Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0060 - CITY OF TUKWILA - CELLULAR WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY CODE AMENDMENTSL97 -0060 CODE AMMENDMENTS FOR CELLULAR /WIRELESS TECH. Application Packet for Location of Telecommun... Page 1 of 3 Comments Help Index Barth What's New Main Menu M.R.S.C. Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington City of Redmond Application Packet for Location of Telecommunications Facilities on City Property Important: The submittal requirements and process outlined below may change periodically. To assure that you have the most current requirements, please contact the City of Redmond Executive Department at 556 - 2101 or the City of Redmond Permit Center at 556 - 2473. These submittal requirements are dated April 4, 1997. I. Background The siting of telecommunications facilities on city property are subject to the provisions of Chapter 12.14 of the Redmond Municipal Code, which outlines the regulatory process for applying for and receiving a facilities lease, the nature of the rights granted by the city under such an agreement, and the terms and conditions of the rights granted; and Section 20C.80.740 of Redmond's Development Regulations, which outline the development standards and review process for siting telecommunications facilities in Redmond. Copies of these documents are available on request. A map of city property is available for review in the Executive Office on the Third Floor of City Hall. II. The Lease Application Process The lease application process is outlined on the attached exhibit: Process Map of Telecommunications Facility Siting on City Property. A. Optional Pre - Application Meeting Prior to formal submittal of an lease application, the City of Redmond strongly encourages applicants to attend a pre - application meeting with a sketch of the proposed facility for preliminary review by the City of Redmond. The sketch should be drawn to scale and be reasonably accurate. Pre - application meetings may be scheduled by contacting the City of Redmond's Executive Office at 556 - 2101. B. Lease Application Phase I To begin formal lease application process, the applicant must submit a completed Phase I Application form, which is attached, accompanied by the required application filing fee of $2,000. Phase I of the lease application focuses on the site and design issues of the proposed facility. Phase I will include a meeting at the desired city property location between the applicant and city officials who are able to respond to questions regarding the present use of the site and future use. At this point, the city has not disqualified any of its property for telecommunications facility siting. Phase I of the application process is intended to create a facility design that is conducive with the Wednesday, February 25, 1998 3:21 PM z : ~Z UJ cc 2 U O' co w =. J I— w O: u_< I— _; zI Z O; U0 O WW p. 11 0 w Z U� ~ O z Application Packet for Location of Telecommun... existing use of the property. Phase I will end with either a withdrawal of the application by the applicant due to no design concept mutually acceptable to the applicant and the city being available - -at which point a partial refund of $1,500 will be made to the applicant -- or with the submittal of a design proposal by the applicant. C. Phase I Completed: Desig . Proposal Submitted The design proposal shall consist of the following elements: Page 2 of 3 1. Site plan sketch showing the proposed location of the telecommunications facility; setback dimensions from the nearest property lines, easements and streets; location of nearby buildings and fences; major grade changes and vegetation between the antenna and nearby buildings and streets with notations as to height and type (deciduous or evergreen); any vegetation that will be removed for reception purposes and the screening to be installed. 2. If the facility is to be attached to an existing structure; an elevation sketch with details of existing structure, the proposed facility and screening to be used. 3. Photographs of the proposed location as seen from the streets and adjacent properties. 4. Accurate scale conceptual drawings and diagrams of sufficient specificity to analyze the aesthetic impacts of the proposed telecommunications facilities or other equipment. Including but not limited to details /specifications for the facility; size, shape, materials, color, construction, anchoring, wiring, etc. 5. The location and source of electric and other utilities required for the installation and operation of the proposed facilities. 6. Vicinity map, with labeled streets and north arrow. 7. Details of the screening, camouflage, or other mitigating aesthetic elements to be installed. As noted in the attached exhibit, the applicant has the option to begin the development review process at this point as well. All of the above elements of the design proposal mirror elements required of the development review process. Pursuant to Chapter 12.14 of the Redmond Municipal Code, the lease application is not considered complete until the information required in the design proposal is .submitted by the applicant. Again, a pre - application meeting between the potential applicant and the city is encouraged. Such a meeting may be arranged by contacting the City of Redmond's Executive Office at 556 - 2101. p. Lease Application Phase II: Negotiation of Lease Terms and Conditions Once a facility design is submitted, formal negotiations regarding the lease agreement's terms and conditions will occur. As noted previously, Chapter 12.14 of the RMC outlines the terms and conditions of the granting of rights by the city for use of city property by telecommunications providers and carriers. E. Determination Wednesday, February 25, 1998 3:21 PM z I-w • CL 2 UO W = J CO w0 LLQ cn =w z� z 0` co U • � W • W. I— g .z w U= o �- • cP Application Packet for Location of Telecommun... Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to Chapter 12.14 of the Redmond Municipal Code, the city shall strive to consider and take action on applications for facilities leases within 120 days after receiving a complete application for such a lease. When such action is taken, the City shall issue a written determination granting or denying the lease in whole or in part. If the lease application is denied, the written determination shall include the reason for denial, if any. III. Staff Contact If you have any questions regarding the outlined process, please do not hesitate to contact Anthony P. Fuentes, Executive Office Policy Analyst, at 556 - 2107. We are happy to provide any guidance or assistance. [Comments} "Help]. [Index] [Main Menu] [Search] [What's New]. Wednesday, February 25, 1998 _ 3:21 PM Phase I Application For Location of Telecommu... Page 1 of 2 Comments Help Index Seart Mars New Main Menu M.R.S.C. Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington City of Redmond Phase I Application For Location of Telecommunications Facilities on City Property IMPORTANT: THIS APPLICATION CAN NOT BE SUBMITTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY AN APPLICATION FEE OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000) AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF REDMOND RESOLUTION NO. 1042 AND SECTION 12.14.0500 OF THE REDMOND MUNICIPAL CODE. General Information Name of Applicant Telecommunications Provider or Carrier: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Telephone: Is this Telecommunications Provider or Carrier presently registered with the City of Redmond? PLEASE NOTE: All cable operators, telecommunications carriers, and telecommunications providers engaged in the business of transmitting, supplying or furnishing of telecommunications service of any kind originating or terminating in the City of Redmond shall apply and obtain a Telecommunications Business Registration from the City pursuant to Chapter 5.75 of the Redmond Municipal Code. Name of Person Filing this Application: Title: Company: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Telephone: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 3:20 PM Phase I Application For Location of Telecommu... Page 2 of 2 Are you serving as agent for the above named telecommunications provider or carrier? If yes, please attach proof of agency. Property and Facility Information Location of Subject Property: Description of Subject Property: Description of the Telecommunications Facilities and/or Other Equipment Proposed to be Located on. Subject Property (Attach additional pages if necessary): Telecommunications Service to be Provided by Proposed Development: PLEASE NOTE: The provision of cable service, video dialtone service or other video programming service may be subject to cable franchising by the City of Redmond. Certification I certify that the information and any attachments herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I have the authority to file this application and act on behalf of the above named telecommunications provider or carrier. Signature: Please Print Name: Date: SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF REDMOND'S EXECUTIVE OFFICE. LOCATED ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE CITY OF REDMOND'S CITY HALL, 15670N.E. 85TH STREET, REDMOND, WA 98073 - 9710. PLEASE CONTACT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE AT 556 - 2101 WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION Received By: Signature: Please Print Name: Date: [Comments] [Help] [Index] [Main Menu] 'Search] [What's New] Wednesday, February 25, 1998 3:20 PM . ... ` Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 1 of 30 Comments Help Home Site Index Site Search What's Ni e MRSC Municipal Research & Services Center A Resource for Washirgton Local Governments Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KIRKLAND, STATE OF WASHINGTON, PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE GRANTING AND RENEWAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES, PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY, PROVIDING FOR INSURANCE, BONDING AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES LOCATED IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF- WAY,ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS OF DECISIONS REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW statutes and other lawful authority, the City of Kirkland ( "City ") has the authority to regulate the use of its streets and other municipal property; and WHEREAS, based on extensive materials contained in the legislative history files for this ordinance, the City Council finds that an increasing number of telecommunications carriers and providers have requested access to and the use of rights -of -way and public property; and to the extent permitted by law, the City finds it is in the public interest to require the obtaining of registration, licenses, franchises, cable franchises and leases from the persons or entities that use public property, easements and rights -of -way; and WHEREAS, to ensure orderly and reasonable access to the rights -of -way and public property for telecommunications carriers and providers while protecting the public health, safety and welfare, the City Council determines that it needs to include regulations and standards for the use of such areas; Now, Therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adopting a new Title No. 26 - Telecommunications, to the Kirkland Municipal Code. The City Council hereby adopts a new Title No. 26 - Telecommunications to the Kirkland Municipal Code as set forth below: Title 26 Telecommunications Table of Contents Chapter 26.04 Telecommunications • Section 26.04.010 Purpose • Section 26.04.020 Definitions • Section 26.04.030 Registration and Fees • Section 26.04.040 License and Fees • Section 26.04.050 Franchise and Fees • Section 26.04.060 Cable Franchise and Fees • Section 26.04.070 Application to Existing Franchise Ordinances and Agreements Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM z �z IX 2 J U, U O; o; w =_ u) w0: gQ I- w; zF F- 0: Z UJ U� pQI-. w w: - U —O wz UN O Z Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 2 of 30 • Section 26.04.080 Penalties • Section 26.04.090 Other Remedies • Section 26.04.100 Further Rules and Regulations • Section 26.04.110 Severability Chapter 26.08 Registration • Section 26.08.010 Registration Required • Section 26.08.020 Purpose of Registration • Section 26.08.030 Exceptions to Registration Chapter 26.12 License • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 2.010 License 2.020 License Application 2.030 Determination by the City 2.040 Agreement 2.050 Nonexclusive Grant 2.060 Rights Granted 2.070 Term of Grant 2.080 License Route 2.090 Construction Permits 2.100 Compensation to City 2.110 Service to City Users 2.120 Amendment of Grant 2.130 Renewal Applications 2.140 Renewal Determinations 2.150 Obligation to Cure as a Condition of Renewal Chapter 26.16 Franchise • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 • Section 26.1 6.010 Franchise 6.020 Franchise Application 6.030 Determination by the City 6.040 Agreement 6.050 Nonexclusive Grant 6.060 Rights Granted 6.070 Term of Grant 6.080 Franchise Territory 6.090 Construction Permits 6.100 Compensation to City 6.110 Nondiscrimination 6.120 Service to the City 6.130 Amendment of Grant 6.140 Renewal Applications 6.150 Renewal Determinations 6.160 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal Chapter 26.20 Cable Franchise Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 • Section 26.20.010 Grant of Franchise • Section 26.20.020 Franchise Required • Section 26.20.030 Length of Franchise • Section 26.20.040 Cable Franchise Characteristics • Section 26.20.050 Cable Franchisee Subject to Other Laws, Police Powers • Section 26.20.060 Interpretation of Franchise Terms • Section 26.20.070 Operation of a Cable System Without a Franchise • Section 26.20.080 Eminent Domain • Section 26.20.090 Exclusive Contracts and Anti- Competitive Acts Prohibited • Section 26.20.100 Cable Franchise Fees Chapter 26.24 Conditions of Grant of License, Franchise or Cable Franchise Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26. Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 Section 26 24.010 General Duties 24.020 Interference with the Rights -of -Way 24.030 Damage to Property 24.040 Notice of Work 24.050 Repair and Emergency Work 24.060 Maintenance of Facilities 24.070 Relocation or Removal of Facilities 24.080 Removal of Unauthorized Facilities 24.090 Failure to Relocate 24.100 Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities 24.110 Damage to Grantee's Facilities 24.120 Restoration of Rights -of -Way 24.130 Facilities Maps 24.140 Duty to Provide Information 24.150 Leased Capacity 24.160 Grantee Insurance 24.170 General Indemnification .24.180 Performance and Financial Guarantees .24.190 Security Fund .24.200 Construction and Completion Bond .24.210 Acts at Grantee's Expense .24.220 Coordination of Construction Activities .24.230 Assignments or Transfers of Grant .24.240 Transactions Affecting Control of Grant .24.250 Revocation or Termination of Grant .24.260 Notice and Duty to Cure .24.270 Hearing .24.280 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions Chapter 26.28 Construction Section 26.28.010 Construction Standards Section 26.28.020 Construction Codes Section 26.28.030 Construction Permits Section 26.28.040 Applications Section 26.28.050 Engineer's Certification Thursday, September 10, 1998 Page 3 of 30 11:48 AM 1 Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 4 of 30 • Section 26.28.060 Traffic Control Plan • Section 26.28.070 Issuance of Permit • Section 26.28.080 Construction Schedule • Section 26.28.090 Compliance with Permit • Section 26.28.100 Display of Permit • Section 26.28.110 Survey of Underground Facilities • Section 26.28.120 Noncomplying Work • Section 26.28.130 Completion of Construction • Section 26.28.140 As -Built Drawings • Section 26.28.150 Restoration of Improvements • Section 26.28.160 Landscape Restoration • Section 26.28.170 Location of Facilities • Section 26.28.180 Conduit Occupancy Section 26.28.190 Occupancy of City Owned Conduit • Section 26.28.200 Construction Surety Chapter 26.32 Fees • Section 26.32.010 Registration Fee • Section 26.32.020 Preapplication Conference and Application Fee Section 26.32.030 Refund Section 26.32.040 Other City Costs • Section 26.32.050 Reserved Compensation for Rights -of -Way • Section 26.32.060 Compensation for City Property Section 26.32.070 Construction Permit Fee • Section 26.32.080 Annual Fees • Section 26.32.090 Regulatory Fees and Compensation Not a Tax • Section 26.32.100 Fee Review Process and Hearing Examiner Chapter 26.36 Miscellaneous • Section 26.36.010 Context • Section 2 Severability • Section 3 Summary Publication Chapter 26.04. Telecommunications Section 26.04.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Title is to: a. Establish a local policy concerning telecommunications providers and services; b. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local guidelines, standards and time frames for the exercise of local authority with respect to the regulation of telecommunications providers and services; c. Promote competition in telecommunications; d. Minimize unnecessary local regulation of telecommunications providers and services; e. Encourage the provision of advanced and competitive telecommunications services on the Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 widest possible basis to the businesses, institutions and residents of the City; f. Permit and manage reasonable access to the public rights -of -way of the City for telecommunications purposes on a competitively neutral basis; g. Conserve the limited physical capacity of the public rights -of -way held in public trust by the City; h. Assure that the City's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to and use of the public rights -of -way are fully paid by the persons seeking such access and causing such costs; Page 5 of 30 i. Secure fair and reasonable compensation to the City and the residents of the City, in a non - discriminatory manner, for permitting private use of the rights -of -way: j. Assure that all telecommunications carriers providing facilities or services within the City comply with the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City; k. Assure that the City can continue to fairly and responsibly protect the public health, safety and welfare; 1. Enable the City to discharge its public trust consistent with rapidly evolving federal and state regulatory policies, industry competition and technological development. Section 26.04.020 Definitions. Terms used in this Title shall have the following meanings: "Affiliate" means a Person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with another Person. "Cable Acts" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, as amended by portions of The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and as hereafter amended. "Cable Operator" means a Telecommunications Carrier providing or offering to provide "Cable Service" within the City as that term is defined in the Cable Acts. "Cable Service" shall have the same meaning as defined in the Cable Acts. "City" means the City of Kirkland. "City Property" means all real property now or hereafter owned by the City whether in fee ownership or other interest. "Excess Capacity" means the volume or capacity in any existing or future duct, conduit, manhole, handhold or other utility facility within the right -of -way that is or will be available for use for additional Telecommunications Facilities. "FCC" or "Federal Communications Commission" means the Federal administrative agency, or lawful successor, authorized to regulate and oversee Telecommunications Carriers, Services and Providers on a national level. "Grantee" means both Licensees and Franchisees granted certain rights and obligations as more Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 6 of 30 fully described herein. "Overhead Facilities" means Utility Facilities and Telecommunications Facilities located above the surface of the ground, including the underground supports and foundations for such facilities. "Person" means corporations, companies, associations, joint stock companies, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, other entities and individuals. "Public Ways" includes the surface of and space above and below any real property in the City in w which the City has a regulatory interest, or interest as a trustee for the public, as they now or 6 hereafter exist, including, but not limited to, all public streets, highways, avenues, roads, alleys, o sidewalks, tunnels, viaducts, bridges, skyways, or any other public place, area or property under the w w control of the City, and any unrestricted public or utility easements established, dedicated, platted, !, improved or devoted for public utility purposes; provided, however, this