known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Federal Aviation Administration: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Federal Communications Commission: Site Filing and Approval 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Please see Attachment 6. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. a. Address: 372 Corporate Drive, N., Tukwila, WA 98188 b. Section: 26 Township: 23N Range: 4E c. Tax Parcel Number: 2623049075 d. Legal Description: Please see Attachment 3 13. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH 2 a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site area is generally level. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Glacial till. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Same as existing. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction, and when the project is completed. If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Small quantities of dust and vehicular emissions may be produced during the one -month construction period. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. 5+titieri! -Y�. 3 .:*Zro,•0:Fa ".ih;,,,kso F.:44gu, taf;: is ' yg' , i:.^( i5, h} %.`��iss.'r1'Ch`'!:S1s1C�'d%SP n "i?diG:k: '�k4iiz }J;kiS:•:.1vAk,e"4Sh.WkSz.. 'D�. L7t4.'�'. z • <z r4w • '0 0 -u) 0: .cn W= am;. wO .2 • F— O Z �U� O N' • w: H LL O: w z, • UN 5 �. z c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. . WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river into which it flows. Situated to the north of the proposed site is the Tukwila Pond property, which is approximately 25 acres in total size with an approximate 15 -acre open water pond, Tukwila Pond. However, the proposed project would cause no impact to the pond. 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposed project would be installed on an existing asphalt area. The proposed project would pose no impact to the Tukwila Pond and the "adjacent" wetlands to the north of the site. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note floodplain location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 4 • b. Ground: • 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities of withdrawals or discharges, if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is /are expected to serve. N/A Water Runoff (including stormwater): Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A . PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous trees: alder, maple, aspen; other X evergreen trees: fir, cedar, pine; other X shrubs X grass pasture crops or grain 5 „a }Cti[S.'u ".'i::� •i S . ...... 4N.1iS wkwb iv f z 2. J .0 OU; ; U) W: w=; J • :N U. • w O; J.' AL 4t: = c! w z�.. • moo: .w w U ON. 0 W 1- U? uiz UN:. • 0 - O z wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage; other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil; other: other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Proposed 6' high evergreen tree landscaping around the fenced perimeter of the tower base. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site, or that are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds; other: geese mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver; other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish; other Please refer to Tukwila Pond Wildlife Utilization and Habitat Evaluation, Watershed Dynamics, Inc., 1994 for a list of waterfowl, passerine birds and others using the Tukwila Pond. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electrical, natural gas, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. 6 z < • I- : 00 t co C3 COW; i- ul 0 g u_ < CO I a dr- I- 0 Z tu 2 D. ° ,C1 uj Li: 0 Z Wo CO 0 Electricity will be used to run electronic switching equipment, lighting and air conditioners. Telephone service will be required for the electronic equipment. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All equipment will conform to applicable energy codes. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. The facility will operate at 806 to 821 and 851 to 866 Megahertz (MHz). Transmissions will be low power (average of 50 watts per channel) with a maximum of twenty channels per antenna. As such, the transmissions will be an average of less than 1% of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard set forth in IEEE /ANSI C95.1 -1992, of 567.3 microwatts per square centimeter. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. The facility would be remotely monitored for fire, smoke, intrusion and AC power failure by Nextel's 24 -hour electronic monitoring system. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? None. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short term or a long -term 7 „,,. ..;rte.. .. ,...... rs.....,.c..r,a ?+�47ric44g* /±2- 4..,,V4711,4'l basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise related to construction activities would be generated during normal business hours throughout the one -month construction period. The proposed facility generates no sounds other than low volume, intermittent noise from the air conditioning units in the equipment gi z, shelter. These units will comply with State and local w noise standards. ug JU. UO: U U; • Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if ' w =; any: J E- None. N w' wO u.< N a; 1w I- O. U p . North: Railroad track, open space. O N: South: Parking lots, office buildings. East: Bon Marche Home Furnishings Clearance Store receiving dock (truck v' loading/unloading). ~` O. West: Office buildings, parking lots, and Andover Park West. Wholesalers • LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is an office building. The surrounding land uses are as follows: ui and computer warehousing across Andover Park West. U O • Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing structures on site: office building, parking lot, storage building. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) District. • What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) District. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 8 ....7':ry. • tJ?i`.:• w.i'.',�:i:':.::Yi::l,:1:.•L:.� f' 1K?: Bi. hT: lkb? x?Yl �YZl'l hrr. waaw! drl Yx43i4':4Y•"+iil.��'(iu`SGM1:tX h. i. J• N/A Has any part of the site been classified an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. The site will be unmanned. One employee will provide maintenance visits to the site approximately once per month. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Please see Attachments 6 and 7. . HOUSING a. Approximately how many units will be provided, if any? Indicate whether be high, middle, or low - income housing. None. c. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The facility will include a 100' monopole with panel antennas for an overall height of 102'. The tallest height of the proposed communications tower installation (with future omni antennas) is 115' 9 ~ U O:. N0 :: cow J I: w O! g IL a: Nom; d I- W. z� F- O: Z w: ,0 o w W 1- U' u.� . z.. O F' 6" including the antennas mounted on top of a 100' monopole. The proposed radio equipment would be placed within an existing storage building and, therefore, would not be visible to the public. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or z obstructed? Q None. .H w c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: .v 8 The proposed installation has been designed to pose the least amount of visual , co o: .cnw: impact to the area as technically possible. The tower is proposed at the • w i . J Hi minimum height necessary to meet the radio coverage objectives. Reducing ' to w; the height of the proposed tower may create the need for additional towers in w O he immediate area. The proposed radio equipment would be placed within an . existing storage building and therefore, would be completely screened from . LL •J public view. • = uj I-w. • 11. • LIGHT AND GLARE ? F. 1.0' FO, z F-: ww; • a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time > 0 •.of day would it mainly occur? • i8 s None. • ;o I- I O I- . • Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard, • u. ~O: interfere with views? z: No. v vi...., O 'z c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The newly constructed Tukwila Pond Park is situated Northeast of the site. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. 10 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site. If so, generally describe: None known. Generally describe any landmarks, or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. ty Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site would be provided from Andover Park West. Please see project plans (Attachment 10) for further detail. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N/A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None is proposed. None would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 11 :: i:'-: at: �. 4�t_.., i.,. L;,. t, ta+ c5. r,. c,., w•.,., v�M �id.: r. ic.: a' J. :i.:i:....•� „�:a...ikV.U:i�tsw �;: d'. �: �*: s+ �: s;. �!'' N. Ki- CS n'f4Vd'aa:..,- . «5:..A.4;iiii” wr.+ 5. uY4v' :i7t�u'MEY.n'n.>`t!r:.4?n,�..�; Y... 1: t:aa;4LnrwwrMSYFi"••"�: ..UrGtief4LYba45iC'v:Gi' ..64G45L7'. •z w D UO w =. w 0 J u. _, � . =w d F-= z� I— O: z�-: . gj Ucol . w w! :H V 0` .z• iu 0 z f. flow many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. There will be one visit per month for routine maintenance of the facility. Visits would occur during normal business hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. ' UTILITIES a. Circe utilities available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Electricity and telephone service are available at the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity (Puget Sound Energy) and telephone service (US West) are provided at the site. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Michael S. Lyons Date Submitted: -00/18 12 ; ftL,Ig:-.).?4*14.;of,k404,,,2944,41V,AUVIrO.,VX ',MUM IS'AVA=&*Ygat'eaablriVialtataid":40,40,4V'ilekk-i;41iiej;i15. ...■•■■■ JUL 23 '98 04:14PM TJ} I' _.1 DCD/PW TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action Th the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive .information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Thj objectives are to provide in building portable covera e in the Southcenter She in MA11 and surrounding business co*ylexes, 1-405 and 1 -5. Also, it provides a c ritical link in the system and "hands off" to (5) five other sites providing necessary coverage . What are the'alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There are no alternative means of accomplishing the objectives. 3. Please compare the alternative...means and indicate the preferred course of action: There are no alternative means to compare. 00 /C00 Qj P.2/3 Evaluation for Agency Use Only RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 271998 PERMIT CENTER -22- (11100 ;MIND C9S6 96Z 90Z OT :LT NON 96 /LZ /L0 ffrzehgmi iii& i4 :4;: -riaE s4.agu id, ; • Sa-Eta6i:..i " b}Uiitailiva- itRa a:" z HZ rw; oO. W o. • w =, CO W: Wo g -J CO • • . �` I— CO: .Z .2 j U� '012: w w` 1 . U: LLI Z U N. .O Z JUL. 23 '98 04:14PM TUat. DCD'PW P.3 /3 Evaluation far Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proposal does not conflict with the policies of t e pre e v e mnsi se o roticy Oran Propoied measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Tnere are no conflicts. me proposal supports Several of the Goals and Policies. Additionaly•it it provides for colocation opportunities. -23- d2IOO A3AEVD Q C926 96Z 90Z YVd OT:LT NON 96 /LZ /L0 April 6, 1998 Mr. Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner City. of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 • RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER RE: Proposed Nextel Communications Site (Quasimoto/Southcenter Corporate Square, WA0234-3), 372 Corporate Drive N., Tukwila, Washington 98188 ••••••■..".1:■1111111111111i.. :11111••••111111111101•111111111W 1111•11110•11111111•1111111111•111•111/ M111•1111I. .-T111111111r: • , Now! .1111111r..: Ma- - .:1111 MI, .,!: .111111 .:4111•••■. -11111111INIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111 ,11•1111111••••11111111••••1111111 -111111•1111111111•1•111 E .Y: ;CIO R po, RATION PROJECT'MANAGERS Dear Michael: On behalf of Nextel Communications, we are submitting the attached Conditional Use Permit application package for a proposed communications facility at 372 Corporate Drive N:, in the City of Tukwila. The following items are included in this application package: A. Conditional Use Permit application fcirm (12 copies) with the following supporting information: B. -Attachment -Attachment -Attachment .Attachment -Attachment -Attachment -Attachment -Attachment -Attachment -Attachment SEpA. Checklist 1: Property Owner Declaration 2: Application Checklist 3: Legal Description 4: Thomas Guide Map 5: Assessor's Map 6: Project Description 7: Conditional Use Permit criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030. 8: Site Photographs and Photo Simulation 9: Public Notice. 10: Project Plans • . C. Filing•Fees: $850.00; CUP: $325.00; and SEPA Checklist • . To help us track the project, please include the site.name.and number (Quasimoto/Southcenter Corporate Square, WA0234-3) on all correspondence and reports. Please feel free to contact mc at 206-216-3353 should you have any questions or concerns. . , . • . . • . Thank yoli'far your assistance in the review of the proposed"communications facility. . . . . . Sincerely, • Michael S. Lyons Project Manager :.-AuaChments — CC: Mary Murdoch Liz Carrasquero 1700 Westlake Avenue North • Suite 420 • Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 216-3355 fax: (206) 298-9583 , .1,6,QiikiA4Q 4464,04 44,6hii; ,sW4,044:c:14`4,ptgi-w-4,60.." ',..v.4411zaz4A'k*AA %MiDigal•LbUd44'`,' D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at / 21. w/k. (city), (state), on 199S. LOWE NORTWEST INVESTOR PROPERTIES, L.L.C. (Print Name) One Union Square .11 Un' 1 _ - . 2 • (Address) (206) 623 -0200 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. ATTACHMENT 1 a V s t�..xtfi�FSSSrJ >ftti�a��.:'� �;" X��+, S' 1ra`. ��t5�'= "iii�tvrk= "�rye`'�'�'fm k� ik,��K�.vr� `'�`x � z • Q HW 2: n 0O w w: w w; w O, a% - a. ul . z� o' zI-: V.0 ,Ocn. .,0 F- w W' • I— U • .z of-- z Attachment 2 CITY OfTUKWILA r' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670. CKLIST WITH YOUR APPLICATIC APPLICATION FORMS: ❑ Application Checklist Application Form (12 copies) ® Conditional Use Fee - $850 ❑ Other permits applied for: CI Complete Environmental Checklist and fee ($325) ❑ Design Review application and fee ($900) (if applicable) PLANS (12 copies): 1 Site plan at 1 "= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): • Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O Location and setbacks of existing and proposed structure(s) with gross floor area (ii) Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations O Location and design of dumpster /recycling area screening and other exterior improvements N/A ® Location and type of exterior lighting (i? Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District O Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, with the slope of areas in excess of 20% dearly identified N/A O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications N/A O Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) N/A RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 3 Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries and fences. O Location of outdoor storage areas and method of screening N/A APR 9 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER Attachment 2 CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 . ::t�'.r.'