shall not include public w wO parks for which a separate authorization and agreement to utilize any part of same shall be required 2 from the City. 4a Q "Rights -of -Way" means all City Property and Public Ways, collectively, within the City. = w. "State" means the State of Washington. z F' O. Z (- "Surplus Space" means that portion of the usable space on a utility pole which has the necessary j o. clearance from other pole users, as required by the orders and regulations of the Washington Utilities v and Transportation Commission, to allow its use by a Telecommunications Carrier for a pole o attachment. w "Telecommunications Carrier" includes every Person that directly or indirectly owns, controls, LL ~O. operates or manages plant, equipment or property within the City, used or to be used for the purpose iii of offering Telecommunications Service. v = 01- "Telecommunications Facilities" means the plant, equipment and property within the City used to Z transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer Telecommunications Service. "Telecommunications Provider" includes every Person who provides Telecommunications Service over Telecommunications Facilities. "Telecommunications Service" means the providing or offering for rent, sale or lease, or in exchange for other value received, the transmittal of voice, data, image, graphic and video programming information between or among points by wire, cable, fiber optics, laser, microwave, radio, satellite or similar facilities, with or without benefit of any closed transmission medium. "Underground Facilities" means Utility and Telecommunications Facilities located under the surface of the ground, excluding the underground foundations or supports for Overhead Facilities. "Usable Space" means the total distance between the top of a utility pole and the lowest possible attachment point that provides the minimum allowable vertical clearance as specified in the orders and regulations of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. "Utility Facilities" means the plant, equipment and property including, but not limited to, the poles, pipes, mains, conduits, ducts, cables, wires, plant and equipment located under, on or above the surface of the ground within Rights -of -Way and used or to be used for the purpose of providing Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM : Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Utility or Telecommunications Services. "Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission" or "WUTC" means the State administrative agency, or lawful successor, authorized to regulate and oversee Telecommunications Carriers, Services and Providers in the State of Washington to the extent prescribed by law. Section 26.04.030 Registration and Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, all Telecommunications Carriers or Providers engaged in the business of transmitting, supplying or furnishing of Telecommunications Service originating, terminating or existing within the City shall register with the City pursuant to this Title and pay all the fees as provided herein. Section 26.04.040 License and Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, any Telecommunications Carrier who desires to construct, install, operate, maintain or otherwise locate Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way for the purpose of providing Telecommunications Service to Persons and areas outside the City shall first obtain a license granting the use of such Rights -of -Way from the City pursuant to this Title and pay all the fees as provided herein. Section 26.04.050 Franchise and Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, any Telecommunications Carrier who desires to construct, install, operate, maintain or otherwise locate Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way and to also provide Telecommunications Service to Persons or areas in the City, shall first obtain a franchise granting the use of such Rights -of -Way from the City pursuant to this Title and pay all the fees as provided herein. Section 26.04.060 Cable Franchise and Fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, any Telecommunications Carrier who desires to construct, install, operate, maintain or locate Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way for the purpose of providing Cable Services shall first obtain a cable franchise from the City pursuant to this Title and pay all the fees as provided herein and in the cable franchise. Page 7 of 30 Section 26.04.070 Application to Existing Franchise Ordinances and Agreements. Except as otherwise provided in this Title 26, this Title 26 shall have no effect on any existing franchise agreement until: a. The expiration of said franchise agreement; or b. An amendment to an unexpired franchise agreement, unless both parties agree to defer full compliance to a specific date not later than the present expiration date. Section 26.04.080 Penalties. Any Person found violating, disobeying, omitting, neglecting or refusing to comply with any of the provisions of this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction any person violating any provision of this Title shall be subject to a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for a period of up to ninety (90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. A separate and distinct violation shall be deemed committed each day on which a violation occurs or continues. Section 26.04.090 Other Remedies. Nothing in this Title shall be construed as limiting any other remedies that the City may have, at law or in equity, for enforcement of this Title. Section 26.04.100 Further Rules and Regulations. The City Manager or designee is authorized to establish further rules, regulations and procedures for the implementation of this Title. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 8 of 30 Section 26.04.110 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or other portion { of this Title, or its application to any Person is, for any reason, declared invalid, in whole or in part by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions hereof. Chapter 26.08 Registration Section 26.08.010 Registration Required. All Telecommunications Carriers having Telecommunications Facilities within the corporate limits of the City, or all Telecommunications Carriers or Providers that offer or provide Telecommunications Service within the City, in whole or in part, shall register with the City hereunder on forms provided by the City Clerk which shall include the following: a. The identity and legal status of the registrant, including any affiliates. b. The name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the registration statement. c. A description of registrant's existing or proposed Telecommunications Facilities within the City. d. A description of the Telecommunications Service that the registrant intends to offer or provide, or is currently offering or providing, to Persons, firms, businesses or institutions within the City. e. Information sufficient for the City to determine whether the registrant is subject to public way licensing or franchising under this Title. f. Information sufficient for the City to determine whether the transmission, origination or receipt of the telecommunications services provided or to be provided by the registrant constitutes an occupation or privilege subject to any municipal tax, permit, license or franchise fee. g. Copies of the applicant's registration filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission pursuant to WAC 480 -121, and any tariff or price list or other authorization or related filings as may be required by the WUTC to provide Telecommunications Services. Alternatively, applicant shall submit a statement detailing the basis (along with pertinent supporting materials) for its authorizations to provide Telecommunications Services and any tariffs, filings or authorizations that affect the City's rates or costs or, in the further alternative, the reasons that registration and related filings with the WUTC are not required. h. Information sufficient for the City to determine that the applicant has applied for and received any permit, operating license or other right or approvals required by the Federal Communications Commission to provide Telecommunications Services or Facilities. i. Such other information as the City may reasonably require. Section 26.08.020 Purpose of Registration. The purpose of registration is to: a. Provide the City with accurate and current information concerning the Telecommunications Carriers and Providers who offer or provide Telecommunications Services within the City, or that Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 9 of 30 own or operate Telecommunication Facilities within the City; b. Assist the City in enforcement of this Title; c. Assist the City in the collection and enforcement of any municipal taxes, franchise fees, license fees or charges that may be due to the City; and d. Assist the City in monitoring compliance with local, state and federal laws. Section 26.08.030 Exception to Registration. A Person which provides Telecommunications Services solely to itself, its affiliates or members between points in the same building, or between closely located buildings under common ownership or control, provided that such company or Person does not use or occupy any Rights -of -Way of the City or other ways within the City, is excepted from the registration requirements pursuant to this Title. Chapter 26.12 License Section 26.12.010 License. A license shall be required of any Telecommunications Carrier who desires to occupy any Rights -of -Way with any Telecommunications Facilities for the purpose of providing Telecommunications Services to Persons or areas outside the City. Section 26.12.020 License Application. Any Person that desires a license hereunder shall file an application on a form provided by the City Clerk. Section 26.12.030 Determination by the City. Within 120 days after receiving a complete application hereunder, the City Clerk shall make a determination on behalf of the City granting or denying the application in whole or in part. If the application is denied, the determination shall include the reasons for denial. The following standards shall apply when determining to grant or deny the application: a. The financial and technical ability of the applicant. b. The legal status of the applicant. c. The capacity of the Rights -of -Way to accommodate the applicant's facilities. d. The capacity of the Rights -of -Way to accommodate additional Utility and Telecommunications Facilities if the application is granted. e. The damage or disruption, if any, to public or private facilities, improvements, service, travel or landscaping if the application is granted, giving consideration to an applicant's willingness and ability to mitigate and/or repair same. f. The public interest in minimizing the cost and disruption of construction within the Rights -of -Way. g. The service that applicant will provide to the region. h. The effect, if any, on general public health, safety and welfare in the City's sole opinion if the application is granted. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 i. The availability of alternate routes or locations for the proposed facilities. j. Applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, rules and policies. k. Such other factors as may demonstrate that the grant to use the Rights -of -ay will serve the community interest. Page 10 of 30 Section 26.12.040 Agreement. No license granted hereunder shall be effective until the applicant and the City have executed a written agreement setting forth the particular items and provisions under which the license to occupy and use Rights -of -Way will be granted. All licenses granted pursuant to this Title shall contain substantially similar terms which, taken as a whole and considering relevant characteristics of applicants, do not provide more or less favorable terms and conditions than those required of other licensees. Section 26.12.050 Nonexclusive Grant. No license granted hereunder shall confer any exclusive right, privilege or license to occupy or use the Rights -of -Way for delivery of Telecommunications Services or any other purposes. Section 26.12.060 Rights Granted. a. No license granted hereunder shall convey any right, title or interest in Rights -of -Way but shall be deemed a license only to use and occupy the Rights -of -Way for the limited purposes and term stated in the grant. b. No license granted hereunder shall authorize or excuse a licensee from securing such further easements, leases, permits or other approvals as may be required to lawfully occupy and use Rights -of -Way. c. No license granted hereunder shall be construed as any warranty of title. Section 26.12.070 Term of Grant. Unless otherwise specified in a license agreement, a license granted hereunder shall be in effect for a term of not more than five (5) years. Section 26.12.080 License Route. A license granted hereunder shall be limited to a grant of specific Rights -of -Way and defined portions thereof, as may be indicated in the license agreement. Section 26.12.090 Construction Permits. All licensees are required to obtain construction permits and pay all fees as required by the City, provided, however, that nothing in this Title shall prohibit the City and a licensee from agreeing to alternative plan review, permit and construction procedures in a license agreement, provided such alternative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for reasonable construction practices. Section 26.12.100 Compensation to City. To the extent permitted by law, each license granted hereunder is subject to the City's right, which is expressly reserved, to annually fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for use of property pursuant to the license, provided nothing in this Title shall prohibit the City and a licensee from agreeing upon the compensation to be paid. Section 26.12.110 Service to City Users. A licensee may be permitted to offer or provide Telecommunications Services to Persons or areas within the City upon submitting an application for franchise approval pursuant to this Title. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM 1 Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 11 of 30 Section 26.12.120 Amendment of Grant. a. A new license application and grant shall be required of any Telecommunications Carrier that . desires to extend or locate its Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way which are not included in a license previously granted hereunder. b. If ordered by the City to locate or relocate its Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way not included in a previously granted license, the City shall grant a license amendment without further z application. t c. A new license application and grant shall be required of any Telecommunications Provider that cJ.) O desires to add to or modify the Telecommunications Services provided pursuant to a license ; co w previously granted. _ cn LL, Section 26.12.130 Renewal Applications. A licensee that desires to renew its license hereunder w o. 2 shall, not more than 180 days nor less than 90 days before expiration of the current license, file an application with the City for renewal of its license which shall include the following information: = v. Fw a. The applicable information required pursuant to the license application. .? O b. Any other information required by the City. w w` 2 a, Section 26.12.140 Renewal Determinations. Within 90 days after receiving a complete application N hereunder, the City Clerk shall make a determination on behalf of the City granting or denying the o ! = renewal application in whole or in part. If the renewal application is denied, the determination shall w include the reasons for non - renewal. The standards enumerated in Section 26.12.030 shall apply LL when determining to grant or deny the application, plus a determination of the applicant's compliance w z with the requirements of this Title and the license agreement. v_ co ~ F. Section 26.12.150 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal. No license shall be renewed z until any ongoing violations or defaults in the licensee's performance of the license agreement, of the requirements of this Title, and all applicable laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action to be taken by the licensee has been approved by the City Clerk. Chapter 26.16 Franchise Section 26.16.010 Franchise. A franchise shall be required of any Telecommunications Carrier who desires to occupy Rights -of -Way and to provide Telecommunications Services to any Person or area in the City. Section 26.16.020 Franchise Application. Any Person that desires a franchise hereunder shall file an application provided by the City Clerk. Section 26.16.030 Determination by the City. Within 120 days after receiving a complete application hereunder, the City shall make a determination granting or denying the application in whole or in part. If the application is denied, the determination shall include the reasons for denial. The standards enumerated in Section 26.12.030 shall apply when determining to grant or deny the application. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 12 of 30 Section 26.16.040 Agreement. No franchise shall be granted hereunder unless the applicant and the City have executed a written agreement setting forth the particular terms and provisions under which the franchise to occupy and use Rights -of -Way will be granted. All franchises granted pursuant to this Title shall contain substantially similar terms and conditions which, taken as a whole and considering relevant characteristics of the applicants, do not provide more or less favorable terms and conditions than those required of other franchisees. Section 26.16.050 Nonexclusive Grant. No franchise granted hereunder shall confer any exclusive right, privilege or franchise to occupy or use the Rights -of -Way for delivery of Telecommunications Services or any other purposes. Section 26.16.060 Rights Granted. a. No franchise granted hereunder shall convey any right, title or interest in the Rights -of -Way but shall be deemed a franchise only to use and occupy the Rights -of -Way for the limited purposes and term stated in the grant. } b. No franchise granted hereunder shall authorize or excuse a franchisee from securing such further easements, leases, permits or other approvals as may be required to lawfully occupy and use Rights -of -Way. c. No franchise granted hereunder shall be construed as any warranty of title. Section 26.16.070 Term of Grant. Unless otherwise specified in a franchise agreement, a telecommunications franchise granted hereunder shall be valid for a term of not more than ten (10) years. Section 26.16.080 Franchise Territory. A telecommunications franchise granted hereunder shall be limited to the specific geographic area of the City to be served by the franchisee, and the specific Rights -of -Way and portions thereof, as may be identified in the franchise agreement. Section 26.16.090 Construction Permits. All franchisees are required to obtain permits and pay all fees for Telecommunications Facilities as required by the City, provided, however, that nothing in this Title shall prohibit the City and a franchisee from agreeing to alternative plan review, permit and construction procedures in a franchise agreement, provided such alternative procedures provide substantially equivalent safeguards for responsible construction practices. Section 26.16.100 Compensation to City. To the extent permitted by law, each franchise granted hereunder is subject to the City's right, which is expressly reserved, to annually fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for use of property pursuant to a franchise, provided nothing in this Title shall prohibit the City and a franchisee from agreeing upon the compensation to be paid. Section 26.16.110 Nondiscrimination. A franchisee shall make its Telecommunications Services available to any customer within its franchise area who shall request such service, without discrimination as to the terms, conditions, rates or charges for franchisee's services, provided, however, that nothing in this Title shall prohibit a franchisee from making any reasonable classifications among differently situated customers. Section 26.16.120 Service to the City. A franchisee shall make its telecommunications services available to the City at its most favorable rate for similarly situated users, provided, however, to the Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM z , • • w re 6 o O, co 0. cn w: W =, J N Lt; w u_a •Na. • w z� I- o: w • o o —. :017. w w'. LI o; ..z 0 1•1•1 (0 • 0 O •z 1 Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 13 of 30 extent permitted by law, the City may negotiate more favorable rates or free