- .�.0 ... ? +'z�'�r�';�*, tit ?��ti:i'FrXkiti}!: A?:. ::'au'nftati�':'1k4Y $k5'".,b'ai35 w'��Ri3f)t"•�:d2` xi :MU* rf, . I Landscape/planting p at the same scale as site plan, with `h arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following intormation must be contained on the plan: Under Preparation • Property lines and names of adjacent roads O Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site fumiture, any proposed public outdoor art N/A ® Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved a Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. • ® Building elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale and date. Include on the elevations: O Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements O Materials to be used O Location and type of exterior building lighting O Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary. ® One (1) "PMT" (photomaterial transfer, or photostat) each of the plan set, reduced to 8.5 x 11 inches. © OTHER MATERIALS: Address with some of these are not being submitted Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, twelve (12) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. ❑ Certificate of Water Availability if the site is served by a water purveyor other than the City. N/A ❑ Site percolation data approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Environmental Health if the site is proposed for development using a septic system, or a Certificate of Sewer Availability from the sewer utility purveyor (if other than the City). N/A ® Proof that the lots are recognized as separate lots pursuant to the provisions of TMC Title 17 and RCW Ch. 58.17. ❑ Any Sensitive Area studies required by TMC 18.45. N/A ® A list of existing environmental documents known to the applicant or the City that evaluate any aspect of the proposed project. ❑ A list of any permits or decisions applicable to the development proposal that have been obtained prior to filing this application, or that are pending before the City or any other govemmental entity. ❑ A storm. water design which meets the requirements set forth in the Surface Water Design Manual adopted pursuant to TMC 16.54.060(D). N/A ❑ A soils engineering report for the site. To be submitted with building permit ❑ Traffic study or studies, if required pursuant to TMC 9.48.070. N/A PUBLIC NOTICE: ® King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. ® Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks- - must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. RECEIVED TU p pp CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 CITY OF T'UKWI LA DEPARTMEIv i" OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P -CUP) APPLICATION Planner Receipt Number: FOR STAFF USE ONLY File Number: ( - OL a j Project File #: f7 9 0 _ CJv) t D. Application Complete ' (Date: 171 .:Application Incomplete ` (Date: SEPA File #: (ter` q _ (y.7 (. Other File #: I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Nextel .Communications, Quasimoto / Southcenter Corporate Square (WA0234 -3). B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: 372 •Corporate Drive N., Tukwila, Washington 98188 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 2623049075 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attached Quarter: SE Section: 26 Township: 23N Range:. 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) c. CoNrACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: Michael Lyons, D. Garvey Corporation ADDRESS: 1700 Westlake Avenue, N., Suite 420, Seattle, WA 98109 PHONE: 206 - 216 -3353 SIGNATURE: . � g DATE: 3 I'18 CIIPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 • yA r'd ig gtotliA;44w1aj -Aiv •lc44 ' •.. RECEIVED CITY OF TUIMIII.A APR 1 0 19H PERMIT CENTER 11. A. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Office B. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM LIST IN YOUR ZONING DISTRICT): Chapter 18.28 (TUC) 18.28.040(14) Conditional Uses. Radios, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. C. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USED, WHOLESALE /RETAIL/WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSED TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE): Installation of 115 foot - communications tower and installation of associated radio equipment within existing storage building. Nextel Communications seeks to expand its Pacific Northwest Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) network to include the proposed project. D. WILL THE CONDITIONAL USE BE IN OPERATION AND /OR A BUILDING TO HOUSE THE USE BE STARTED WITHIN A YEAR OF ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT? Yes • E. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BEUEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. CLIPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 lr.:: cti:il`r.';o'� #Y `i';m1,'V,iuirs .4 Ega4 .'ribe''YaSr 'aS RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 17,13 PERMIT CEfileg is�r�si�a`tiifA z I- z' ~W 6: U O' N �. v) W J I. N LL 0�-- u. N d H= z� o D ON 01 WW ~~ o Z 0 co O~ z EXHIBIT A' DESCRIPTION OF LAND The Land is described and/or depicted as follows (metes and bounds description): LOT 4 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS' FOLLOWS: • • • COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID EAST 1/2 WON IS N88135'421W ALONG THE NORTH LJNE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/41, A DISTANCE OF 1,33934° FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER . OF• SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE N88'05'42'W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EAST 1/2, A DISTANCE OF 629:34 FEET; THENCE S01•47'29'W A DISTANCE OF 515.95 FEET .TO THE TRUE POINT • OF BEGINNING, THENCE NI`47'29'E A DISTANCE .OF 515.95 FEET; THENCE SS8V5'42'E A DISTANCE OF 628.34 FEET•. THENCE S1'47'291D A DISTANCE OF 451.30. FEET TO THE BEGNNWG= OF A HORIZONTAL CURVE; THE RADIUS POINT Of NCH BEARS N8812'311W. 50.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A • CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90V6'49" A• DISTANCE OF 78.64 FEET; THENCE NE8'05'421W A DISTANCE OF 320:76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A. HORIZONTAL CURVE; THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS N134'f 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF.54'4556' A DISTANCE OF 14.34 FEET 7O' THE POINT' OF REVERSE' CURVE: THE RADIUS POINT OF %fCCIH BEARS S56401414; 50.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH. A CENTRAL ANGLE OF •13537'02' .4 DISTANCE OF 118.35 FEET. THENCE N88105'42'W A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET 10 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 315.456 SO. FT. WORE OR LESS. r , nl.•... ..r +.....r rS =nr i rr<Wttinf.i hR._.s.er�.H.1.�iYi�'..:� Attachment 1 Pg. 1 of 1 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER 1'r= a' *:.h kv, <li! �i,.5` l:; c'3.��! uti +s'v:..aiy;;:i?J•.1.4� +i;Y.:`n a•i�';ti'• ='. 14 `- ".i9,tf.;`.,;?;:, ! war- ;k4 %t-0E,idrk�u?i•`�3ieNriiS. W' J U !. UO :N 0. W =, . Luc): CO pi W Z1-i. F-.0: ZF WW. Oco; W — 0: Z' U N; MIR" mikvirmid sitaimitav CRIMEMMEIRIO MOM= 111 ■�: .. '■. rsorkokAllwi ATTAC, IMENT A: SEARCH RING ,I numroilinniz, inamsovoi., umniffErmirAi_wit-wp...,.--vwsFanilemu 1,), I iiiii, ) mg II ,1 1° TINV:Nlifie iLid. 1 I I witIMERMING 10011.111116NAVirdi w\ r••�fis wEll-Lwast.11111.4 11/11 AP 11 —1—a= °41451,4110/11 VVVl1T � • 1�1,od� 1 \ \ '� 11r r."111111ffili 33 I •° �� Bow Lok if �� ;i. 34 �! "� Va�leyl �i R' ♦ ••� ,... —_�ri �.. .. ,. . ��.