service, the provision of in -kind services, equipment and facilities, or any combination thereof in lieu of other obligations of franchisee. Section 26.16.130 Amendment of Grant. a. A new franchise application and grant shall be required of any Telecommunications Carrier that desires to extend its franchise territory or to locate its Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way which are not included in a franchise previously granted hereunder. b. If ordered by the City to locate or relocate its Telecommunications Facilities in Rights -of -Way not included in a previously granted franchise, the City shall grant a franchise amendment without further application. c. A franchise application and grant shall be required of any Telecommunications Provider that desires to add to or modify the Telecommunications Services provided pursuant to a franchise previously granted. Section 26.16.140 Renewal Applications. A franchisee that desires to renew its franchise hereunder shall, not more than 180 days (except as otherwise provided by federal law) nor less than 120 days before expiration of the current franchise, file an application with the City for renewal of its franchise which shall include the following information: a. The applicable information required pursuant to the franchise application. b. Any other information required by the City. Section 26.16.150 Renewal Determinations. Within 120 days after receiving a complete application hereunder from cable franchisees, and within 90 days from other Telecommunications Providers, the City Clerk shall make a determination on behalf of the City granting or denying the renewal application in whole or in part. If the renewal application is denied, the determination shall include the reasons for non - renewal. The standards enumerated in Section 26.12.030 shall apply when determining to grant or deny the application, plus a determination of the applicant's compliance with the requirements of this Title and the franchise agreement. Section 26.16.160 Obligation to Cure As a Condition of Renewal. No franchise shall be renewed until any ongoing violations or defaults in the franchisee's obligations under the franchise agreement, of the requirements of this Title, and all applicable laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations have been cured, or a plan detailing the corrective action to be taken by the franchisee has been approved by the City. Chapter 26.20 Cable Franchise Section 26.20.010 Grant of Franchise. The City may grant one or more cable television franchises containing such provisions as are reasonably necessary to protect the public interest, and each such franchise shall be awarded in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. This Ordinance may be amended from time to time, and in no event shall this Ordinance be considered a contract between the City and a franchisee such that the City would be prohibited fromfranchises containing such provisions as are reasonably necessary to protect the public interest, and each such Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 14 of 30 franchise shall be awarded in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. This Ordinance may be amended from time to time, and in no event shall this Ordinance be considered a contract between the City and a franchisee such that the City would be prohibited from amending any provision hereof, provided no such amendment shall in any way impair any contract right or increase obligations of a franchisee under an outstanding and effective franchise excep Section 26.20.020 Franchise Required. No Person may construct, operate or maintain a cable system or provide cable service over a cable system within the City without a franchise granted by the City authorizing such activity. No Person may be granted a franchise without having entered into a Franchise Agreement with the City pursuant to this Ordinance. For the purpose of this provision, the operation of part or all of a cable system within the City means the use or occupancy of Rights -of -Way by facilities used to provide Cable Service. To the extent permitted by law, a system used to provide Telephone Service also used to provide Cable Service shall be subject to this Ordinance and shall also require a franchise. Services similar to Cable Service, such as open video system service, shall also be subject to this Ordinance to the extent provided by law. A system shall not be deemed as operating within the City even though service is offered or rendered to one or more subscribers within the City, if no Right -of -Way is used or occupied. All cable franchises granted pursuant to this Title shall contain substantially similar terms and conditions, which, taken as a whole and considering relevant characteristics of the applicants, do not provide more or less favorable terms and conditions than those required of other cable franchisees. Section 26.20.030 Length of Franchise. Unless otherwise specified in a cable franchise, no cable franchise shall be granted for a period of more than ten (10) years. Section 26.20.040 Cable Franchise Characteristics. a. A cable franchise authorizes use of Rights -of -Way for installing, operating and maintaining cables, wires, lines, optical fiber, underground conduit and other devices necessary and appurtenant to the operation of a cable system to provide Cable Services within the City, but does not expressly or implicitly authorize a franchisee to provide service to, or install a cable system on private property without owner consent, or to use publicly or privately owned poles, ducts or conduits without a separate agreement with the owners to the extent provided by law. b. A cable franchise shall not mean or include any exclusive right for the privilege of transacting and carrying on a business within the City as generally required by the ordinances and laws ofthe City. A cable franchise shall not confer any authority to provide Telecommunications Services or any other communications services besides Cable Services, and to the extent permitted by law, a separate franchise shall be required for the provision of Telecommunications Services in addition to the cable franchise. A franchise shall not confer any implicit rights other than those mandated by federal, state or local law. c. A cable franchise is nonexclusive and will not explicitly or implicitly: preclude the issuance of other franchises to operate cable systems within the City; affect the City's right to authorize use of Rights -of -Way by other Persons to operate cable systems or for other purposes as it determines appropriate; or affect the City's right to itself construct, operate or maintain a cable system, with or without a franchise. d. Once a cable franchise has been accepted and executed by the City and a franchisee, such cable franchise shall constitute a valid and enforceable agreement between the franchisee and the City, Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 15 of 30 and the terms, conditions and provisions of such franchise, subject to this Ordinance and all other duly enacted and applicable laws and regulations, shall define the rights and obligations of the franchisee and the City relating to the franchise. e. All privileges prescribed by a cable franchise shall be subordinate to any prior lawful occupancy of the Rights -of -Way and the City reserves the right to reasonably designate where a franchisee's facilities are to be placed within the Rights -of -Way through its generally applicable permit procedures. f. A cable franchise shall be a privilege that is in the public trust and personal to the original franchisee. No franchise transfer shall occur without the prior written consent of the City Council upon application made by the franchisee pursuant to this Ordinance, and the franchise, and applicable law, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any purported franchise transfer made without application and prior written consent shall be void and shall be cause for the City to revoke the cable franchise. Section 26.20.050 Cable Franchisee Subject to Other Laws, Police Powers. a. A cable franchisee shall at all times be subject to and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, including this Ordinance. A cable franchisee shall at all times be subject to all lawful exercise of the police power of the City including, but not limited to, all rights the City may have under the Cable Acts, all powers regarding zoning, supervision of construction, control of Rights -of -Way and consumer protection. b. The City shall have full authority to regulate cable systems, cable franchisees and franchises as may now or hereafter be lawfully permissible. Section 26.20.060 Interpretation of Franchise Terms. a. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance and a cable franchise, the provisions of the cable franchise shall control. b. The provisions of this Ordinance and a cable franchise will be liberally construed in accordance with generally accepted rules of construction to promote the public interest. Section 26.20.070 Operation of a Cable System Without a Franchise. Any Person who occupies Rights -of -Way for the purpose of operating or constructing a cable system or provides Cable Service over a cable system and who does not hold a valid franchise from the City shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance. In its discretion, the City at any time may by ordinance: require such Person to enter into a franchise within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice to such Person from the City that a franchise is required; require such Person to remove its property and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory to the City; direct municipal personnel to remove the property and restore the affected area to a condition satisfactory to the City and charge the Person the costs therefor, including by placing a lien on the Person's property; or take any other action it is entitled to take under applicable law. In no event shall a franchise be created unless it is issued by the City pursuant to this Ordinance and subject to a written Franchise Agreement. Section 26.20.080 Eminent Domain. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to impair or affect, in any way or to any extent, the City's power of eminent domain. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM • Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 16 of 30 Section 26.20.090 Exclusive Contracts and Anti - Competitive Acts Prohibited. a. To the extent permitted by law, no cable franchisee or other multichannel video programming distributor shall enter into or enforce an exclusive contract for the provision of cable service or other multichannel video programming with any person, or demand the exclusive right to serve a person or location, as a condition of extending service to that person or location. b. To the extent permitted by law, n� cable franchisee or other multichannel video programming distributor shall engage in acts that have the purpose or effect of limiting competition for the provision of Cable Service or services similar to Cable Service in the City. Section 26.20.100 Cable Franchise Fees. Cable franchisees shall be subject to the cable franchise fees, payments and costs provided in their cable franchise and herein. Chapter 26.24 Conditions of Grant of License, Franchise or Cable Franchise Section 26.24.010 General Duties. a. All Grantees, before commencing any construction in the Rights -of -Way, shall comply with all requirements of the Kirkland Municipal Code or other ordinances of the City. b. All Grantees shall have no ownership rights in Rights -of -Way, even though they may be granted a license or franchise to construct or operate their facilities. Section 26.24.020 Jnterference with the Rights -of -Way. No Grantee may locate or maintain its Telecommunications Facilities so as to unreasonably interfere with the use of the Rights -of -Way by the City, by the general public or other Persons authorized to use or be present in or upon the Rights -of -Way. Section 26.24.030 Damage to Property. No Grantee or any Person acting on a Grantee's behalf shall take any action or permit any action to be done which may impair or damage any Rights -of -Way, or other property located in, on or adjacent thereto except in accordance with Section 26.24.120. Section 26.24.040 Notice of Work. Unless otherwise provided in a license or franchise agreement, no Grantee, or any Person acting on the Grantee's behalf, shall commence any non - emergency work involving undergrounding, excavation or obstructing in or about the Rights -of -Way without five (5) working days advance written notice to the City. Any private property owner whose property will be affected by a Grantee's work shall be afforded the same notice. Section 26.24.050 Repair and Emergency Work. In the event of an unexpected repair or emergency, a Grantee may commence such repair and emergency response work as required under the circumstances, provided the Grantee shall notify the Public Works Director as promptly as possible, before such repair or emergency work or as soon thereafter as possible if advance notice is not practicable. Section 26.24.060 Maintenance of Facilities. Each Grantee shall maintain its facilities in good and safe condition and in a manner that complies with all applicable federal, state and local requirements. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 17 of 30 Section 26.24.070 Relocation or Removal of Facilities. Within thirty (30) days following written notice from the City, a Grantee shall, at its own expense, temporarily or permanently remove, relocate, change or alter the position of any Telecommunications Facilities within the Rights -of -Way whenever the Public Works Director shall have determined that such removal, relocation, change or alteration is reasonably necessary for: a. The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any City or other public non - telecommunications improvement in or upon the Rights -of -Way. b. The operations of the City or other governmental entity in or upon the Rights -of -Way. c. The vacation of a public street or the release of a utility easement. d. The construction, repair, maintenance or installation of any City or other parties' telecommunications improvement in or upon the Rights -of -Way. Notwithstanding the foregoing and anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Ordinance, in the event that relocation or removal is due to the installation of Telecommunications Services of a competitive Telecommunications Provider (including the City or another third party), the terms and conditions regarding same may otherwise be as set forth in the license, franchise or cable franchise. Section 26.24.080 Removal of Unauthorized Facilities. Within thirty (30) days following written notice from the City, any Grantee, Telecommunications Carrier or other Person that owns, controls or maintains any unauthorized telecommunications system, facility or related appurtenances within the Rights -of -Way shall, at its own expense, remove such facilities or appurtenances from the Rights -of -Way. If such Grantee fails to remove such facilities or appurtenances, the City may cause the removal and charge the Grantee for the costs incurred. A telecommunications system or facility is unauthorized and subject to removal in the following circumstances: a. Upon expiration or termination of the Grantee's license or franchise. b. Upon abandonment of a facility within the Rights -of -Way. c. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior grant of a license or franchise. d. If the system or facility was constructed or installed without the prior issuance of a required construction permit. e. If the system or facility was constructed or installed at a location not permitted by the Grantee's license or franchise. f. Any such other reasonable circumstances affecting public health, safety and welfare deemed necessary by the Public Works Director. Section 26.24.090 Failure to Relocate. If a Grantee is required to relocate, change or alter the Telecommunications Facilities hereunder and fails to do so, the City may cause such to occur and charge the Grantee for the costs incurred. Section 26.24.100 Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities. The City retains the right and Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 18 of 30 privilege to cut or move any Telecommunications Facilities located within the Rights -of -Way as the City may determine to be necessary, appropriate or useful in response to any public health or safety emergency. Section 26.24.110 Damage to Grantee's Facilities. To the extent permitted by Washington law, the City shall not be liable for any damage to or loss of any Telecommunications Facility within the Rights -of -Way as a result of or in connection with any public works, public improvementsthe City shall not be liable for any damage to or.loss of any Telecommunications Facility within the Rights -of -Way a Section 26.24.120 Restoration of Rights -of -Way. Restoration shall comply with the following: a. When a Grantee, or any Person acting on its behalf, does any work in or affecting any Rights -of -Way, it shall, at its own expense, promptly remove any obstructions therefrom and restore such ways or property to the same condition which existed before the work was undertaken. As used in this section, "promptly" shall mean as required by the City's Public Works Director in the reasonable exercise of the Director's discretion. b. If weather or other conditions do not permit the complete restoration required hereunder, the Grantee shall temporarily restore the affected ways or property. Such temporary restoration shall be at the Grantee's sole expense, and the Grantee shall promptly undertake and complete the required permanent restoration when the weather or other conditions no longer prevent such permanent restoration. c. A Grantee or other Person acting on its behalf shall use suitable barricades, flags, flagmen, lights, flares and other measures as required for the safety of all members of the general public and to prevent injury or damage to any person, vehicle or property by reason of such work in or affecting such Rights -of -Way. Section 26.24.130 Facilities Maps. Each Grantee shall provide the City with an accurate as -built map or maps certifying the location of all Telecommunications Facilities within the Rights -of -Way. Each Grantee shall provide updated as -built maps annually. Section 26.24.140 Duty to Provide Information. Within ten (10) days of a written request from the City Clerk, each Grantee shall furnish the City Clerk with information sufficient to demonstrate: a. That Grantee has complied with all requirements of this Title. b. That all taxes and fees due the City in connection with the Telecommunications Services and Facilities provided by the Grantee have been properly collected and paid by the Grantee. c. That all books, records, maps and other documents maintained by the Grantee with respect to its facilities within the Rights -of -Way have been made available for inspection by the City Clerk and the Public Works Director at reasonable times and intervals. Section 26.24.150 Leased Capacity. Subject to the provisions of Section 26.24.230, a Grantee shall have the right to offer or provide capacity or bandwidth to another Telecommunications Provider, with prior City approval, provided that: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM z w 6 JU U O' 00. W Jam.' u- w O 2 g Q: = a: �w Z ~, I- o. Z U• ( O - }-. w w: 1- C) V_ ~O w z' • u) O z Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 19 of 30 a. Grantee shall furnish the City in advance with a copy of any such proposed lease or agreement. b. The proposed lessee or Person shall comply with all of the requirements of this Title. Section 26.24.160 Grantee Insurance. Unless otherwise provided by a franchise or license, each Grantee shall, as a condition of the grant, secure and maintain the following liability insurance policies insuring both the Grantee and the City, and its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, representatives and employees as additional insureds: mo. 2w a. Comprehensive general liability insurance with limits not less than: v o (i) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) for bodily injury or death to each Person; w w (ii) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) for roe damage resulting from any one accident; w LL (��) property rtY g g Y accident; W p and 2 (iii) Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) for all other types of liability. N d b. Automobile liability for owned, non -owned and hired vehicles with a limit of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) for each Person and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) for each accident. ? O z �— c. Worker's compensation within