�,. Ridge : � / AIRPORT 27'30" '55 T 23 N 22 N 1.00/ ZOO IZI oaori Produ and ti Control Compll taken 1 Super* Bathya hydros Mean I' complh Project 10,000• 1927 N To plat 23 men Grey th There n reservai — corm WITH NATIOI KATHY DATUM THE Del COMM COMER BASE!, STAND, p E N USED n CONv Mete t 2 3 5 7 0 9 10 To cones multiply To corn multiply T H -3 AN d2IOD 23A2IV9 Q C9S6 96Z 90ZXVd 90 : LT NON 96 /LZ /L0 '��.�"' A3; .�i ,,�, ?b�X'n.. FhT;',�.?"it '+�i r : ��: ,;y!�+;it,!�.�i„G �nr,...y;'r;i;".�"` t•+ ��iit >�.,�sx�';�m't�•;3 74:t?,: vj�,r <�'�';�i;r�!,�., �„K^ � .��Tr r!=J•�r�t,^.ni?'='a+,<i ��. Z ~N W 00 WI • u_ WO §Q =• d F-W Z= W • O • W 0 O h- W • W f- 1L O WZ U= O • � Z Al I. N(•i1111(2151 fial,HIngrartiaarSanknaiMQX,19,WCP.Le..dt.allibti.10.1g.A.192*.PnlararleMStataa: Site Candidate information Package , I ••^: f 41 . 5 u 1 • r •., • "LI ) .• Ill ) . 0 . . , .: ' :. . I ; :M . .. ': ZI : 'I. • )t - : • 5• i :I I al I :, . 23TH 2,1 .. R I \ 130111 ST s IsoTH , im. :r InPii crittovl 77 rr Z' nIGHi. MI ,I WHOM irS'A i - 1.1 A • IOSP ..., . .V \ a MAIM: _5 13p 1- Z .-- - - 34TH IN ,141:'.4:114A %', 1ST =1 S 1 I. '1ATH ST ft .4,,rti.t.Y4,1.,:wi. . s L: WI s • 4 t.. \\.., YgL,A.... .. . 5 la iF,:i. • • . '' (-1'.= INN SI k'alittikX1, it II. ii„...„. ,:,.,.. ,.. .., *5MT KM ST ST Z ar .1 Iliti IFAIIII111111111E: S 149TH S :NEI Vagsfiralow. \ to -1 r i St o'H '51a Eiglial 1/4.111 *----1 ,i ST :Mt 1 1- .1---,V,' ------ 1 1 1s521/0 ST i—si s 6. 23 .1 11:LINAME iii 2 17 i I i... J. !s Ism pt. y • 11""CP•milln.1-- TalralitkAl..31111111\11PiRrAir...' 4, ; s ;(. . IS 1. il...;_t_asaa- ' sk-nur PA; x 4 • :14 't( s • 1.2_.• r 6000 51.• kf• \ 1°. ..21 11115 •T JP;'" brie -14,o 11016401; IIIITACC144 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT s t 551 ST se to ST 1" el )2 ‘s)* z s ri CH Quasimoto Southcenter Corporate Square \VA0234-3 Thomas Guide Name: King, Pierce, & Snohomish Counties - 1997 Pages: 655 RECEIVED CITY OF TUI<WILA APR 1 0 199P) PERMIT CE-101=4 Attachment 4 Pg. 1 of 1 • .:\ �:,,;; �; ��i� ^:niW;�;;,�+T�:�t:.��i4Nexte /,P o ect:.. P /a•t:Ma � .:,� t:... �' �� ��r��" ���. �:. ,C.. ,i,._.....:�.i .fi l!� -0i. �i�!: �` �• 1w% t:' 7+ �; K�;j Y�a' ��'! f� 'i;��YfrF`!{7�^��rK.1�f�':y,i'� � Site Candidate Information Package 1330.•4 - '2 M. u. n R: R. esm h arcs 7130,007 N7 94' Nee- os -12 V 3r4.76 SB8- oS - -410 3z71oS 0 N Quasimoto Southcenter Corporate Square WA0234 -3 Assessor's Map I'turcl Number 2623049075 l uwnshm ?h I<:utpr 41 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1993 PERMIT CENTLrs Attachment 5 Pg. 1 of 1 Z _t- 1...z JU.. U O; toU' fn W, =! I- C/) W 0' S9.. a I-W;. : _. ? H; Z0: D; O U); ;0 H. W Z. W ' o1— :ah t: yt +' j• ATTACHMENT 6 Project Description Nextel Communications seeks to expand its Pacific Northwest Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) network to include the proposed Quasimoto /Southcenter Corporate Square site. The proposed site is located at 372 Corporate Drive, N., in the City of Tukwila. The proposed site is located in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zone. z The proposed communications facility would be located in the northwest portion of the z parcel. The proposed project would include the installation of a 100' monopole communications tower. The proposed monopole would include the installation of twelve (12) 1' x 4' directional sector panel antennas with a flower petal stand off arm t0i o co DI connection. The total facility height will be 102'. The installation would also include w two (2) receive -only Global Positioning System (GPS) antennas, which are 2" high x 4" wide x 4" long disks. One of the GPS antennas would be operational; the second N w w0 antenna would be for backup purposes. One test mobile antenna would also be mounted 2 to the existing communications tower. The test mobile antenna is low gain and is 4" high g 5 x 8" long x 4" wide. It is used for site monitoring and diagnostic purposes only. The N proposed radio equipment would be placed within an existing storage building. The = w. entire facility would be monitored for fire, smoke, intrusion and AC power failure by z r~-. Nextel's 24 -hour electronic surveillance system. 1— 0 z r` 2� The facility may be expanded in the future to include up to three (3) additional omni- n directional whip antennas. At that time the total facility height will be 115' 6 ". In .0 cn' 0 addition, future expansion may include one microwave dish, 4 ft. in diameter, mounted at o the 80% level. The location of all future expansion equipment is specified on attached = v' project plans (Attachment 10). There is no anticipated change to the existing storage building that would house the associated radio equipment. Expansion of the facility is not - z. co a certainty, but is dependent upon customer demand and /or technological change. Ill The proposed facility would not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses. Due to its extremely low power, this facility will not be a source of interference with electronic equipment, including radios, televisions and telephone transmissions. Non- interference is ensured by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation of radio transmissions. The site will be unmanned, and therefore, will not require water, waste treatment, or management of hazardous waste. Access to the site would be provided from Andover Park West. Minimal traffic would be generated during the construction phase while the crew is traveling to and from the site. After construction is completed, there would be approximately one visit per month by a Nextel field engineer for routine maintenance. Nextel and ESMR Nextel is the largest operator of ESMR systems in the United States. ESMR is an advanced form of wireless communications that offers a combination of features and services not previously available from cellular telephone or other wireless communications companies. The integrated digital communications system combines a digital cellular phone, group communication, a two -way radio, and an alphanumeric pager and voice mail in one handset. RECEIVED CITY OF TLIMA/ L4 s: iirt'.'�t k rl iCes;Cu s4 . rk ti4iak"'a?auiiti Attachment 6 Pg. 1 of 2 { eSA1R�..'LY�'eFl4�f�l�lt�" r �� ' n j "� 17-7 i tiT Like cellular telephone calls, ESMR calls are "handed off" from one facility to another as the caller moves through the area. This allows for reuse of a finite number of frequencies at low power levels. Nextel and Purpose for Proposed Facility Nextel is continuing to build out its Pacific Northwest ESMR network in compliance with the requirements of its FCC license. The need for a new site is dictated by market demand, capacity, coverage requirements for a particular geographic area, and the radio frequency hand off from one site to another in order to achieve the objective of seamless communications coverage. Once the need for a new ESMR site in a particular geographic area has been established, Nextel's system engineers identify a target area, or a "search ring ", in which to locate the facility. The required site location and antenna height is determined by a propagation study. This study evaluates the expected radio frequency (RF) signal from the proposed site at a given location and height. The RF signal must be strong enough to provide adequate coverage within the desired coverage area. The selection and design of a specific ESMR site is further refined by considering local topographic and geographic factors, tree canopy, buildings, mountains, water bodies, the ability to mitigate visual impacts, compatibility of the facility with existing land uses, and the ability to negotiate a mutually beneficial lease with a landlord. Because ESMR signals must travel in an unobstructed path from the facility to the user, the presence of any one or all of these can negatively influence the quality of transmissions and reception. The height and location of each Nextel site is, therefore, based upon the ability of the site to effectively function despite those obstacles. The purpose of the proposed Quasimoto / Southcenter Corporate Square facility is to provide in- building portable coverage in the Southcenter shopping mall and surrounding business complexes. The proposed site would also provide coverage at the Interstate 405 and Interstate 5 interchange. The site will provide a critical link in the system and will "hand off' to other sites located in the Seattle, Des Moines and Tukwila areas. It is crucial for Nextel to have adequate coverage in the proposed area in order to serve customers in compliance with its Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license obligations. Attachment 6 Pg. 2 of 2 Z. vr? v. f.t..., = ;.w. _ i:)M Riu i;': +s3 aX �� Y oSF L I si+c tii zra r1 iiS Fi04.41144.* itiit if rG S kd M51: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA orz !: ". wi. 3b` r.; btisn' .4NV4at'twsk..t�icck"r. °..,.. .;G ;4,ud.,`w • .`SJ,tda`�+ tali;+. �+" ri�`n`�'�'�::i'ti;�R�SiY!'nry z _•. mow. 2 u�l � :V O t CO 0, CO Ill. W =� N LL: w O: < co =a I-- _. zF., 1—O z ut o ' w w. 0 W o; wz co .0 OH z ATTACHMENT 7 Conditional Use Permit Criteria as Specified in TMC 18.64.030 Nextel Communications believes that the request for a Conditional Use Permit will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or zz in the district in which the subject property is situated. i z r: W. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The facility 6 v. would operate at 806 to 821 and 851 to 866 Megahertz (MHz). Transmissions would be 0 oo low power (average of 50 watts per channel) with a maximum of twenty channels per ? CO W antenna. As such, the transmissions would be an average of less than 1% of the Federal iu i Communications Commission (FCC) and the American National Standards Institute N u_: (ANSI) standard set forth in IEEE /ANSI C95.1 -1992, of 567.3 microwatts per square W o, centimeter. In addition, due to its extremely low power, this facility would not be a g source of interference with electronic equipment, including radios, televisions and "- < . telephone transmissions. The proposed tower would be secured by a chain -link fence, = d and therefore, would limit potential contact by unauthorized individuals. In addition, the Z z' associated radio equipment would be placed within an 11' x 20' shelter. f., p zI.-. w The proposed project would not be injurious to the property or improvements in the 2 D_ Ca vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. The v N co proposed project would be located within the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) District. o H. According to Chapter 18.28.010 of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code, the Tukwila Urban = Ill w' Center (TUC) District is, "... intended to provide an area of high intensity regional uses 1— �: that include commercial services, offices, light industry, warehousing and retail uses...." LL z The proposed facility is an expansion of Nextel Communication's Pacific Northwest v co Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) network intended to provide a wireless I commercial service to the public. The proposed facility would not interfere with z surrounding properties in the vicinity or their uses. The facility is low power, does not produce frequent traffic and does not generate noise. The proposed site location is surrounded by properties with the same zoning designation (TUC). The following specifies the adjacent uses: North: Railroad track, open space. South: Parking lots, office buildings. East: Bon Marche Home Furnishings Clearance Store receiving dock (truck loading and unloading). West: Office buildings, parking lots and Andover Park West. Wholesalers and computer warehousing across Andover Park West. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. `L' tiic ?Ycr.L``ikxu c�' Attachment 7 Pg. 1 of 4 4Sl sa43ta� .:. iita " WA, 4k'... a : g4r eke i`::7'` 7 ry ik3i `s • The following specifically outlines the performance standards set forth by the City of Tukwila Zoning Code for the TUC District: Performance Standards: Use, activity and operations within a structure or a site shall comply with (1) standards adopted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for odor, dust, smoke and other airborne pollutants, (2) TMC 8.22, "Noise ", and, (3) adopted State and Federal standards for water quality and hazardous materials. In addition, all development subject to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C shall be evaluated to determine whether adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated. The proposed project would not produce any odor, dust, smoke or other airborne emissions. The proposed project would not generate any sounds other than low volume, intermittent noise from the air conditioning units in the equipment storage building. In addition, these units are similar to those already used by other businesses in the area. No sewer or water would be required for the proposed facility, and therefore, the proposal complies with water quality standards. In addition, no hazardous materials are associated with the proposed project, and therefore, the proposal complies with all hazardous materials standards as well. And, in conclusion, the proposed project has been designed with the intention to pose the least amount of environmental impact to the area. The applicant has included a completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist as part of this application package. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation. The site would be unmanned, and therefore, would not create frequent vehicle or pedestrian traffic. After construction is completed, there would be approximately one visit per month by a Nextel field engineer for routine maintenance. In addition, the proposed project is compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of building and site design. The proposed tower has been designed to blend in with the existing office complex. The proposed tower is proposed at the minimum height necessary to meet the radio coverage objectives. The proposed radio equipment would be placed within a 12' x 20' existing shelter and, therefore, would not be visible. Additionally, landscaping is proposed to screen the base of the monopole and the antenna configuration will be cluster hub stand off arms. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The following Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Goals and Policies apply to the Tukwila Urban Center District: Goal 10.1 Land Use. The Tukwila Urban Center will contain an intense, diverse mix of uses, which will evolve over time. The character and pace of this evolution will have been set by market conditions, proactive private /public actions, which reinforce existing strengths and open new opportunities, and the desire for a high quality environment for workers, visitors, and residents. Attachment 7 Pg. 2 of 4 10.1.1 Land Use Policies. Recognize the Tukwila Urban Center as a regional commercial /industrial and limited mixed use residential area, whose growth must be nurtured in a motor vehicle- oriented market environment with a balance of pedestrian and transit facilities. This future development area shall allow a market - driven transition in uses and intensities. 