statutory limits and employer's liability insurance with limits of g not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). v o O C2 d. Comprehensive form premises- operations, explosions and collapse hazard, underground hazard ° I- and products completed hazard with limits of not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000). v O e. The liability insurance policies required by this section shall be maintained at all times by the w Z Grantee. Each such insurance policy shall contain the following endorsement: 0 "It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be canceled nor the intention not to Z renew be stated until 30 days after receipt by the City, by registered mail, of a written notice addressed to the City Manager of such intent to cancel or not to renew." f. Within ten (10) days after receipt by the City of said notice, and in no event later than twenty (20) days prior to said cancellation, the Grantee shall obtain and furnish to the City replacement insurance policies meeting the requirements of this Title. Section 26.24.170 General Indemnification. In addition to and distinct from the insurance requirements of this Title, each Grantee hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit or defense, arising out of, resulting from or alleged to arise out of or result from the acts, omissions, failure to act or misconduct of the Grantee or its affiliates, officers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors in the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of its Telecommunications Facilities, and in providing or offering telecommunications services over the facilities or network, whether such acts or omissions are authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Title or by an agreement made or entered into pursuant to this Title. Section 26.24.180 Performance and Financial Guarantees. Before a license or franchise granted pursuant to this Title is effective, and as necessary thereafter, the Grantee shall provide and deposit Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 20 of 30 such monies, bonds, letters of credit or other instruments in form and substance acceptable to the City as may be required by this Title, or by an applicable license or franchise agreement or other applicable code, ordinance, rules or regulations of the City. Section 26.24.190 Security Fund. Each Grantee shall establish a permanent security fund with the City by depositing the amount of up to $50,000 with the City in cash, an unconditional letter of credit, or other instrument acceptable to the City, which fund shall be maintained at the sole expense of Grantee so long as any of Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities are located within the Rights -of -Way. This security fund shall be separate and distinct from any other bond or deposit required. a. The fund shall serve as security for the full and complete performance of Grantee's obligations under this Title, including any costs, expenses, damages or loss the City pays or incurs because of any failure attributable to the Grantee to comply with the codes, ordinances, rules, regulations or permits of the City. b. Before any sums are withdrawn from the security fund, the City Manager or designee shall give written notice to the Grantee: (i) describing the act, default or failure to be remedied, or the damages, cost or expenses which the City has incurred by reason of the Grantee's act or default; (ii) providing a reasonable opportunity for the Grantee to first remedy the existing or ongoing default or failure, if applicable; (iii) providing a reasonable opportunity for the Grantee to pay any monies due the City before the City withdraws the amount thereof from the security fund, if applicable; and (iv) that the Grantee will be given an opportunity to review the act, default or failure described in the notice with the City Manager or designee. c. Grantee shall replenish the security fund within fourteen (14) days after written notice from the City Clerk that there is a deficiency in the amount of the fund. Section 26.24.200 Construction and Completion Bond. Unless otherwise provided in a license or franchise agreement, a bond written by a surety acceptable to the City equal to at least 100% of the estimated cost of constructing the Grantee's Telecommunications Facilities within the Rights -of -Way shall be deposited before a construction permit is issued. a. The construction bond shall remain in force until ninety (90) days after substantial completion of the work, as determined by the Public Works Director, including restoration of Rights -of -Way and other property affected by the construction. However, in addition to the foregoing, the City reserves the right to require a maintenance bond as per Chapter 175 of the City Zoning Code. b. The construction bond shall guarantee, to the satisfaction of the City: (i) timely completion of construction; (ii) construction in compliance with applicable plans, permits, technical codes and standards; Thursday, September 10, 1998 ... ,' 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 21 of 30 (iii) proper location of the facilities as specified by the City; (iv) restoration of the Rights -of -Way and other property affected by the construction; (v) the submission of "as- built" maps after completion of the work as required by this Title; (vi) timely payment and satisfaction of all claims, demands or liens for labor, material or z services provided in connection with the work. �z . Section 26.24.210 Acts at Grantee's Expense. Any act that a Grantee is or may be required to Q: n 6 n perform under this Ordinance, a license, franchise, or cable franchise or applicable law shall be v o performed at the Grantee's expense. N 0 la Section 26.24.220 Coordination of Construction Activities. All Grantees are required to cooperate w with the City and with each other as follows: w 0 ga. a. By February 1 of each year, each Grantee shall provide the Public Works Director with a schedule of its proposed construction activities which may affect the Rights -of -Way for that year. = w Failure to provide such schedule on a timely basis may impact upon the ability of a Grantee to z obtain permits for its construction activities during the course of that year. z o b. Each Grantee shall meet with the City, other Grantees and users of the Rights -of -Way annually M' or as determined by the City to schedule and coordinate construction. ,v N c. All construction locations, activities and schedules shall be coordinated, as ordered by the w w: Public Works Director, to minimize public inconvenience, disruption or damages. H Lo Section 26.24.230 Assignments or Transfers of Grant. Ownership or control of a ii.i N. telecommunications system, license or franchise or any part of transmission capacity may not directly == or indirectly, be transferred, assigned or disposed of by sale, lease, merger, consolidation or other act o z of the Grantee, by operation of law or otherwise, nor may there be a transfer of working control (which includes not only actual control, but also the ability to affect or influence decisions) without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, as expressed by ordinance and then on such conditions as may be prescribed therein and: a. No grant shall be assigned or transferred in any manner within twelve (12) months after the initial grant of the license or franchise unless otherwise provided by law. b. Absent extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances, no grant, system or integral part of a system shall be assigned or transferred before construction of the telecommunications system has been completed. c. The Grantee and the proposed assignee or transferee of the grant or system shall provide and certify the following information to the City Clerk: (i) Complete information setting forth the nature, terms and conditions of the proposed transfer or assignment; (ii) All information required of a license or franchise applicant pursuant to this Title with respect to the proposed transferee or assignee; Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 22 of 30 (iii) All information required by federal, state and local law or regulation [i.e., FCC 394's]; (iv) Any other information reasonably required by the City Clerk. d. No transfer shall be approved unless the assignee or transferee has the legal, technical, financial and other qualifications in the City's discretion to own, hold and operate the telecommunications system pursuant to this Title. e. The Grantee shall reimburse the City for all direct and indirect fees, costs and expenses re incurred by the City in considering a request to transfer ownership in or assign a license or 6 =i franchise unless otherwise prohibited by law. o o f. Any transfer of ownership in or assignment of a grant, system or integral part of a system w without prior approval of the City under this Title shall be void and is cause for revocation of the co u- grant. w o g. Upon receipt of all information required herein, and any other information required by the City, u- <' the City shall have one hundred and twenty (120) days to review and approve or deny the = eJ requested assignment or transfer (with respect to cable franchisees) and ninety (90) days with Z =, respect to other Telecommunications Providers, unless such period is extended by agreement of F- O. the City and Grantee. z w Do h. In addition to the other requirements herein, a copy of the transfer or assignment document, c) deed or other documentation deemed necessary by the City shall also be filed with the City Clerk rY Y tY tY o within ten (10) days of any change in ownership or control. w w s Section 26.24.240 Transactions Affecting Control of Grant. Any transaction which results in any u= o change of the ownership or in any manner the working control of the Grantee, of the ownership or id co working control of a licensee or franchisee, of the ownership or working control of affiliated entities having ownership or working control of the Grantee or of a telecommunications system, or of control 0 of the capacity or bandwidth or any part of the transmission capacity of the Grantee's telecommunications system, Telecommunications Facilities or any parts thereof, all defined as 5% or more ownership or control (including, but not limited to, a change of 5% or more of change in financial ownership or make up or the nature of the business entity of which the Grantee is comprised), shall be considered an assignment or transfer requiring City approval hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Transactions between affiliated entities are not exempt from City approval. Section 26.24.250 Revocation or Termination of Grant. A license or franchise granted by the City to use or occupy Rights -of -Way may be revoked for any one or more of the following reasons: a. Construction or operation at an unauthorized location. b. Unauthorized transfer of control of the Grantee. c. Unauthorized assignment of a license or franchise. d. Unauthorized sale, assignment or transfer of the Grantee's franchise or license assets or an interest therein. Thursday, September 10, 1998 .. ,,' {' 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 23 of 30 e. Misrepresentation or lack of candor by or on behalf of a Grantee in any application to the City. f. Abandonment of Telecommunications Facilities in the Rights -of -Way. g. Failure to relocate or remove Telecommunications Facilities as required in this Title. h. Failure to pay taxes, compensation, fees or costs when and as due the City. i. Insolvency or bankruptcy of the Grantee. j. Violation of a material provision of this Title. k. Violation of a material term of a license or franchise. Section 26.24.260 Notice and Duty to Cure. In the event that the City Clerk believes that grounds exist for revocation of a license or franchise, the Grantee shall be given written notice of the apparent violation or noncompliance, be provided a short and concise statement of the nature and general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and be given a reasonable period of time not exceeding thirty (30) days to furnish evidence: a. That corrective action has been, or is being actively and expeditiously pursued, to remedy the violation or noncompliance. b. That rebuts the alleged violation or noncompliance. c. That it would be in the public interest to impose some monetary damages, penalty or sanction less than revocation. Section 26.24.270 Hearing. In the event that a Grantee fails to provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to the City Clerk as provided hereunder, the City Clerk shall make a preliminary determination as to whether an event of default by Grantee has occurred and initially prescribe remedies in accordance with Section 26.24.280. In the event that a Grantee wants to appeal such determination, it shall do so to the Hearing Examiner. In the event a further appeal is sought by the Grantee, it shall make such appeal to the City Council. With respect to apparent violations or noncompliance, appeals provided for herein shall be made within days of a determination adverse to Grantee. In any event, the City shall provide the Grantee with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the matter. Section 26.24.280 Standards for Revocation or Lesser Sanctions. If persuaded that the Grantee has violated or failed to comply with a material provision of this Title or of a franchise or license or applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or rules and regulations, the City Clerk shall make a preliminary determination whether to revoke the license or franchise, and issue a written decision relating thereto, or to establish some monetary damages, penalty, lesser sanction and cure, considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation as reflected by one or more of the following factors: a. Whether the misconduct was egregious. b. 'Whether substantial harm resulted. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM z w re 6 U 0` N O' cnw. W J O, w u.¢ co = w' 0' w~ U Ow W W. V: r: O, uiZ Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 24 of 30 c. Whether the violation was intentional. e. Whether there is a history of overall compliance. f. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted or cured. Chapter 26.28 Construction Section 26.28.010 Construction Standards. No Person shall commence or continue with the construction, installation or operation of Telecommunications Facilities within the City except as provided in this Title, provided, however, this Chapter 26.28 shall be in addition to the requirements of the City Standard Plans, Policy Section dated May 5, 1993 as such was enacted or has or in the future is amended from time to time ( "Utility Policy "), and in the event of a conflict between the aforesaid Utility Policy and this Chapter 26.28, the standards of the Utility Policy shall control. Section 26.28.020 Construction Codes. Telecommunications Facilities shall be constructed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local codes, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, the National Electrical Safety Code. Telecommunications Facilities shall comply with the most recent standards in the Utility Policy and other public works standards and applicable City codes including, but not limited to, Title 19 - Streets and Sidewalks, as it now exists or is hereafter amended. In the event of a conflict between the standards in the Utility Policy, public works standards and other local standards and Titles, those Titles, public works standards and other local standards shall apply. Section 26.28.030 Construction Permits. No Person shall construct or install any Telecommunications Facilities within the City without first obtaining a construction permit therefore, provided, however: a. No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of Telecommunications Facilities within the City unless the Telecommunications Carrier has filed a registration statement with the City pursuant to this Title. b. No permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of Telecommunications Facilities in the Rights -of -Way unless the Telecommunications Carrier has applied for and received a franchise or license pursuant to this Title. c. Unless otherwise provided by law, a franchise or license, no permit shall be issued for the construction or installation of Telecommunications Facilities without payment of all fees pursuant to this Title. d. No permit shall be issued to cut any Public Way, the surface of which is less than five (5) years old, unless the Grantee overlays the surface of any Public Way which is cut by the Grantee. Section 26.28.040 Applications. Applications for permits to construct Telecommunications Facilities shall be submitted upon forms provided by the City. The applicant shall pay all associated fees and shall include any additional information as requested by the Public Works Director. The application shall be accompanied by drawings, plans and specifications in sufficient detail to demonstrate: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 25 of 30 a. That the facilities will be constructed in accordance with all applicable codes, rules and regulations. b. The location and route of all facilities to be installed on existing utility poles. c. The location and route of all facilities to be located under the surface of the ground, including line and grade proposed for the burial at all points along the route which are within the Rights -of -Way. z o:2 d. To the extent such information is made accessible to Grantee, the location of all existing 6 underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes, mains and installations which are within the tJi 0 Rights -of -Way along the route proposed by the applicant. cl J = e. The location of all other facilities to be constructed within the City, but not within the Rights -of -Way. w 0 2 f. The construction methods to be employed for protection of existing structures, fixtures and Q. facilities within or adjacent to the Rights -of -Way. co =w g. The location, dimension and types of all trees within or adjacent to the Rights -of -Way along z the route proposed by the applicant, together with a landscape plan for protecting, trimming, z 0', removing, replacing and restoring any trees or areas to be disturbed during construction. Lu Section 26.28.050 engineer's Certification. Unless otherwise provided in a license or franchise, all ;0 ,„ permit applications shall be accompanied by the certification of a registered professional engineer Lij that the drawings, plans and specifications submitted with the application comply with applicable i 0 technical codes, rules and regulations. The engineer shall also provide a certificate of the u b construction cost estimate. . z Section 26.28.060 Traffic Control Plan. All permit applications which involve work on, in, under, across or along any Rights -of -Way shall be accompanied by a traffic control plan demonstrating the protective measures and devices that will be employed. Section 26.28.070 Issuance of Permit. Within forty -five (45) days after submission of all plans and documents required of the applicant and payment of necessary permit fees, the Public Works Director, if satisfied that the application, plans and documents comply with all requirements of this Title, shall issue a permit authorizing construction of the facilities, subject to such further conditions, restrictions or regulations affecting the time, place and manner of performing the work as the Public Works Director may deem necessary or appropriate. Section 26.28.080 Construction Schedule. The permittee shall submit a written construction schedule to the Public Works Director ten (10) working days before commencing any work in or about the Rights -of -Way. The permittee shall further provide written notification to the Public Works Director not less than five (5) working days in advance of any excavation or work in the Rights -of -Way. Section 26.28.090 Compliance with Permit. All construction practices and activities shall be in accordance with the permit and approved final plans and specifications for the facilities. The Public Works Director and his or her representative shall be provided access to the work and such further information as he or she may require to ensure compliance with such requirements. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM % . • Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 26 of 30 Section 26.28.100 Display of Permit. The permittee shall maintain a copy of the construction permit and approved plans at the construction site, which shall be displayed and made available for inspection by the Public Works Director at all times when construction work is occurring. Section 26.28.110 Survey of Underground Facilities. If the construction permit specifies the location of facilities by depth, line, grade, proximity to other facilities or other standards, the permittee shall cause the location of its facilities to be verified by a registered Washington land surveyor. The permittee, at its expense, shall relocate any facilities which are not located in compliance with permit requirements. Section 26.28.120 Noncomplying Work. Upon order of the Public Works Director, all work which does not comply with the permit, the approved plans or specifications for the work or the requirements of this Title shall be removed. Section 26.28.130 Completion of Construction. The permittee shall promptly complete all construction activities so as to minimize disruption of the Rights -of -Way and other public and private property. All construction work authorized by a permit within Rights -of -Way, including restoration, must be completed within ninety (90) days of the date of issuance or at such other interval as the City may specify in writing upon issuance of the permit. Section 26.28.140 As -Built Drawings. Within thirty (30) days after completion of construction, the permittee shall furnish the Public Works Director with two (2) complete sets of plans, drawn to scale and certified to the City as accurately depicting the location of all Telecommunications Facilities constructed pursuant to the permit. Section 26.28.150 Restoration of Improvements. Upon completion of any construction work, the permittee shall promptly repair, but in no event longer than such time as may be established by the City during permit review, any and all public and private property, improvements, fixtures, structures and facilities which are damaged during the course of construction, restoring the same to their condition before construction commenced. Section 26.28.160 Landscape Restoration. a. All trees, landscaping and grounds removed, damaged or disturbed as a result of the construction, installation, maintenance, operation, repair or replacement of Telecommunications Facilities, which is done pursuant to a franchise, license or permit, shall be replaced or restored to the condition existing prior to performance of the work. Significant trees removed shall be replaced. Significant Trees are defined as: An existing healthy tree which, when measured four feet above grade, has a minimum diameter of: (A) Six (6) inches for Evergreens, except as provided under B or D below, or (B) Eight (8) inches for Douglas Fir and Hemlock trees, or (C) Twelve (12) inches for deciduous trees, or (D) a tree that, because of its unique species, environment or location is determined by the Public Works Director to be a significant tree. b. All restoration work within the Rights -of -Way shall be done in accordance with landscape plans approved by the Public Works Director. Section 26.28.170 Location of Facilities. Unless otherwise required in current or future City ordinances regarding underground construction requirements, all facilities shall be constructed, installed and located in accordance with the following terms and conditions: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 27 of 30 a. Telecommunications Facilities shall be installed within an existing underground duct or conduit whenever excess capacity exists within such utility facility. b. A franchisee with written authorization to install overhead facilities shall install its Telecommunications Facilities on pole attachments to existing utility poles only, and then only if surplus space is available. c. Whenever all existing telephone, electric utilities, cable facilities or Telecommunications Facilities are located underground within Rights -of -Way, a franchisee with written authorization to occupy the same Rights -of -Way must also locate its Telecommunications Facilities underground. d. Whenever all new or existing telephone, electric utilities, cable facilities or Telecommunications Facilities are located or relocated underground within Rights -of -Way, a franchisee that currently occupies the same Rights -of -Way shall concurrently relocate its facilities underground at its expense. Section 26.28.180 Conduit Occupancy. In furtherance of the public purpose of reduction of Right -of -Way excavation, it is the goal of the City to encourage both the shared occupancy of underground conduit as well as the construction, whenever possible, of excess conduit capacity for occupancy of future Right -of Way occupants. Therefore, if a franchisee or licensee is constructing underground conduit for its own Telecommunications Facility, and the City reasonably determines such construction is in an area in which another Telecommunications Provider(s) may also construct Telecommunications Facilities in the future, the City may require the franchisee or licensee to construct excess conduit capacity in the Rights -of -Way, provided the expense of such excess capacity shall be borne by the City (calculated as the difference between what Grantee would have paid for the construction of its conduit and the additional cost only of the excess conduit). Grantee may either lease the excess conduit to the City at a rate of one dollar ($1.00) for the term of the franchise or license (in which case the City will be permitted to sublease the excess conduit at its sole discretion), or Grantee may manage the excess conduit itself and be permitted to charge a reasonable market lease rate for occupancy of the additional conduit space, provided such lease revenues shall be first applied to reimburse the City for its actual contribution to the construction of the excess conduit (plus interest compounded at the rate the City invested its funds during the time in question). Section 26.28.190 Occupancy of City Owned Conduit. In furtherance of the same objectives of Section 26.28.180, above, if the City owns or leases conduit in the path of Grantee's proposed Telecommunications Facilities, and provided it is technologically feasible for Grantee to occupy the conduit owned or leased by the City, Grantee shall be required to occupy the conduit owned or leased by the City in order to reduce the necessity to excavate the Rights -of -Way. Grantee shall pay to the City a fee for such occupancy which shall be the cost Grantee would have expended to construct its own conduit from the outset, as certified by the Grantee's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The City and Grantee may agree to amortize the fee through annual payments to the City over the term of the license or franchise, including the time value of money. Section 26.28.200 Construction Surety. Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the permittee shall provide a construction bond, as provided in this Title. Chapter 26.32 Fees Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 28 of 30 Section 26.32.010 Registration Fee. Each application for registration as a Telecommunications Carrier or Provider shall be accompanied by a fee in such amount as the City Finance Director determines is required to cover all direct and indirect costs. Section 26.32.020 Preapplication Conference and Application Fee. Prior to the acceptance of an application by the City, applicants shall participate in a pre - application conference for the purpose of establishing the application fee. The purpose of establishing the application fee is to ensure the recovery of City direct and indirect costs and expenses associated with the review of the application including, but not limited to, actual costs of City staff time and resources as well as any outside consultation expenses which the City reasonably determines are necessary to adequately review and analyze the application. The application fee shall be established by the Finance Director and shall be a minimum of up to Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) and with the maximum fee established depending upon estimated reasonable City costs and expenditures in review of the application. All disputes in the amount required shall be resolved by an appeal to a Hearing Examiner. All franchisee and licensee applicants shall deposit the application fee with the City. This application fee shall be applied towards actual expenses and costs of the City. Any unencumbered application fees shall be refunded to the applicant upon written request of the applicant, but in no event earlier than sixty (60) days after granting or denial of the permit. Section 26.32.030 Refund. An applicant whose license or franchise application has been withdrawn, abandoned or denied shall, within sixty (60) days of its application and review fee payment, be refunded the balance of its deposit under this section, less: a. The registration fee; and b. All ascertainable costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with the application. Section 26.32.040 Other City Costs. To the extent allowed by law, all Grantees shall, within thirty (30) days after written demand therefore, reimburse the City for all direct and indirect costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with any modification, amendment, renewal or transfer of a license or franchise. Section 26.32.050 Reserved Compensation for Rights -of -Way. To the extent permitted by law, the City reserves its right to fix a fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for the authorization granted to a Grantee. Nothing in this Title shall prohibit the City and a Grantee from agreeing upon the compensation. Section 26.32.060 Compensation for City Property. If the right is granted, by lease, license, franchise or other manner, to use and occupy City Property for the installation or use of Telecommunications Facilities, the compensation to be paid shall be fixed by the City (to the extent permitted by law) or as otherwise agreed between the City and Grantee. Section 26.32.070 Construction Permit Fee. Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the permittee shall pay a permit fee equal to $1,000 or .75 percent of the estimated cost of constructing the Telecommunications Facilities, as certified by the applicant's engineer and approved by the City Engineer, whichever is greater. The purpose of the construction permit fee shall be to recover the City's actual attributable direct and indirect construction plan review costs and expenses, as well as damage or Rights -of -Way value diminution as a result of permittee's occupancy of the Right -of -Way. The City hereby finds that it must at this time attribute damage and diminution of value to permittee Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM : z w 6U 00 . No W CO O 2 < d 1- w r z� Z 2o uj O,,, o I-. Ili w. 1U H U- O wz U =: 0 z Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 Page 29 of 30 until such time as actual costs can be ascertained. This results from the complexity of the City to ascertain the number and type of all right -of -way permittees hereunder as well as the extent and nature of all future such occupancy. Therefore, the City may, within six (6) months of the effective date of this ordinance, institute a program to further analyze the value of City Rights -of -Way, after which the City shall review the fees of this Section 26.32.070, and adjust them to the extent the City determines in its sole discretion is necessary, if any, to more accurately represent ascertainable actual costs associated with future permittee's occupancy. In no event shall construction permit fees received prior to such study and analysis be refunded or increased. A permittee may request review of the fees required herein by initiation of the fee review process of Section 26.32.100 herein. Section 26.32.080 Annual Fees. Each Grantee shall pay an annual fee (if any) to the City equal to the City's direct and indirect costs in connection with reviewing, inspecting and supervising the use and occupancy of the Rights -of -Way. Section 26.32.090 Regulatory Fees and Compensation Not a Tax. The regulatory fees and costs provided for in this Title, and any compensation charged and paid for the Rights -of -Way provided for herein, are separate from, and additional to, any and all federal, state, local and City taxes as may be levied, imposed or due from a Telecommunications Carrier or Provider, its customers or subscribers, or on account of the lease, sale, delivery or transmission of Telecommunications Services. Section 26.32.100 Fee Review Process, Finance Director and Hearing Examiner. Any applicant or permittee may initiate a review of the fees established in Sections 26.32.020 or 26.32.090, above. Within ten (10) days of notice of the fee determined by the Finance Director, applicant or permittee may appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Pursuant to the provisions of the Kirkland Municipal Code, Chapter 3.34, the Hearing Examiner is authorized to review and make determinations as provided herein. Chapter 26.36 Miscellaneous Section 26.36.010 Context. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. Section 2 Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. Section 3 Summary Publication. This Ordinance shall be in force and effect five days from and after its passage by the Kirkland City Council and publication pursuant to Section 1.08.107, Kirkland Municipal Code in the summary form attached to the original of this Ordinance and by this reference approved by the City Council. PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE KIRKLAND CITY COUNCIL IN REGULAR, OPEN MEETING THIS 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 1998. /s/ Michaele Muse Mayor Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Kirkland, WA Ordinance No. 3636 [Comments] [Help] [Home] [Site Index] [Site Search] [What's New Page 30 of 30 Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:48 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 1 of 22 Comments Help Horne Site Index Site Search What's New MRSC Municipal Res earl & Services Center A Resource for Washington Local Governments Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOTHELL, WASHINGTON, RELATING TOPERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES, AMENDING SECTIONS 11.04.003,11.06.001(A), 12.06.160(B) AND 12.06.180 OF THE BOTHELL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12.11 TO THE BOTHELL MUNICIPAL CODE, DECLARINGAN EMERGENCY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( "the Act ") provides that local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of wireless communications services and may not establish regulations which prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services; and i1- w' 00 CO 0 w =; J H U) w: w0 J w a. WHEREAS, the Act preserves local zoning authority over decisions regarding the placement, = w construction, and modification of Personal Wireless Service facilities (PWS facilities); and z_ I— 0 WHEREAS, recent changes in telecommunications technology have caused PWS facilities to w w become a rapidly growing segment of the telecommunications industry; and o: o N WHEREAS, Congress in the Act has preempted the City from consideration of the public health o 1— impact from radiation emitted by PWS facilities to the extent that they comply with applicable FCC = w' regulations regarding the same; and !' u' o. wz UN 0 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the unregulated and under regulated development of PWS facilities within the City could create significant noise, visual, land use, and other impacts within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission received substantial written and oral testimony related to the noise impacts of existing PWS facilities within residential areas of the City and the City Council finds that said facilities generate significant adverse noise impacts in existing residential areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the noise✓ levels generated by some PWS facilities may cause nuisance -like impacts on surrounding land uses due to the duration, levels, and type of noise generated by such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that existing noise levels from most types of development permitted within the City are generally low; and WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that maintaining a community characterized by low noise levels associated with development, including development of PWS facilities, is an important objective of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that PWS facilities located in or near residential, commercial and business zones should be regulated to assure that reasonable mitigating measures have been employed to protect the public health (as limited herein), safety, and welfare and to protect property values; and Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 2 of 22 WHEREAS, the City Council has concluded that PWS facilities containing noise - generating equipment, including, but not limited to, mechanical cooling and air conditioning equipment, should be regulated through performance standards designed to reduce their noise impacts; and WHEREAS, many properties within the City enjoy views of mountains, trees, the feathered edge, bodies of water, and other scenery; and WHEREAS, PWS facilities are a commercial use, the siting of which is more appropriately w' encouraged in non - residential zoning districts of the City; and aa JU WHEREAS, the City's comprehensive planning process and associated development regulations are .� o; designed to ensure that property is developed in a planned and thoughtful manner which protects the w i scenic beauty, the tree - scaped feathered edge of the City's hillsides, and absence of visual clutter within the City, preserves property values, and considers the affect of noise generated from PWS w 0 facilities, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the community; and a WHEREAS, maintenance of property values is vital to preserving the City's tax base and revenues; v_� a I— w s z�.: WHEREAS, the unregulated siting of PWS facilities may compromise the scenic beauty and z O. aesthetic character of the community, block views, and reduce property values; and L U � O -. CH- ILI U'. u. o wz U= 0 I- and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that PWS facilities should be reasonably regulated to minimize potential adverse impacts to the sub -areas of the City, to preserve the character of the City, and to promote the goals and policies of the Imagine Bothell ... Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of clear performance standards regulating the visual and noise impacts of PWS facilities will minimize the impacts PWS facilities have on the scenic beauty and aesthetic character of the community and will protect views of the feathered edge and view corridors, and protect property values; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that reducing or limiting the number of structures within the City which exceed the height limit of the underlying zoning district will preserve the character of the community, preserve the views available within the community, and encourage development of a scale compatible and proportionate to the scale of existing development; and WHEREAS, PWS facilities often must exceed the height limit of the underlying zoning district in order to function properly; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide guidance to wireless telecommunication service providers and to balance the implementation of wireless telecommunications services with preservation of the character, views, aesthetics, and minimal noise levels within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of a permit process which provides clear development standards coupled with administrative review of PWS Facility Permit Applications will result in a fast and predictable process for obtaining land use permits associated with the development of all PWS facilities within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written and oral testimony from its wireless consultant which indicated that allowing more intense development of PWS facilities within commercial areas of the Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 3 of 22 City would reduce the demand for locating PWS facilities within residentially zoned areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council received further testimony, both written and oral, from its wireless consultant indicating that wireless service providers would be able to adequately cover residential areas of the City through use of existing street poles within developed streets; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission found that residents of the City are accustomed to seeing utility facilities located within public rights -of -way within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission concluded that allowing development of small PWS facilities within developed streets, including PWS facilities with underground equipment, would result in minimal visual, aesthetic, and noise impacts within residential areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council identified several distinctive commercial and mixed -use areas of the City characterized by higher intensity uses and noise levels where the City Council believes that development of monopole towers would be compatible with existing commercial and certain mixed -use development activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council received oral and written testimony from members of the public and the City's wireless consultant indicating that locating PWS facilities upon existing commercial structures in commercial and mixed -use areas would result in minimal, visual, aesthetic, and noise impacts to the surrounding community if appropriate screening and concealment technologies were incorporated into the design of such PWS facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written and oral testimony indicating that use of certain existing Seattle City Light electric transmission towers for locating PWS facilities would have minimal visual impacts due to the location, size, proportionality, and nature of these structures; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that use of existing Seattle City Light electric transmission tower structures located on certain private rights -of -way would be appropriate locations for siting PWS facilities when coupled with appropriate visual, screening, and noise standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written and oral testimony related to the existing monopole and lattice towers located within the City indicating that some or all of these facilities generate significant noise impacts due to their proximity to residential structures; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written and oral testimony that permitting new PWS facilities on monopoles in commercial areas and additional PWS facilities on existing monopole and lattice towers in residentially zoned areas of the City would reduce the number and size of new PWS facilities needed by the wireless industry in residentially zoned areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that co- location of new PWS facilities upon existing monopole and lattice towers is appropriate with setbacks from residential structures for the purpose of noise and visual impact reduction; and WHEREAS, the City Council received written and oral testimony from the City's noise consultant indicating that PWS facilities can generate substantial noise levels, but that incorporation of sound barriers and appropriate setbacks into the design of such PWS facilities can result in significant reductions in noise levels; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission and City Council have undertaken a deliberative public Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 4 of 22 process to establish policy, standards and procedures related to the siting of PWS facilities; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City, its residents and wireless telecommunications service providers that flexibility exist within the regulations to allow the implementation of the City's policies and regulations; and WHEREAS, many cities have experienced an unexpected increase in requests to locate PWS facilities due to the rapid deployment of such technologies, thus creating a need for new provisions in the zoning code to address the siting of PWS facilities; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1695 imposing a six month moratorium on the siting of wireless facilities within the City and extended said moratorium for an additional six month period through Ordinance No. 1711 on November 11, 1997 and further extended said moratorium through Ordinance No. 1730 on June 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned moratorium expires on June 16, 1998; and WHEREAS, the existing regulations of the City pertaining to wireless telecommunications facilities do not adequately regulate the visual, aesthetic, noise impacts of wireless facilities within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOTHELL, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference as findings and conclusions as though set forth in full herein. Section 2. The Project Permit Application Framework chart set forth within Section 11.04.003(A) of the Bothell Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full herein. Section 3. The Use Table set forth within Section 12.06.180 of the Bothell Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full herein. Section 4. The Use Table set forth within Section 12.06.160 of the Bothell Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full herein. Section 5. Section 11.06.001(A) of the Bothell Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Applications for project permit Type I and Type II actions involving structures 5, 000 square feet or over, Type III, Type IV(A) and Type IV(B) actions and applications for PersonalWireless Service Facility Permits shall not be accepted by the director unless the applicant has requested and attended a pre - application conference. The purposes of the pre - application conference is to acquaint the applicant with the requirements Bothell Municipal Code and project review procedures and for city staff to be acquainted with the proposed application for purposes of determining appropriate review procedures and facilitating the application and project review process. In order to insure that the pre - application conference is meaningful, the applicant must Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 5 of 22 provide all information requested on the form required by the community development director. Section 6. Section 12.06.160(B) is hereby amended by the addition of a second sub - paragraph to read as follows: 2. Temporary PWS facilities as defined in BMC Section 12.11.020, are permitted, solely for the purposes of evaluating the technical feasibility of locating a permanent PWS facility upon the subject property and providing emergency communications services during natural disasters or other emergencies which may threaten the public health, safety and welfare. The placement and use of temporary PWS facilities shall conform to required setbacks as specified in BMC 12.11 and shall be maintained in a good and safe condition, and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local rules and regulations. A temporary PWS facility may be used to evaluate the technical feasibility of a particular site for no more than 3 days. No person may extend the 3 day period through trivial or de minimis movements of a temporary PWS facility. Temporary PWS facilities may be used to provide emergency communications services during natural disasters or other emergencies, as determined by the Director, which may threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Section 7. A new Chapter 12.11 is hereby added to the Bothell Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 12.11 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Sections: 12.11.010 Policies, Purpose and Goals. 12.11.020 Definitions. 12.11.030 General Provisions. 12.11.040 PWS Facilities - Permitted Locations. 12.11.050 PWS Permit Required - Type of Action. 12.11.060 Contents of Complete Application. 12.11.070 Visibility and Dimensional Standards 12.11.080 Collocation - Covenant of Good Faith 12.11.090 Recovery of City Costs. 12.11.100 Maintenance of Facilities. 12.11.110 Modifications 12.11.120 Testing of PWS Facilities Required - Radio Frequency Radiation. 12.11.130 Testing of PWS Facilities Required - Noise Emissions 12.11.140 Security Fencing. 12.11.150 Abandonment of PWS Facilities. 12.11.160 Signs. 12.11.170 Revocation or Termination of Permit. 12.11 180 Notice and Duty to Cure. 12.11.190 Hearing. Section 12.11.010 Policies, Purpose and Goals. A. Provision of Opportunities for Wireless Providers. This Chapter is designed to provide Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM .._....,. '...:. Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 6 of 22 opportunities for PWS facilities consistent with the statutory rights of wireless communication service providers while providing for an orderly development of the City and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the City's residents and property owners. B. Preservation of Character of City. A primary objective of this Chapter is to preserve the existing visual and aesthetic character of the City and its neighborhoods, as well as minimizing the noise impacts generated by PWS facilities. Preserving the visual and aesthetic character of the City includes the protection of views within the City which create a special character for the community, high property values and a tax base sufficient to support the City's operations and limiting the intrusion of noise, visual, and aesthetic impacts associated with commercial and other uses into residential neighborhoods. C. Goals. The goals of this Chapter include: 1. Establishing development regulations consistent with the Imagine Bothell Comprehensive Plan, adopted July 31, 1995; 2. Providing sites for locating PWS facilities; 3. Providing PWS facilities and infrastructure to serve City residents or others when in the City; 4. Encouraging the use of appropriate technology that has minimal adverse environmental, noise, and visual impacts on the City and the prompt removal of abandoned facilities; 5. Encouraging the location of PWS facilities upon existing non - residential structures in commercial zoning districts, in such a manner that the PWS facility is integrated, or appears to be integrated, into the structure; 6. Establishing standards for PWS facilities to mitigate the visual and noise impacts associated with those facilities; 7. Facilitating the use of developed streets for PWS facilities to reduce the impact of PWS facilities upon residential areas of the City where the siting of PWS facilities in residential zoning districts is necessary or desired by a PWS provider; 8. Facilitating the use of existing Seattle City Light high voltage transmission towers in private rights -of -way in commercial and certain mixed use zones for PWS facilities to reduce the need of such facilities within residential areas and to reduce the impacts of PWS facilities upon residential and other properties; and 9. Encouraging the development of personal wireless service facilities on a competitively neutral basis. Section 12.11.020 Definitions. A. Antenna. An antenna is a specific device, the surface of which is used to transmit and/or receive radio - frequency signals, microwave signals, or other signals transmitted to or from other antennas for commercial purposes. B. Antenna Array. An antenna array is two or more devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals, microwave or other signals for commercial communications purposes. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z w UO wi WQ0 LL Q' = d, �w z� �0 z F- 0 Ca co 0— CI E- w uj' —O uiz C°' H =. 0 z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 7 of 22 C. Applicant. An applicant is any person, firm or entity seeking to place a PWS facility within the boundaries of the City. D. Camouflaged. Camouflaged means the use of shape, color and texture to cause an object to appear to become a part of something else, usually a structure, such as a building, wall or roof. Camouflage does not mean "invisible ", but rather "appearing as part or exactly like the structure used as a mount ". W. ce E. City. As used in this Chapter, the term "City" means the City of Bothell, Washington. 6 J U. F. Concealment. Concealment means fully hidden from view. For example, a PWS facility is N o concealed when it is completely hidden or contained within a structure, such as a building, wall or w = J � roof. w 0: G. Developed Street. Developed street means any public right -of -way classified as an alley (in commercial areas only), residential access street, collector street, minor arterial, or principal arterial E Q` and which is partially or fully developed and devoted to transportation use by the public at large. ! a 1- w H. Disguised. Disguised means that a PWS facility is changed to appear to be something other than z what it really is. For example, PWS facilities are sometimes disguised to appear as trees or flagpoles. z o w I. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosure means a structure, shelter, cabinet, box or vault o. designed for and used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary and/or desirable for ;p =. processing wireless communication signals and data, including any provisions for mechanical cooling equipment, air conditioning, ventilation, or auxiliary electric generators. .= v J. FCC. FCC means the Federal Communications Commission. J. U N'. K. Guyed Tower. Guyed tower means a vertical support structure which is usually over 100 feet tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars, and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern around z the tower. L. Height. Height means the vertical distance measured from pre- existing ground level to the highest point on the PWS facility, including, but not limited to the antenna or antenna array. M. Lattice Tower. Lattice tower means a wireless communication support structure that consists of metal crossed strips, bars, or braces, forming a tower which may have three, four, or more sides; N. Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier means any person, firm or entity licensed by the FCC to provide Personal Wireless Services and which is in the business of providing the same. 0. Monopole Tower or Monopole. Monopole means a vertical support structure, consisting of a single vertical metal, concrete or wooden pole, typically round or square, and driven into the ground or attached to a foundation; P. Mount. Mount means any mounting device or bracket which is used to attach an antenna or antenna array to a street pole, building, structure, monopole, or monopole. Q. Panel Antenna. Panel antenna means a directional antenna designed to transmit and/or receive signals in a directional pattern which is less than 360 degrees, typically an arc of approximately 120 degrees; Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM , Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 8 of 22 R. Personal Wireless Services (PWS). Personal Wireless Services, or PWS, means any of the technologies as defined by Section 704(a)(7)(c)(i) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including, Cellular, PCS, Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR), and Paging. S. Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWS). Personal Wireless Service Facilities means any unstaffed facility for the transmission and /or reception of personal wireless services. T. Street Pole. Street pole means telephone, electric, or cable television poles located in a developed street. U. Temporary PWS Facility. Temporary PWS Facility means a non - permanent PWS facility installed on a short-term basis, for the purpose of evaluating the technical feasibility of a particular site for placement of a PWS facility or for providing emergency communications during a natural disaster or other emergencies which may threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Examples of temporary PWS include, but are not limited to, placement of an antenna upon a fully extended bucket truck, crane, or other device capable of reaching the height necessary to evaluate the site for placement of a PWS facility. V. View Corridor. View corridors mean scenic views of natural and built areas and features, including, but not limited to: tree - covered hillsides; the "feathered edge" along ridgelines surrounding the City; views of the built environment which contain significant architectural or historical features; natural features such as lakes, rivers, streams or mountains; an area of landscaping of local or regional significance; or a public art work. W. Whip Antenna(s). Whip antenna(s) means an omni - directional antenna(s) designed to transmit and/or receive signals in a 360 degree pattern; Section 12.11.030 General Provisions. A. The placement or modification of any PWS facility at any location within the City is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. B. PWS facilities shall not be permitted on any building or structure within an area of the City zoned exclusively R1-R15, including the SSHO and MHP overlay zones, except as specified in Section 12.11.040. C. PWS facilities located within a designated critical area, as defined by BMC 14.04.050, shall comply with the requirements of BMC Chapter 14.04. D. Lattice and guyed towers shall not be permitted in any zoning district. Monopoles shall be permitted only as specified in Section 12.11.040. E. No variances or deviations from the provisions of BMC 12.11.040 and 12.11.070 shall be permitted. Section 12.11.040 PWS facilities - Permitted Locations: The following siting standards shall apply to all new PWS facilities: Zone Designation Permitted Uses Visual, Dimensional I Noise Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM ,� '. Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 9 of 22 1 New monopoles not to exceed 110 feet in height, are permitted in the following commercial zones: a. Properties which have all the following zoning classifications as follows CB, OP, LI, and R15 and no others. b. Commercial zones which have the exclusive combination of CB and OP as a zoning classification and which are located in areas lying within 400 feet of the Interstate 405 right -of -way and more than 100 feet east of the SR 527 right -of -way. c. Commercial zones which have the exclusive combination of OP and LI as a zoning classification. Section 12.11.050 PWS Facility Permit Required - Type of Action. A PWS Facility Permit shall be required prior to the construction or installation of each PWS facility other than a temporary PWS facility as defined herein. For the purposes of BMC Chapter 11, PWS Facility Permits shall be designated as Type I project permit applications. BMC Title 11 notwithstanding, all applicants for PWS facilities shall comply with the posting requirements set forth in BMC 11.19.005 and post a notice of application meeting the requirements of BMC 11.06.004(C) upon the subject property. No other public notice shall be required for such permits. Section 12.11.060 Contents of Complete Application. An application for a PWS Facility Permit is complete for the purposes of this Section when it has been determined by the City to contain the information described below in addition to the standard application information required under BMC Title 11, Administration of Development Regulations. The permit fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. A complete application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or modifications may subsequently be made. The City's determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the application occur. A complete application shall contain: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z �w CC 1 00 NO J H w • 0 4a• � w< �a d � w z� 1- 0 Z t- ill uj 0 :Lt. 0 H, ww 1- -. 0 .z =,. 0 z and Equipment Enclosure Standards Standards Exclusive PWS facilities located within a As per BMC As per BMC residential zones developed street are permitted. 12.11.070(A). 8.26.040 and (R1 through R 15, including MHP PWS facilities attached to existing As per BMC WAC 173 -60 -040. and SSHO overlays) monopole and lattice towers are permitted. 12.11.070(F). Commercial zones PWS facilities within developed As per BMC As per BMC (NB,CB, GC, LI, OP), and mixed streets are permitted. 12.11.070(B). 8.26.040 and WAC use zones PWS facilities attached to an existing As per BMC 173 -60 -040. containing R11 -R15 as a non - residential buildings are permitted. 12.11.070(C). As per BMC components PWS facilities attached to existing 12.11.070(E). Seattle City Light high voltage transmission towers are permitted. As per BMC 12.11.070(D). Monopoles are permitted.1 1 New monopoles not to exceed 110 feet in height, are permitted in the following commercial zones: a. Properties which have all the following zoning classifications as follows CB, OP, LI, and R15 and no others. b. Commercial zones which have the exclusive combination of CB and OP as a zoning classification and which are located in areas lying within 400 feet of the Interstate 405 right -of -way and more than 100 feet east of the SR 527 right -of -way. c. Commercial zones which have the exclusive combination of OP and LI as a zoning classification. Section 12.11.050 PWS Facility Permit Required - Type of Action. A PWS Facility Permit shall be required prior to the construction or installation of each PWS facility other than a temporary PWS facility as defined herein. For the purposes of BMC Chapter 11, PWS Facility Permits shall be designated as Type I project permit applications. BMC Title 11 notwithstanding, all applicants for PWS facilities shall comply with the posting requirements set forth in BMC 11.19.005 and post a notice of application meeting the requirements of BMC 11.06.004(C) upon the subject property. No other public notice shall be required for such permits. Section 12.11.060 Contents of Complete Application. An application for a PWS Facility Permit is complete for the purposes of this Section when it has been determined by the City to contain the information described below in addition to the standard application information required under BMC Title 11, Administration of Development Regulations. The permit fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council. A complete application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or modifications may subsequently be made. The City's determination of completeness shall not preclude the City from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the application occur. A complete application shall contain: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z �w CC 1 00 NO J H w • 0 4a• � w< �a d � w z� 1- 0 Z t- ill uj 0 :Lt. 0 H, ww 1- -. 