10.1.2 Tukwila Urban Center Uses. Allow the Tukwila Urban Center to serve the region as a major shopping, office, and light- industrial area, while z ensuring that public investment and amenities provide opportunities for : x z. water - oriented mixed use housing, a variety of services, parks, public open spaces, and recreation and entertainment uses. Encourage market - driven 6 v changes in Tukwila Urban Center uses. 0 0 co W The proposed project is an expansion of the Nextel Communications Pacific Northwest , -I ' Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) network. The purpose of the proposed site CO w is to provide a commercial service to the public (wireless coverage) in the surrounding 2 O area. The proposed coverage would be provided for Nextel subscribers using wireless 1 J: phone service within their vehicles or on foot (in- building coverage). Nextel's service u. <. will support the desired high quality economic environment for the area. The two -way = a. radio feature has been especially important to businesses that rely on dispatch services, Z �; such as warehousing and distribution uses. Having this high- quality wireless service 1— O available to businesses in Tukwila, as well as their suppliers and customers, strengthens w F- the Tukwila Urban Center and increases its value as a good place to locate a business. 2 0.. CI The proposed project would be in keeping with the goals and policies of the v N Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan as stated above. 0 F-: ww Further, the following Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Policies apply to Utilities as i- . u. O ui Z. U N. 12.1.34 General Policies. Actively coordinate project implementation with H individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development z regulations. 3 follows: 12.1.35 General Policies. Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible. The proposed project would utilize existing electrical and telephone services provided by Puget Sound Energy and U.S. West. Nextel Communications encourages facility collocation. Nextel would be agreeable to facility collocation in the future on the proposed tower, assuming future collocation proposals were technically feasible. The tower has been designed to pose the least amount of visual impact without compromising the radio coverage objectives. The proposed radio equipment would be placed within a 12' x 20' existing shelter and, therefore, would pose no visual impact to the area. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts that the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The location for the proposed tower has been selected in an effort to pose the least amount of impact to the area. The proposed tower is the minimum height necessary to Attachment 7 Pg. 3 of 4 meet the radio coverage t ectives. Reducing the height of the pr.,. Jsed tower may create the need for additional towers in the immediate area. The associated radio equipment would be installed within an existing storage building, and therefore, not visible to the public. It is proposed that the monopole be painted a brown tone that is found to blend in with surrounding tree vegetation. Attachment 7 ,Pg. 4 of 4 :r�:,•'t.. +- +�:;t� t r..., .� r .�c7'x:�1;iC.t�.: wi':: Y�: ax' ci_: r✓ t.: Y. r;: �kb4 '..��bfc3U�i.:;}�%4?xiSix>t� ^rh �� ,:::r,�K.�1Y5'%tl. Site Photographs and Photo Simulation 1-:,t,mtiercr4v-Atnotvr) s'',.id,'.;,41.eXtel4Projectitehti:tO$VA, Aac Site Candidate Information Package • 1' A) LOOKING NORTH TO THE SITE '`,7c; sit 1111 B) LOOKING WEST TO THE SITE Quasimoto Southcenter Corporate Square WA0234-3 -S144,:e ''''F-'14,V,ANVIVAM4WiefrFi2E5 'v Nextel. Pr..ojec*°:Photos Site Candidate Information Package C) LOOKING NORTH FROM THE SITE .s•`.• ii:f`. < .'Cn�9rYtv�:K6.k"' "E *.:4 k1444.A∎o D) LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE SITE Quasimoto Southcenter Corporate Square WA0234 -3 -4,1,11,1, ; ± °��o*;At Fran: w.5 � s; rx ag,,t m .. . �� . t ���.., ,'!•..• •El,�",° :. �g'�','�%"'!?�'�.f.?. fM..,"7 ..- J� a�: i •,.�_ .. `�,.�.r.._ -.�.• ,. �'...�°,�i..:�:.r t,��.:- .iu:.., � ^Yi • v :Nextel,Rr>oject = rPhotos ... Site Candidate information Package E) LOOKING EAST FROM THE SITE F) LOOKING WEST FROM TI -IE SITE Quasimoto Soutluxnter Corporate Square WA 0234 -3 »u ziC riL ATTACHMENT 8 VISUAL ANALYSIS PHOTOGRAPHS On March 25, 1998, a study was conducted at the Quasimoto /Southcenter Corporate Square site, to generate photographs to be used for a visual impact analysis. On April 8, 1998, a balloon test was conducted to generate photographs to establish the approximate proposed antenna height to be used in combination with the architectural drawings to create the following photographic simulations. The day was sunny with high overcast, variable winds and a temperature of approximately 50 degrees. A 10 foot helium balloon and 92 feet of nylon cord were used to simulate the 100 foot tower and panel antennas at the proposed site. The balloon was tethered at the approximate location for the tower and pictures taken from several view points surrounding the subject property as shown on the following drawing. Pictures were taken from the viewpoints with a single -lens reflex camera to approximate how the human eye would perceive the facility (shown on map with dots). Due to the surrounding trees and vegetation the facility had very limited visibility from Tukwila Pond Park proper. However, it is visible from the viewing platform as shown in the 3rd simulation titled "view from Tukwila Pond Park viewing platform looking Southwest ". 1. View from Andover Park West looking Southwest. 2. View from Target parking lot looking South over Tukwila Pond. 3. View from Tukwila Pond Park viewing platform looking Southwest. • :j�(r tv J�� cH'W•— y �iif .1'� 'fi iY.' �'ilye \.^ •Sf •�l til.�.„ R "A �iiC�.it'I•w.a�'�k(i._ 4✓? itt:l lc��( IKl`.: Sl. S. t'l Jf+:.'( li�irt( nCltil�. o{.7 1j�: al��fG{I:' }�1�i/}}:t+U:��iMA�' 1�.. �E'; n�• iiJR��.. MJ Y CTI+�'{11.+.4f��v.�M"J.U'.`}rti .!dl'�iaY.9_Yr.�;� w' 1��i. a��'. i.t�lLyfii:Yri".v:�hi�`3.�SYYX • i �11:Iifi N�r 4•4'a.43'A,wiif'1.?l i tii .+"S�f+^1itiUS�i1'ZR'#1%t+r'i^� n "tMAC VI ' .s!; W!71}i `Ka ii?.uf S37.34°� • a, • ; " :L'' •' ' . +�•t1i: cc w F- z w U i_- c w a- �..S � rw. d5"!t'�`Y�3.57k; ti� i�..dr,—�= :±sF;is9ktr'!i. - .vk:c, >t.,Jr +x� t�c.r :.. - .r kLfi;! i:�?�a` -� ��,':�. ti • i���.� . ,v�'�f?:� e'�.,. „.t +,..i... �k„�ik... t ' r_.:;5+.:���`';`4i +, .. �. �.e::7 "w��`�.,..._t.;^.�'�..�".''` "�".'..::.:..� . 1.....�,�....�` a.�...tr�.' ...� �.:.� ..,,..ui..�....:, ,.� ...._..,a.,'T"m^'r".rC rr cidott6i4i.-4.t tiPa: ari, 40441 Raidi4-. t .1 4 YIPOMA .4;/111W4T-"'l 4 4.12MI il=tg/.4 • Public Notice F:,11,0.AK.t RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER '•4i.14.,/ •r "P. :`yLw: :,,.r..G / .::� vaticf.,ct.>1�,c f.St.f. { {A ^tivfciWkk.EiS.iAI.�: .';j ,,, �,a;_.,' • File: mm Drawing# W re V `OO;:. Nom` N W; W= -I 1-, W O }}' Nom;. U f=- W; Z. ; 0; Z W a ujL ol F- ,O Hf Z ,: 1 L 'NW 1 1 WNW 1 •rettri,9•FerrnIVrr 1 1 41271.1710.111,.. P Id 4 :,1.‘ .•tX4N'aiVail,+TAi4:44:-WUZiANIfticae&:721111■444,:giNdki.i47/4V146.W.V4AO.WialSgi$A4MAVeAr44041:404.4illtat'4"241t4W4,143,', it'406.*A40.43/00."'L' Pi 112th AVENUE N.E. Y`G f Vor 1 1 t 1 1 1 r g 1 1 i A J. I ma& MOON ■-aot 1 a If gg 41 d gb 0 1 1 } I t—` 13 1 bk 1 _J ;1,•& 'l Ri` 4 i y 'y uttF'n'r�Ra41cS�1'i+�.rWt F � 4�w�s vrA*�f�i`e�N,V:s+.:�![�.�t.S�,, z Q • W. J U : 00 ,co 'W= J Lt! W o. J IL = a. •_; I— 0 ZzcH N ;Q i- W W' H U W H, Z 111 UN z p, RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 0 1998 PERMIT CENTER fa., -;,,A 8 rG 1 8 8 8 IMF 1 1 1 8 1 1 1- ill hill 1 8FI8 1 15 _ 461® at 4 nE P 1 Jai. is! - 1116,41: 11_ av fl Ass .i1ii j1 1 II iiiii Vkai1! 118@ I did 1116 !lit siwil 41211 n■iiv 1 Iiii1Y1 ..vi dell !ill 1 118111 818 di; mild lilial18 1lh wae deified* 5' 9 g Y ..s e�111� _aa�e��ofi lr2r ABBREVIATIONS MC W a 0 co cc 0 cc 0 cc 4 M H O a 2 0 QUASIMOTO / gAggIN 1 1111,1 Cp pytytldi R e 4T11� q i4sr iii17g d[ Y■G7Yllp w.