0 .z =,. 0 z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 10 of 22 A. A complete application form, permit fee, and attachments signed and dated by the owner /agent. The application shall be on a standardized form approved by the Director and provided to the applicant by the Department of Public Works and Community Development; B. The name, address, phone number and signature of the applicant or authorized representative; C. A complete legal description of the subject property; ~Z. D. Locational maps, including: w QQom. JV• 1. A city -wide map showing the location of the proposed PWS facility and the location of any co o existing and known or planned future PWS facilities of the licensed carrier within the City; w J � 2. A map depicting the area immediately around the proposed site , showing the zoning u O. designation of the subject property and of all adjacent properties; .� g u. E. Site plans, drawn to scale, depicting the proposed and existing improvements on the property. The site plans shall include drawings which include a plan view and elevations, and contain the following w information: _ z 1- O. z� 1. Dimensions and shape of the lot, and street names; D, p 2. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings and structures, including o �: setbacks; w ZU 3. Circulation. Adjacent street improvements, curb cut locations for ingress and egress, and u. parking layout in accordance with Chapter 12.16 BMC. Provided, however, that the . z requirements of BMC Section 12.16.090, pedestrian circulation and access, shall not apply to c� PWS facilities. 01- 4. existing and proposed landscaping, in accordance with this Chapter, including the location of significant trees with a caliper diameter exceeding eight inches as measured four feet above grade; 5. Existing watercourses, critical areas, utility lines, easements, deed restrictions,), rockeries, and other built or natural features restricting use of the subject property; 6. Preliminary grading plan depicting proposed and existing grades at five -foot contours if grading is proposed in conjunction with the proposed PWS facility; and 7. Storm drainage, sidewalks, and exterior lighting. 8. Sight lines for the proposed PWS facility. Said sight lines shall graphically depict the level of visibility of the PWS facility as viewed from adjacent public rights -of -way. At least one sight line shall be provided depicting the site from the north, south, east and west, or as determined by the Director. 9. Elevations for all proposed improvements on the site; F. Color photographs of the existing site, and computer - generated color photographs depicting the Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 11 of 22 proposed PWS facility incorporated into the site (photosimulations, or photosims). At least one color photograph and one color photosim shall be provided depicting the site from the north, south, east and west, or as determined by the Director. G. Six copies of all plans and photographs. All oversized plans shall be folded to eight and one -half by eleven inches. One paper reduction of each oversized plan to eleven by seventeen inches shall also be provided; z ce H. A description of the support structure or building upon which the PWS facility is proposed to be located, and the technical reasons for the design and configuration of the PWS facility; JU UO` I. A statement of whether excess space will be incorporated into the design and configuration of the co W structure or building, whether excess space will remain after installation of the proposed PWS LIJ facility, and whether such excess space shall be leased; u_ w 0. J. Information necessary to determine the intended service area of the PWS facility; 2 u_? K. Design information., including equipment brochures, color and material boards, and dimensional i d. information; F- _ z� L. Information necessary to demonstrate the applicant's compliance with FCC and FAA rules, z 0 regulations and requirements, including such information as may be submitted to the FCC to ? Q demonstrate compliance with FCC regulations related to radio frequency emissions from the proposed PWS facility; o - M. Necessary information for review of environmental impacts, in accordance with BMC Title 14, v Environment; g N. Application fee and environmental trust fee (if subject to SEPA review). v �. O. Applications found to contain material errors shall not be deemed complete until such errors are z corrected; P. A completed right -of -way placement permit application under BMC Chapter 17.24 if the PWS facility is to be located within a public right -of -way. Q. The Director may waive the specific submittal requirements set forth in BMC 12.11.060(E)(3 -5) when determined to be unnecessary for review of the application. Section 12.11.070 Visibility and Dimensional Standards. All PWS facilities locating within the City of Bothell shall comply with the following standards: A. Street Pole Mounted PWS Facilities (Exclusively Residential Zones Including SSHO and MHP Overlay Zones). 1. Ground mounted equipment shall be located as close as possible to the intersection of the public right -of -way boundary and the side property line of the abutting property, but in no case shall any portion of said equipment be located more than six feet from either side of said intersection. 2. Antennas. Antennas shall be mounted on street poles. Only one PWS facility shall be Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 12 of 22 permitted on any street pole. Antennas shall be equal to or less than six feet in height, including the mount, if any. Combined surface area of all antennas shall not exceed a total of more than 580 square inches. Antennas shall be either fully concealed within the street pole or camouflaged to appear to be an integrated part of the street pole. Antennas not flush mounted on the side of the street pole shall be centered on the top of the street pole to which they are mounted and camouflaged or disguised. In the event that a utility located upon the street pole requires vertical separation between its utility facilities and the antenna(s) so mounted, the antenna may be raised by a mount to accommodate the separation requirement to an elevation not exceeding an additional 15 feet or the required separation, whichever is less. Any such mount shall not be greater in diameter than the existing street pole and shall be designed to blend into the colors and textures of the existing street pole. Existing street poles may be replaced with a new street pole of the same height, dimensions and appearance as the existing street pole. In the event that a utility located upon the street pole requires vertical separation between its utility facilities and the antennas so mounted, the antenna may be raised by a mount to accommodate the separation requirement to an elevation not exceeding an additional 15 feet or the required separation, whichever is less. Antenna(s) located upon the new street pole shall meet the standards for mounting an antenna to an existing street pole, as set forth above. 3. Equipment Enclosures. a. Dimensions. i. Above ground equipment enclosures shall not be greater than six cubic feet in volume. No single dimension shall exceed three feet. ii. Below ground equipment enclosures shall not be greater than six cubic feet in volume. An underground equipment enclosure may be connected to an above ground equipment enclosure with a combined total volume of no greater than 12 cubic feet. b. Appearance. The equipment enclosure shall be constructed so as to minimize its visual impact. Evergreen landscape plantings shall be installed and maintained which completely obscures visibility of the equipment enclosure from the developed street and adjacent properties. 4. Horizontal Separation. For PWS facilities located within developed streets, there shall be a minimum horizontal separation of 300 feet between the PWS facilities of a single licensed carrier and a minimum horizontal separation of 100 feet between the PWS facilities of any other licensed carrier. B. Street Pole Mounted PWS Facilities (Commercial Zones). 1. Antennas. Antennas or antenna arrays shall be no greater in size than six feet measured vertically,.including the mount, and 16 inches in diameter measured horizontally. Antennas shall be mounted on street poles. Only one PWS facility shall be permitted on any street pole. Antennas shall be either fully concealed within the street pole or camouflaged to appear to be an integrated part of the street pole. Antennas not flush mounted on the side of the street pole Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM �� .� <. •. Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 13 of 22 shall be centered on the top of the street pole to which they are mounted and camouflaged or disguised. In the event that a utility located upon the street pole requires vertical separation between its utility facilities and the antennas so mounted, the antenna may be raised by a mount to accommodate the separation requirement to an elevation not exceeding an additional 15 feet or the required separation, whichever is less. Any such mount shall not be greater in diameter than the existing street pole and shall be designed to blend into the colors and textures of the existing street pole. Existing street poles may be replaced with a new street pole of the same height, dimensions and appearance as the existing street pole. In the event that a utility located upon the street pole requires vertical separation between its utility facilities and the antennas so mounted, the antenna may be raised by a mount to accommodate the separation requirement to an elevation not exceeding an additional 15 feet or the required separation, whichever is less. Antenna(s) located upon the new street pole shall meet the standards for mounting an antenna to an existing street pole, as set forth above. 2. Equipment Enclosures Placed in Developed Streets. Equipment meeting the standards set forth below may be located in developed streets. a. Dimensions. i. Above ground equipment enclosures shall not be greater than six cubic feet in volume. No single dimension shall exceed three feet. ii. Below ground equipment enclosures shall not be greater than six cubic feet in volume. An underground equipment enclosure may be connected to an above ground equipment enclosure with a combined total volume of no greater than 12 cubic feet. b. Appearance. The equipment enclosure shall be constructed so as to minimize its visual impact. Evergreen landscape plantings shall be installed and maintained which completely obscures visibility of the equipment enclosure from the developed street and adjacent properties. 3. Above Ground Equipment - Not Located Within Public Rights -of -Way. a. Appearance. Ground mounted equipment enclosures shall be of the smallest size necessary and painted a natural, non - reflective color so as to blend in with the surroundings. Any new building or structure constructed for housing equipment, other than self - contained equipment cabinets, shall be designed and constructed to be architecturally compatible with buildings in the immediate vicinity and to blend into the surroundings. The exterior of all such buildings or structures shall be finished with masonry or siding and shall have a peaked roof. Buildings or structures with non - masonry exterior finishing shall be painted a natural, non- reflective color. Pre - fabricated concrete and metal structures shall not be permitted unless treated with a facade meeting the requirements of this paragraph. b. Screening and Noise Standards. Unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed PWS facility will generate no increased sound levels, as measured at the property line of the subject property at any time of day or night, ground - mounted equipment cabinets and Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 14 of 22 equipment enclosures shall be surrounded with a solid masonry or concrete wall on all four sides, comprised of at least four inches of solid masonry or concrete components. Said wall shall be located within five feet of any noise source associated with the equipment enclosure and shall have a height that is at least three feet above the highest point of the noise source. Gates or doors providing access to areas within said wall shall be constructed of a solid material and shall not be located on the wall immediately adjacent to the noise source. Any such noise source shall be oriented to minimize impacts on neighboring residential properties. w: re c. Landscaping. Ground mounted equipment enclosures which are not required to be 6 surrounded by a masonry or concrete wall shall be surrounded with a six foot tall wood tJi p fence and a five -foot wide landscape bed (located in front of the fence) containing Type II co w landscape materials, as specified in BMC 12.18.040. Otherwise, ground mounted equipment enclosures shall be surrounded by a 10- foot -wide landscape bed (located in w• front of the masonry or concrete wall of such structure) containing Type I landscape 2 materials, as specified in BMC 12.18.040. The requirements of this subsection may be 4a varied by the Director on a case -by -case basis when doing so would result in a greater v_ degree of concealment of an equipment enclosure. BMC Chapter 12.18 notwithstanding, = w' the landscaping provisions of this subsection shall not be fullfilled through use of berms or Z fencing. O w ~' d. Setbacks. Equipment enclosures shall be constructed with a setback of at least 100 feet 2 from any residential structure and 200 feet from any exclusively residentially zoned v m O property. o W 4. Horizontal Separation. For PWS facilities located within developed streets, there shall be a minimum horizontal separation of 300 feet between the PWS facilities of a single licensed z carrier and a minimum horizontal separation of 100 feet between the PWS facilities of any v other licensed carrier. 1 z C. Attached PWS Facilities (Commercial Zones). 1. Antennas. Roof mounted antennas shall not exceed 15 feet above the highest portion of the building, including the mount. Roof mounted antennas shall be placed to the center of the roof where possible, and shall either be completely concealed or be fully camouflaged into the building design. This may include the construction of false equipment penthouses on the roofs of buildings or some other concealment type structure, the design of which is approved by the Director. When a roof mount installation is performed, the antennas, mounting brackets and any concealment structures shall be exempt from the height limit of the underlying zone to the extent that the total height of such facilities do not increase the overall building height by 20 feet. Side - mounted antennas shall be mounted flush on the exterior walls of the building, not extend above the building parapet or other roof - mounted structure, and shall either be completely concealed or fully camouflaged into the building design. Whip antennas shall be painted a neutral color, or be fully concealed, at the discretion of the Director. In determining whether to require concealment of whip antennas, the Director shall consider whether the site line diagrams, site plans, and photosimulations submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 15 of 22 whip antennas will not be visible from the public rights -of -way adjacent to the subject property. 2. Equipment Enclosures. Equipment enclosures shall be fully concealed within the interior of the building itself or designed in accordance with the following standards: a. Rooftops. Equipment enclosures located on the roof of a building shall be placed to the center of the roof where possible and shall either be completely concealed or fully camouflaged into the building with architecturally compatible design. b. Ground Mounted. i. Appearance. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(a). ii. Screening and Noise Standards. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(b). iii. Landscaping. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(c). iv. Setbacks. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(d). c. Underground. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(5). D. New Monopole Towers (Commercial and Mixed Use Zones). 1. Antennas. Panel and omni - directional antennas shall be no greater in height than six feet. The antenna array and mount, if any, shall extend no further from the center line of the pole than 15 feet measured horizontally. Antennas shall be painted a natural, non - reflective color matching the monopole that blends into the natural and built surroundings where it is located. 2. Support Structure. Monopoles shall be located in such a manner that a portion of the tower is screened by existing buildings or trees. Also, the pole shall be painted a natural non - reflective color to blend into the surroundings. The height of the monopole shall be no greater than 110 feet. All new monopoles towers shall be screened through the planting of at least 5 evergreen trees of a minimum height of 20 feet tall and of a species approved by the Director. Said trees shall be spaced around the pole in such a manner that the maximum screening effect is achieved. Said trees shall be planted within 30 feet of the monopole and maintained in a healthy condition at all times. Existing trees within 30 feet of the monopole may be used to fulfill this screening requirement. In the event that any such tree shall become diseased or suffer other mortality, it shall be replaced with a tree meeting the requirements of this Subsection. 3. Equipment Enclosures a. Appearance. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(a). b. Screening and Noise Standards. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(b). c. Landscaping. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(c). 4. Setbacks. Monopole support structures and equipment enclosures shall be constructed with a setback of at least 100 feet from any residential structure and 200 feet from any exclusively Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z ~w J 0 O. CO 0 W I w O. ga =• a w z� I— o; w w' UO in 0— 0 H' ww O: WZ UD O z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 16 of 22 residentially zoned property, including the SSHO and MHP overlay zones. E. Seattle City Light Electric Transmission Towers Outside Developed Streets (Commercial Zones). 1. Antennas. Panel and omni - directional antennas shall be no greater in height than six feet. The antenna array and mount, if any, shall extend no further from the center line of the tower than 15 feet measured horizontally. Antennas shall be painted a color matching the tower so as to blend into the existing tower. 2. Equipment Enclosures a. Appearance. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(a). b. Screening and Noise Standards. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(b). c. Landscaping. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(c). 3. Setbacks. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(d). F. Co- Location on Existing Monopoles and Lattice Towers (Residential Zones). 1. Antennas. Panel and omni - directional antennas shall be no greater in height than six feet. On monopole towers, the antenna array and mount, if any, shall extend no further from the center line of an existing monopole than 15 feet measured horizontally. On lattice towers, the antennas shall extend no further than 10 feet, measured horizontally, from the portion of the lattice tower to which the antennas are mounted. Existing monopole and lattice towers, and any additional equipment co- located thereon shall be painted a natural, non - reflective color that blends into the monopole towers, the antenna array and mount, if any 2. Support Structure. All monopole and lattice towers upon which co- location is permitted shall be screened through the planting of at least 5 evergreen trees of a minimum height of 20 feet tall and of a species approved by the Director. Existing trees of equal or greater height within 30 feet of the monopole may be used to fulfill this requirement. Said trees shall be spaced around the pole in such a manner that the maximum screening effect is achieved. Said trees shall be planted within 30 feet of the monopole and maintained in a healthy condition at all times. In the event that any such tree shall become diseased or suffer other mortality, it shall be replaced with a tree meeting the requirements of this Subsection. 