— _ 1 T. TM[ _ dal Amapa I 4 Y Oil ;0! OM aiL a i 1 _ 8 �1 R� r 1 Agri 1 L _J Z F=— w re 2 6 00 N �. w= J LL w0 g =a �w z� zo w U� oI =U rz wZ U N. H z E yG 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 k OVERALL SITE PLAN 1 1 0 ............... - — 1 1 ________.___....._._._r. —.— SAM IU\ X10.1 10) _ —.— . —. 4 .�—.b• - - - - -- _— YaG- 7;:.n.wir il -- - --.-------- - - - --- -*- 1.11-- ONUS I004 ., i I I% I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W m 8 Jn 3r YG $ rG YG 1 1 t 1 i i 1 cc RR IN b iJti:'�<'Scf� %S« '�Y•irA�iesr3vei"'.uk'`~c+O Wi Bfii. iP:2rrSr .1.�se"f1iak�34r�3nTtNIW6x' z �Z J V' O 00' W= N tL w 0. J w a. CO a w. z� 1- o. z� uj 2 °` 0 H: =w 1h z U� z. V pG yG 1 r r 1 1 if! d 8 e.., ..a ?,.. ? <,- lR)ii'n .< , i ' S n`.:' + %an %w;�.c' ic�r,:. < i� it•:.r ai srr:.G'r: ;,.;:r;3? %ruM�'c•� t; �s;1a�eSiRS', P"'avi+KtMn �'� :i:. :. ;.4t4041,1M Viii td0:43 X,G1' IS; val,Argt.a'. le` Z z • ~�yw Z Y. C` U: U O: N0 w. J 1.—: N 1. w0 gQ D. ct H =, Z� H O' Z 2 D 0, 0 co 0 H Ill w, H U. Z` IL MI IA O~ Z WW $ 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 h J L 4:40.4kki40' liY,:`ifia6-446 'OS Yi. :"jEi`4444o kiaV42; ``zit ,,.5;.'d %ui',.y.a5.i:u nt�c <`.2d,::c:�,..w,4 .. ..,.nr, l:anr.:...,�tiF.i,..rr �/, r, -d �G, :'-,:i- Ltb�4.; r,:.y i, �i Nfiw,;v,.�L 4��}... �t... ��:! � .fvn....,n.,hif:+'�•.:.ti,yti.y, fiH rts2' ». ".Xf.S '+'!'4:r`fLd'!�:. `+s.��7.rv;�'r "t'a' rt' �gr<ik ;�er:wa.n.�:^ i ?: ".y'.• ;t#t �}ria�r rv�..s,,' ,ryi: ;F:; crr. .,.,.1,fr,S�:;'tM; ;e.,t:,h, ia,z�.,:«.;: :Z" �a,1_:�;�xG �"�`.i"��....u�•�K�i .. +�� *:.. .4 , r' �. J•.'-?._ i. ��:: W..:+:: t' �....:.,...,.' u: �..: t: �e.:...._..... ��', �i.`...,. i��........,..>+ �__. �_.�..z......i_..._...,.,.iw.�. .. z::.� t:._...,K...,dJ..._._.�..... RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 2 8 1998 PERMIT CENTER Looking West At Balloon Test • ...... ✓Y�::i.: r'1.3'3rF!T�'�.�•.'1S m$A�.,hW�#��''i5w$.' i ti t i d t }arxTOiayae}gcr:t.+;nry y View North from Southcenter Corporate Square parking lot 64akasi•'bx" a6r:"a- 3's'>d�.'Y;x '. k :.i'?.��'ailiil#a #A.641;::;41W �':+-. y4 �,fs.,e f' .; ANti''h,04 .?,a'`.14R4,4 ��i�s� ;ac�..+ai ; �c�rhti: u' c?` rii� ,: «;:ew�rff�= i�;'�.�' ;.ers�.4 tir3+�aai7a`t�.e�:s,. i2i� � �' • View to the Southwest from Andover Park West iew C•4• ' - w_4, i,' .. .,, ' . • k .i4' . 4,4 °'•Iii,'"4.0 Ve3:4 *, -r-1141.,. 4., . . . . ...,,...,‘,„ „......,,,,.,, ....., :...„: . .5".1' 1 1E:l. iiii A .91,. : ' IFS ( - # •-•,. I it - A' -.-a, ' A 41:.., a • a- IVi 5 ikif .,A . r-oes. ,• ,.. , . 11, 41 si. $• .•''111 e..!;. ,,, . ' .4 ,' : - ;,•..-. '2 k 1 t-- ,:xs*e- •;!, ) N ." ' k i 1 II -$,.. --( ,...1 r ... i'1, 1 ity. • , - _ .1.,, - - •,, k,... y -.. it. • , At ',',Y# ., ,,/,‘ i ' A k • ''''''', P''''t • .1. .... ... ' 1:;,*".- • . ' "•••".j.. , to •;., r • , A .1 -, ,••• -., • , 4 e t.. 4' ' ', 1%, .• •• - .A v.! , V 1. •C' , ' , ,- lkt.:Qk ... ''. - 4 ."::..,,, , ,, , t 410,4,.. ... . . , 7- • ii : 44.'", . /I Y. • .... i • * 7, , i „it. . „g„. , , ti-- ,.,,, '.. t.,..,s,....4.....,... - , ,,, .-...,.., . 1 . - t.''' .. ,'. 7- , li 4-.; '''),11 .•v• i-,-* ''4,,,.: '.• .C. 4.° • i '1,-.7 -. S. 1:11) -ti." , 't - A A 4.it", 1 , t,..‘4,. . 11 a. . ,::,.i '„: ' ' 4 !- ' . * - ' ••• .:"..C.41t #,.., : 1 • ,,, - VA it -' ' 4 1 le. .3 4."4'd • , t - _ J. ?CIF V '‘ 4 .4. • ;-1(p. '4 ,,:t. • ; ,.. .... - • • .• ' , - .... -. - A., t,... ,T., ,. ‘,.. .- • • . .„.,, .... - 4. ''.1,44*°4 . 404 '' i •''' ''''' 1,„, • • t.. ie ,,•1 '''' .,,,N. ,, , -it . " ...k- ' ' -t et . . . •• • 4 ., ., . t.. . - ..,,. .-.- . - ....1f • • „,dt ' twit• . -,- f,14,,'.f'&l.'.;. ' ' ' • - l• ,,,.. .'',' ',7 ' ..,.. ,,,' . . oi .0.„.„ .r - .,,, -....... „ , - 4 . , ,... ''''' i ' . '''''S''. - .." 4'4; i744*'• - - ft -1- I • 1 -.IA , A. .. A 4 t.-x.,- . ',... • ' "0LI . 1 --i4t.= ,4 - "V Y-0. '. ,06 . 0 01 , -: t ,..".: 1 s'.. • ‘it"P4 ii .' • Ne 16#44. , 0 „,,, Ol t.#,,• . i ; e , -d. . _ . • • ” , a !, It 1 t 4 . ■ ',. '.t , 1 ,,,. r ' ' . * 4 4 -A A e . ri•,, -. . , . ,r,i ' . . - ..,-; 1 .- ‘ A- ., , , A"' t,:,---; .."'-.-", I:. ,i's". -N• 1.--'' 2,.4,F• • •'• -- .°' ... •••"•••,•i,.. , 70' • • .1 . dip • 4.S. ' 4 ,z- r.V.. r •,,.•.4 . P.,.° • ''''. 41\.410 -.'" '`''''.14 tr.,,,4 1- • ' ,. , r • w, , wi' 006 , ; v • .k - ' r , / , .. .. ..., . zz-, - - . . '4" . 1 '. .• At.4.01° dle fa ' ' .‘,. A _, I- ..- • , T • N . ''' . - a,- ' i, 4,,r,•• ... ' - :,...`--,-,:,1• o'''s. - • : $ I '' ' ‘ ••:,-.1'.• AF.,,, 4,„. '-'-• -,',"‘-1-,.•-"*- ' ,t ol'e ' !14t. . ; i • lik, ,*, ,„; /Li. 4' '.. •,-t I I Iv ' f - , • - .. . . ,.•s 4ampoc,:i •"" . •,,..ri, .. , .. . , - "K. - ,, . .• . , .„. ,:-... , ,,...,...• , , . 1,1 ). -r ' • - A:.", ,- Ankl.J.Ar4,k, - ", ,a, f "2 . .- ''''. "*'--k•TM.0 .• .,.......itfr. ,......,....... ...,...r.m.,....„,,, c....,,,,.....,,,,,, ,,j,,,,,,.:,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,...,,ir.• _ ... „,..icipti ,...• if • eitwt , .- _ „#, ....- , r„..., ,•- ,s. . ,•••..-."?, J.,-••-,..; . AO 0, -, Poi•i',,,t"',;,'„-1,4'1'f,g,,, ,r, )1.---,,, ,,,, • „,,;.„.. A ..0....,.t*er,,,,,, _ . ,,,,, 4,7-Ar......:,,iii tilts. t - , - ioir,•E.44',..41,14.--",,, '0. - - * • . , ',-.''' ''''.- '1.• 41/1"tt. I'M. ! ,." •,.... -41..:-...,toc.,. "" -- - ' '''''''',21• ''.'ill-7-°•- 'ig■°,: z'.....7!-•,..7-,'S.'"'-';.7-..; ..,1.71 •`•-'''• .:;..r.,,..-f„:.;-:,. 7+1,4 41"41k41U° ' ..4....%-.;&'.'t,.":,..; :_ ‘4 --', - ...: 7,,k-' •* • '....:, , " .... , PF.1,,..,.., ',..,,,,,..../..„..,. 7- '" '.",.' ''''- ' i'-''' ' -'.., ' , f.' - ...:'-‘,;1:n.,,, • 'ivri, --.,,s.•:' ' ''' - .",,;" -.% ' -04.,, ..,,,,,te,v_ .' .. ' ' ' c 'I"' f ''.- Yo'''''''''' -v,..t•Vif.)A?:':%1:'S-",j-;;,gsp'.:1'!"'-‘,*: -;:?•='.--....,--:,::•••-,-r ',.,-..=--;..,`-,-,;,--- . • •,-...,4-;• ighdik ..-.-r ,,,•,--...w • = -, •--, • ,, - '-' - • ' ,-. . , • .' - '-• .77 - - --• , , . . .• , '-.7"--,...-- .5.1„,.V4:-01; 't1'1' • 0'.4 -11 !" t ` • ,t', . ' ,; 'fa ±-.. - :`' IA tet...11 --.4.- -"-.--.. , ', , , • .. ,-"epee..--te,N. - - - - , ,-..,,,,p,..----:.....,-•:`,..- .1,,,,, •r• :tat `,.. ..-+<.,..•., ,,,,,4„,,, - - --- --..... .-2.,„,.."1.:', , ,"-..., • ..--- , r. - 4-. N•pc zaz, , -44,, ,. t:,. - - ,t,-15mit,.a.i.-At. w ,.., ..- w• .-.4k-i.cr€,„:,... , „......e,;-/,','.,-sr,,,,,, ,_,,,y, 4:4„--,,,,-,..7.,V4,' ,.... q `7,..1, , ? , 4 1 1 . tK,:._5. •?, ..A.,,,, J',.. A,,,,WegW,..'. ,,,I.:41. Ii4;g:-Az.e....%,..%-:,7:0;:e. ',";i,'%.:1-:;i'--‘144';41Y;i1:''',''''':,,' ' - ''''-*' ''''' ..* - -1 of...11.1'; . -, E,. '''. -..2 -.,,,,- . 3* ^ksil's`.-.',fi.,,,:,,,,'-' ,',,,--',;-,,.',,v,..1.1-r?.:,' '>. -,-c -:- ,,i,...„ ---, , -, . , ,- ,: -..• - 1-‘ ..:,.:,:,„., 4.. . , ,..1:,';',t.,.. , ! ' -.' - ,,t• - , ' ■ N • r‘''''-', • `,.,::,.-'.-,"-:,,,-;;"•-- --1.,•'-'.. f.:•,,.. • -• • , . - . -• '''1'/' • ' . $ ) 4, -4,1/4--'1C---"5•T„'''':.*::'- ""'•'-'''' •-•-" • --'1' . .,""-",'"'-`°:-:•-":•.1, 4*, ''' ... ." '• s. ,:"'-'4,az.,-..1.4.3".12.7..1-.,,,,,-'" , ^.' .,..,^NA,;44,•:ftlie.•• ,,,t9i..24.., • •.:-."■.',..%.1.7‘. ' V4,3=-"7,1.)<Pi't.1"..:'‘',—." ' ' 4 '" ; ' ' *'- t441Ait,,,..t. it.,;,,,11:4, ,,,,..t.,..":$11.4:7,0'.44',..lik.....-'14; ''kj.,..4 iiff.i.4%:' '. A."'0.:,' ''''' •'.". 154.4:irx4W;',441,:.F7.1.T.;.1...,;`;'''.-:..1;„,2;e^.., .,:::. ..... - ,..„ - . 444 I ''' ' 321 ''.• el, i5 -1/ - v; voi T.w4:— ' . • . 4 -`*4-4.‘,W4i.-Tr,,, '- i''''41.'k44,'.1.1'\'' -"4'41,1A0'itZ4.,.,LtV4,1!2341-1;,.‘ ''''r" '".r4C-'''..".4.' -1S0:,AtIgafWt':g!&,..'..'.:: - - ii,‘,.-'1'1i:c -11.''T ' ' ' ''',-- ibett."'14,4,141ft,e9c...Ve :t.„c0..,t,1:4W: . ,...• .vdts..4.0-:=1A- • 4,..-:Z.4,;l5.5.T.I1...,:-:.-.0-4.5:rf...;-_,;.,.,",,i.';st.;-;,,,,:,-,„.„-:: c. , ,...,;,... ..., .4' „.,.. ..,A; .. 4.,,,,,i4,41,1 4, * ' , ' ,...,•,,,,,,,,,,,. i......,,,,,,,,,,,', - ,oatt., ...■ -.„ .0.,--, - gsvm,t-A* . -,, . 4,.•-...,,,-:...,,,,,,...,,,,z,..-.-‘-, --r-, :'--..?"-.-',!-,'------. = .- - • t. • . - ..• ...,,..0,;- A .!"' .-ae4,10,Z41". 1,..i,'4'..-7'..,s4,%.1.,Irr-I'v ,WN,0,0"1.,W, .4.',1,, . " ' ''."-4'4'..:-Ki ' 4'1'1, - 1-1, ,. Jrb'4.1iNV-e:i4aql,Firi, ..-..1,7Y....--4:-•-•'.(,-'1 ' `,:*:.- ,-, ... - . '',, - - , ' - .. . _ t4itel,silic„, - - ,,fty , 4‘; ' --4,40,Ner,12-,*.z.,Jars -: I:4 .? 4.: :t., 044&*".■'-'-*`,1:-gr.Z-45-tV 'V'''''.:;0-4;1,'''''C':-S.; '''r'''''''''' -.' ' '' ' .. ' ' k .-.17+4„-z-,. ''',,,,1:;,;911t.'4`.1t ' el- ,i, .07■4•A*101faikriAtkViali011/44V:StteRAMMitni-4;.:Fs": ' ; :. %IMP' `, F ...t4filealADAck.V....,,..t,a1,:ff,-,,.....;-;;.,‘--_-,.,;-'1._.. 2. View South from North entrance of Target Parking lot, looking over Tukwila Pond • ilk Looking South over Tukwila Pond from water's edge (Target parking lot) ' \ VaAttl-ra41,*()tifki,4,Iiiirif011,-.56(;414.:*..'flo'isweSir,k'th,44.4ixattc4ii,taVAteel.' It4o-a,skfAiPcis„.=.:4:111•4*§,1s64)3.i,:iUf 41Ailat04.Y. 1.0.30=0a Z W 6 • 2 JU O 0 co❑ u)W J • LL WO < 1- W Z = 1- O ZF- W • ❑ U O - ❑ H Wuj H� ▪ O .Z W U =. O Z Woi,WzNitQA • ' 9 +:'s3Y's'aaryx:14.6' q `daSSP itiv 1$ iev3?.'• ,+!Yl' }�l'!+•!;A'eUGwirR` %$Sn4i Yy i1;'I "yr"�r F•NS�rur,)�. wh1Ti2�': „`r; 1,.,._.t'�r v�v.z..r r;n.t L31, Z • "ir t.:14,4%1 < • Z • w _.J 0 O 0 to 0 • uJ W _1 I_ • u_ u j 0 < u±1 z I-0 Z F- LU uj O co O — O I— W u j a; 0 0 ;,"Yo' Okit4t, ergrAVA,Mit • •.1 Tr' " tJ i�2a S 57. :,4 +ice ik k ilig, y -. � cy w ,j P µ yr, tu .l•.� c a��i � f.e� ;+�uv .S'� E ,M,sdn.' Looking Northwest to Site and Screening Tree View 4 �j!rc�4s:,azx„��fE ;yS?iiyc't.x4LS"y�;'� ^.v °: ". r;•{'v" +, i;�tt ..,;` ATTACHMENT B: SITE COVERAGE AT 100' u N iD 0 m G7 0.4 U O L.. C .. O �o c N ti i• ri y v N a,0 7 n m o0 SC Corp So 0 0 0 m -J AMiII A311VA L9l aS ' A;�- :s+Y?vr,�rffi �,'x+:ti<?.,,�.'+,"+•,+"3r3 ;^`.,+`,?.wrx:r,:.:r `.::.�i �... .:� ti. z,4 h. �-n h ��„ 7 t� F1y'e {�rti. � S!�3"�i`r,:i•`;;';�!': z re ~W JU 00 ND W J = F- U) WO j S2O = W H= Z H0 ZI- 20 U O — O I— W W F- I — U. O .. Z W U= P. O I-- z RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 241998 PERMIT CENTER -■�-; . �� E �� -fir -r. ��., •..: r� r • r r ;;,44::3 z' a 1t=a0 ;f.iiiiiev g;lo�ni� •". th300.4:0 :add SR 167 VALLEY FRWY 1111 I I I n m zMn v rn�� CD O O @ 7 ry CU 7 C, • • 0 ,0 a 7 0 3 7 @ 0 a, u• r O• CI a 7 • O O rtC1 G w 7 t0 • 00 O D :J 0r.. O ru O M a IV a ❑ d cu 0 a a 0,. L7 cn ru .6L J bS djO3 SS C o' M Cr C. 0 • U7 N tDtU I U 0 7 0 a, tip T CD 0 0 7 7 h ATTACHMENT C: SITE COVERAGE AT 75' RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 4 1998 PERMIT CENTER SR 167 VALLEY FRWY 1.1 1 1 1 n t, (0 0 0 0 cn 7 0 o O1 7 n tO SrS 7 - r n c<•• o rm�t c - w > >< °o° • tU 0 O O 27 Ot ON o 770 0. N Q 0 0 CJ 0. M in 0 O. ut N r 0 N O to 0 U) C") 0 0 O n 0 O -I F. C 0 O Q O 0 �' 0. 0 W N H 0 rt 10 03 ▪ 7 tO 10 lD ,» wo 0 H 0 , Z F" W �U UO coo. w= J H CO LL W O. LQ N 2d F— _ Z f. 1— O'. ZF- W U • 0 O -: O H W UJ U' u'O Z W o H =. O F— Z RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 241998 PERMIT CENTER SR 167 VALLEY FRWY ,z1,;444:1. . -, :,'fix -�"•: 5`,3o±:.$iJAta -`L3t :yei Rl V O lD 0 Z • Z w aa 2 JU. O 0 LLI —I X f— w O: LQ Cluj 2 Z �. F- 0 Z I— w 2j U � O � H w w lil U= O ~ Z RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 If 1998 PERMIT CENTER tYpe .cf1;.1 • • cr) n CI ID al 0370;-' •• Q. 0 s o 143 o n -1 • • o 0 ••• n c0 La 0 X) 0 7) C. 0 NI a o 0, a co r rt IMEIEM= Z • 4, ttl 0= O 0 • 0 n n rDrD [4.4 n D (D 0 -) 00 -I0 0 3 m rri 0 0 0 m r C) 0 m m 0 0_ RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 4 1998 PERMIT CENTER SR 151 WEST VALLEY HWY 105TH AVENUE SE ic,3.td+i.ami ti;6YUY4i'x�� ,.; II. C.1) r• D CD 7 O (D 7 co • n m • 7 O 3 CO 7 61 n O n •• 0 nCD < U 7 O 0 D O O , 770 C. O ru • CL, d CL W w 01 7 _ f 3 CD m0 O .. 0. a 7 0 O 7 L ( (D 0 0 O c m Cl co ■-•• � (0 — co 0 N O r- 0 CD O I C) W (D 0 U1 H • < .' D N O rt • n (0 CD rt (0 D 10 N (0 O " 0 d 7 7 CI ATTACHMENT F. NEIGHBOR CELL .001 IV 39V1i3AO0 s&i' h(:,1•N7 .1Y6r. "02,41432iaiAfewr vori ski., Vik• *r ti f siiiti �lY,Czt')st az J ,�?13�e >a Z _ • 1— ; � • QQ W W� -J Or U 0. CO 0: N W; W I' J CO LL' W 0. LQ — d: H = Z �. F- 0 Z UJ 2 U� 0 1—, W W' • U Z; W.U. 0- H Z 9 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 If 1998 PERMIT CENTER • 108TH AVENUE SE I I (n fl rrD CU 7 n ■-r• • c• l6-, • • ED 7 0 3 OJ r n -1 • • 0 1-). CD uD 0 PD 3 M 0 ru IQ iu O CID co a ■-• L■J LL) 00 r 1. ru cn OD cn ' .i.;?4■14,,W4,Cat k» ,X; -14S.411,4;:o1P L IV 3OV2i3AO0 1130 UO9HOI3N =O 1N3INH0V TA RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2it1998 PERMIT STIR ....,.....�..,........:. > >�.;. , ....:,mow: I I I ! orD Z 33 -0 c7r CD0070-) 1-■ cu t-t • • n, to a 7 S CD 0 r 0 7 • • 0 rt• < Ln .eo. poogJno: :4.1!>2.,;,,,h,i'S.*,41wak4,..z.,,,,zitawaiw,kiiii4, • ' 1,10,4aLkuumg.w.,,,ua = Z —1 -7 7 1D or 0 13 0 7' C_ in C CD CD 0 ••••• V)< ru LIJ ED • tO U1 (D r, 33 0 • • 0 CD 0 0 ■-• V a o ru 0. Cu c0 CI L. 0 tio < • CD Ln 7 U1 (D tro 10 1,1 ID 10- 0 r rt t-t ru c.r1 5L 1V 30VH3A03 113 II.9HOI3N :9 1N3WHOV11 'I • RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIW JUL 2 4 1998 PERMIT CENTER J.� X ...•� I :js�rt�'�i'S.= i1�{Vi.}S�:X /i4h'z LiS:kfh .S I I i w n cn -o o mn,y 7 7 0 n • n • . 0 K G < w �? won O a 0G ON • o a N 0 O G 0 a n to fD W Q1 G V Pi 0 O Z M o O 7 N C N O a-7 nn mac. G K 0 N 7 O •G ;n 00 as c m K N N O © U1 -, 0 7 t) 0 LO G LOr. 0 0 7 OS 1`d 3OV2i3AO0 1130 2IO9H913N :H IN3WH VI RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 4 1998 PERMIT CENTER 0 z '''at0A1.114 "'" • ' RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 4 1998 PERMIT CENTER File: File: cameM NO Jan tat Fig WM a IA it MM. On esob WI = recant mu 1 1. m 0.101 IC MIMI mas be we 0•e bob lava. comb ei swami mum to Sian= arb um; un 01 MI WO. 0/0 COMM ILO 1/3 SI 00001 WX (11001. 11111 SAW Zia JAI Mao gum an ea la Waal NM Mt Ma lawlealg IOW af• ID la It 11112,01110101 01,111. -- MOM MI Caeta Val la mai Dna= K m R o meaab n be lig alcona obrOlI KW* 10 M Ira Mt = MK al PRO 111•1 MIR Rua Mt maga ir ACC5111111‘ itraca Cara Plt tocala Mt talva U* a Mg WOO. VIC:INIT'f 11AP Nr ( Am. — AINV Aim aim 00,00 MOKOCO Ik WKS MIK v 1.000100110 KUM MO IWO 01,100. 110101• 11/ 100 1■00 VINO dart. fa IMMO ilig Mason ms al maim 0111 Ina alik PIMP lit 0011 001110 101/000 100001110 on* ng_Lpw.c MUM W.YLIgoat "AV a fa - 010:=0.11 LOC•101 ULK1111 MC mow; ion 1010 1. W KM U A 1100000ft KNI110100: 01,1, 10 IV 1CALL 1111110 L 101110011 1. 10110 Kt MOON 11110101011001 0000 UMW 014 WPM KOMI 0'.011010 KV IMMO 1101100111 L.; W-105..11WI — Maar/ Lat • Sara • bun MIMI MIMI NIG / ••••• .••• *-- -'' ......\\ ... gala lam Pal ...... . .. 1Parair lag \ a • Tsar II • twal: a • mat ••••••••orr OMNI Wag OMNI lagal MIMI MOM DMA 100010 .............101. . maw tar 00,14 Mai mit 3v-I* • /-1-01; 1010 M. Mise sal% R • CEIVED ITY F TUK:1-: 17f . • . . nw, Ir. • II) PERMIT CENTE CENTER OKIMU. Int AM • r• e 1 t nii:(1,11 I [I [1:111i1-1:1 :1; TT 1-pri Is I 1,1 I ITIT I 1 . - I ' ' I • 6 yiLart ae._.nosio K• 11 1•11:11111PUNIWN Mau a NV 01' 10000 ci;9 MAK 0000•4 100, 1021 POI 1:1100011 *AMC 11:51 Kat alitaa ai .• Cal Wax ag wawa mime tall NW aka ION Oa ale la 7 PV airtlift. Ciaal p•ma NONI. Nab DAWN V ns101.11111 % e' "%an); "m —...11: g RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA/. PERMIT y •• ••• • 4 • ENTES'• 1011i: Med Mt n Re P4. • IIIIMMI Illt ' , - I . ) Ciaal p•ma NONI. Nab DAWN V ns101.11111 % e' "%an); "m —...11: g RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA/. PERMIT y •• ••• • 4 • ENTES'• 1011i: Med Mt n Re P4. •