3. Equipment Enclosures a. Appearance. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(a). b. Screening and Noise Standards. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(b). c. Landscaping. See BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(c). 4. Setbacks. New equipment enclosures associated with new PWS facilities co- located upon existing monopoles or lattice towers shall be placed no closer to existing residential uses than any existing equipment enclosure on the subject property. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM '4 Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 17 of 22 G. Existing Monopole and Lattice Towers. Any monopole or lattice tower existing within the City as of the effective date of this Chapter shall comply with the standards set forth in BMC 12.11.070(B)(3)(b) & (c) within twelve months of the effective date of this Chapter. Co- location on existing monopoles and lattice towers shall be permitted. However, the height of said towers shall not be increased. Section 12.11.080 Co- location - Covenant of Good Faith. A. All new monopole towers, and any pre- existing monopole or lattice towers, owned by a licensed carrier, upon which this Chapter permits co- location of additional PWS facilities, shall be made available for use by the owner or initial user thereof, together with as many other licensed carriers as can be technically co- located thereon. However, nothing in this Chapter shall prevent such licensed carrier from charging a reasonable fee for the collocation of additional PWS facilities upon said tower which does not exceed the fair market value for the space occupied. B. All licensed carriers shall cooperate with each other in co- locating additional PWS facilities upon such towers. All licensed carriers shall exercise good faith in co- locating with other licensed carriers and in the sharing of towers, including the sharing of technical information to evaluate the feasibility of collocation. In the event that a dispute arises as to whether a licensed carrier has exercised good faith in allowing other licensed carriers to collocate upon its tower, the City may require a third party technical study to evaluate the feasibility of collocation at the expense of either or both licensed carriers. This covenant of good faith and fair dealing shall be a condition of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter for a new monopole tower. C. Any licensed carrier which allows co- location upon a tower permitted pursuant to this Chapter may condition said collocation to assure that the co- located PWS facility does not cause electronic or radio - frequency interference with its existing PWS facility. In the event that the co- located licensed carrier is unable to remedy the interference, the owner of the tower shall be relieved of its obligation to allow co- location of the interfering PWS facility upon its structure. Section 12.11.090 Recovery of City Costs. A. Each permit granted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain a condition which requires the permittee to reimburse the City for all direct and indirect expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the modification, amendment, or transfer of the permit. B. Each permittee shall be required to reimburse the City for all direct and indirect expenses not otherwise covered by permit application fees reasonably incurred while reviewing, inspecting, and supervising the construction, installation, and /or maintenance of a PWS facility authorized by a permit granted pursuant to this Chapter. C. Costs incurred by the City in response to any emergency at the PWS facility shall be included within the reimbursable expenses set forth in this Section. Section 12.11.100 Maintenance of Facilities. Each permittee shall maintain its PWS facility in a good and safe condition and to preserve its original appearance and concealment, disguise, or camouflage elements incorporated into the design at the time of approval and in a manner which complies with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, such items as painting, repair of equipment, and maintenance of landscaping. Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 18 of 22 Section 12.11.110 Modification. Any proposed change or addition to any PWS facility shall require the issuance of a new PWS Facility permit, pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a PWS facility, nor to the replacement of any portion of the PWS facility with identical equipment. Section 12.11.120 Testing of PWS Facilities Required - Radio Frequency Radiation. A. All licensed carriers shall conduct tests necessary to demonstrate compliance with all applicable FCC regulations regarding the radio - frequency emissions of the PWS facility. All such tests shall be performed by or under the supervision of radio frequency engineer competent to perform such tests and interpret the data gathered. B. All licensed carriers shall submit a report, certified by a radio frequency engineer, setting forth the following: 1. Measurement of existing or ambient radio frequency radiation (RFR); 2. Existing RFR plus proposed PWS facility: maximum estimate of RFR from the proposed PWS facility plus existing ambient RFR; 3. Existing RFR plus proposed PWS facility plus cumulative: maximum estimate of RFR from the proposed PWS facility plus the maximum estimate of RFR from the total addition of co- located PWS facilities, if any, plus the existing ambient RFR; 4. Certification, signed by a radio frequency engineer, stating that the RFR measurements are accurate and meet FCC guidelines. C. Initial field measurements shall be performed prior to placing the PWS into service and the initial compliance report shall be submitted within fourteen (14) days of the PWS becoming fully operational. D. Compliance reports shall be required on an annual basis thereafter. Annual compliance reports shall be submitted by January 1st of each calendar year. Provided, however, that a PWS facility installed and initially tested within nine months prior to January 1st shall not be required to submit an annual compliance report until the following January 1st. E. The City may retain a technical expert in the field of radio frequency engineering to verify the RFR measurements and certification. The cost of such a technical expert shall be borne by the licensed carrier or applicant. F. If at any time the radio - frequency emission tests show that the PWS facility exceeds any of the standards established by the FCC, the licensed carrier shall immediately discontinue use of the PWS facility and notify the City. Use of the PWS facility may not resume until the licensed carrier demonstrates that corrections have been completed which reduce the radio - frequency emissions to levels permitted by the FCC. Section 12.11.130 Testing of PWS Facilities Required - Noise Emissions. A. Each licensed carrier shall conduct tests necessary to demonstrate compliance with all applicable local regulations regarding the noise emissions of the PWS facility. All such tests shall be performed Thursday, September 10, 1998 -� " 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 19 of 22 by or under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant competent to perform such tests and interpret the data gathered. B. All licensed carriers shall submit a report, certified a qualified acoustical consultant, setting forth the observed noise levels at the property line of the property upon which the PWS facility is located. The report shall account for background noise and other noise sources and demonstrate the noise levels emitted by the PWS facility, including any air conditioning or ventilation equipment contained therein. C. Compliance reports shall be required on an annual basis and shall be submitted by January 1st of ce 2 each calendar year, provided, however, that a PWS facility installed and initially tested within nine v v0 months prior to January 1st shall not be required to submit an annual compliance report until the N following January 1st. w = D. The City may retain a technical expert in the environmental noise measurement to verify the noise w LL O measurements and certification. The cost of such a technical expert shall be borne by the licensed 2 carrier. g E. This Section shall not apply to any PWS facility that does not contain air conditioning equipment. w Section 12.11. 140 Security. All PWS facilities shall be protected from unauthorized through appropriate means approved by the Director on a case -by -case basis consistent with the purpose of w protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. 2 U Section 12.11.150 Abandonment of PWS Facilities. O 1- w w` A. The owner or operator of all PWS facilities shall, on an annual basis, submit a written report to v the. City, signed under penalty of perjury, which demonstrates whether or not there has been a LI O cessation in use of the PWS facility for a period of 3 months during the prior year. Annualw.' N. compliance reports shall be submitted by January 1st of each calendar year. Provided, however, that r a PWS facility permitted and installed within nine months prior to January 1st shall not be required z to submit an annual compliance report until the following January 1st. B. Any PWS facility that has had no antenna mounted upon it for a period of 6 months, or if the antenna mounted thereon are not operated for a period of 3 months, shall be considered abandoned, and the owner thereof shall remove the PWS facility within 90 days after receipt of a notice from the City to do so. C. In the event that more than one wireless communication service provider is using the antenna support structure, the antenna support structure shall not be considered abandoned until all such users cease using the structure as provided in this Section. D. If a PWS facility and associated equipment are not removed within 90 days after receipt of a notice from the City requiring said removal, the City may seek and obtain a court order directing such removal and imposing a lien upon the real property upon which such PWS facility is situated in an amount equal to the cost of removal. Section 12.11.160 Signs. No permittee shall place or allow to be placed signs, symbols, flags, or banners attached to, painted, or inscribed upon any PWS facility. A permittee may place not more than one sign measuring 12 by 12 inches upon or near the PWS facility which: (1) states that trespassers will be prosecuted (if applicable); (2) lists the names and telephone numbers of persons to Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 20 of 22 be contacted in the event of an emergency; (3) identifies the permittee or person responsible for operating the PWS facility; and /or, (4) contains information necessary and convenient for the permittee or person operating the PWS facility to identify the PWS facility. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the placement of safety or warning signs upon any portion of the PWS facility which are required by law or which are designed to apprise emergency response personnel and the employees and agents of PWS providers of particular hazards associated with equipment located upon the PWS facility. Section 12.11. 170 Revocation or Termination of Permit. In addition to the remedies and process set forth in BMC Chapter 11.20, a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter may be revoked for the following reasons: A. Construction, and /or maintenance operation of a PWS facility at an unauthorized location; B. Construction or operation of a PWS facility in violation of any of the terms and conditions of this Chapter or the conditions attached to the permit; C. Misrepresentation or lack of candor by or on behalf of an applicant, permittee, or wireless communications service provider in any application or written or oral statement upon which the City substantially relies in making the decision to grant, review or amend any permit pursuant to this Chapter; D. Abandonment of a PWS facility as set forth in this Chapter; E. Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this Chapter; or F. Failure to promptly cure a violation of the terms or conditions of the permit. Section 12.11. 180 Notice and Duty to Cure. In the event that the City believes that grounds exist for revocation of a permit, the permittee shall be given written notice of the apparent violation or noncompliance, providing a short and concise statement of the nature and general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and providing the permittee a reasonable period of time not exceeding 30 calendar days to furnish evidence: A. That corrective action has remedied the violation or noncompliance; B. That rebuts the alleged violation or noncompliance; and/or C. That it would be in the public interest to impose some penalty or sanction less than revocation. Section 12.11. 190 Hearing. A. In the event that a permittee fails to provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to the City as provided in BMC Section 12.11.180, the City shall refer the apparent violation or non - compliance to the hearing body. The hearing body shall provide the permittee with notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the matter and a public hearing shall be conducted. B. Within ten calendar days of completion of the hearing, the hearing body shall issue a written decision revoking the PWS permit or imposing such lesser sanctions as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances. C. In making its decision, the hearing body shall apply the following factors: Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM z mow` u w LAI 6 � .00 0 WI w 0: gQ a w �- _ z� Z i-. Ill La o (0: 0 t- w w; 0: u-0 z. 0 z Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 21 of 22 1. Whether the misconduct was egregious; 2. Whether substantial harm resulted; 3. Whether the violation was intentional; 4. Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other requirements; Q , 5. Whether there is a history of overall compliance; and w re 6. Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted or cured. v O Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance should be held to ' w w be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, p clause, or phrase of this ordinance. 2Q Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by the City Council, and prior to expiration of the z existing moratorium on application for PWS facilities. This Ordinance is not subject to a E- O referendum. Without an immediate effective date, applications received for PWS facilities during the w w next five days would be processed under the City's existing Building and Zoning Codes and said 0 codes do not adequately protect adjacent properties and citizens of the City from the visual, aesthetic, p CP- and noise impacts associated with PWS facilities. Therefore, this Ordinance must take effect uj w. immediately to prevent any PWS facility applications from vesting without necessary regulation and = v; to preserve the City's ability to process applications under the development regulations adopted herein. Publication requirements may be satisfied by publication of an approved summary hereof, tii z consisting of the title. U i O ~; PASSED by the Council of the City of Bothell this 16th day of June, 1998. CITY OF BOTHELL MAYOR DEBBIE TREEN ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED CITY CLERK, JOANNE TRUDEL APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: GREG A. RUBSTELLO FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 6/15/98 PUBLISHED: 6/24/98 Thursday, September 10, 1998 11:55 AM ' ,� Bothell, WA Ordinance No. 1733 Page 22 of 22 EFFECTIVE DATE: 6/16/98 ORDINANCE NO. 1733 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 15/16. 1998 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1733 On June 16, 1998, the City Council of the City of Bothell, Washington, approved Ordinance No. 1733, the main points of which are summarized by its title as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOTHELL, WASHINGTON, RELATING TOPERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES, AMENDING SECTIONS 11.04.003,11.06.001(A), 12.06.160(B) AND 12.06.180 OF THE BOTHELL MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12.11 TO THE BOTHELL MUNICIPAL CODE, DECLARINGAN EMERGENCY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of June 15/16, 1998. CITY CLERK, JOANNE TRUDEL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 6/15/98 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 15/16. 1998 PUBLISHED: 6/24/98 EFFECTIVE DATE: 6/16/98 ORDINANCE NO. 1733 ]Comments] [Help] ,[Home] [Site Search] [Site Index] [What's New] Thursday, September 10, 1998 ,.•• 11:55 AM z ulD.. U O; cn w w= J N O: w g co 11.1: Z 1.-. Z ▪ o'. w w. 2 �: U� O N; ,w w. X 0i O ~' City Council Mayor John Wiltse Mayor pro tempore Charlie Harris Kathleen Quong- Vermeire Claire Drosdick Stuart Creighton John Rankin • Guy Spencer City of Normandy Park 801 SW 174th Street, Normandy Park, Washington 98166 -3679 Telephone (206) 248 -7603 Facsimile (206) 439 -8674 Police Department Telephone (206) 248 -7600 Facsimile (206) 246 -9732 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NORMANDY PARK CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 801 SW 174TH STREET FEBRUARY 19, 1998 7:30 PM I CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND CHAIR PRO -TEM V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .January 15, 1998 • VI. CORRESPONDENCE VII. PUBLIC COMMENT VIII. OLD BUSINESS: AGENDA ra, City Manager Merlin G. MacReynold Director of Public Safety Rick Kieffer City Clerk - Treasurer Brenda J. Rolph Public Works Ops Manager Karl Franta City Planner Mary Davis. Recreation Coordinator Karen McAllister- Wagner 1. Public hearing on the draft ordinance regarding telecommunications facilities land use regulations. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public hearing regarding Title 10 Deviation Application from Lynn and Marla Walters, to allow development of a single family lot without providing direct prblic street access. Location: Hidden Valley, 10th Place SW. Tax Parcel No. 062204- 9030 -09. X. ADJOURNMENT • z • 2 w` tQQY D: O 0 CD • W = J F—; CO w; w o. g a: 2�. w' r I-0. w w. • -- ,0!— w - O wz • 0 • z Kreines & Kreines, Inc. FAX COVER SHEET Friday, February 06, 1998 06:55:05 PM To: Tukwila Planning Dept Fax #: 1 206 431 3665 From: Ted Kreines, President, AICP Fax #: 415- 435 -1522 Voice: 415- 435 -9214 Fax: 4 pages and a cover page. '0 0; 'CO • W=. . LL... 'WoI 'co (3i i- Z ~; I o, zI :11J mil .N;; Wi. LL Z U.1 N O .1 .. ;Z Friday, February 06, 1998 06:55:05 PM Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Page 1 of 4 A Newsletter Reporting to Local Government about the Changing Rate of Personal Wireless Service Facility Applications Vol. 3, No. 2, February 1998 PlanWireless (formerly Wireless Update) You Call This a Tower? First of all, it's hardly a "tower," is it? It's only 30 feet tall and it was designed by a cellular carrier. PlanWireless believes that it is the future of municipal deployment and your city or county can ask for it now ... instead of those huge monopoles and lattice towers many carriers say they absolutely must deploy to make their system work. PlanWireless believes the same job can be done by a few small masts. Second, it may be a bit premature for some carriers to choose a height this low. After all, they want to be up high, "above the trees," and 30 feet is definitely below many trees. But, PlanWireless knows they can operate within and beneath the trees. And, eventually, this is what the applicants for all personal wireless service facilities will apply for, so the time to begin planning for them is now. Third, they don't have to be this ugly. They can be more handsome than most decorous street lights, and the boxes can be placed underground. Do the carriers like to pay for these improvements? No, because they are expensive. (Did the first developers like to dedicate open space? Same answer.) Can your jurisdiction show the carriers how they are better off having several short mounts than one or two controversial "towers "? Kreines & Kreines, Inc. thinks so. Fourth, your city or county can't have homeowners fighting over whose lawn (or backyard) these will go on, because they will be everywhere. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. is telling its clients to put them in the right -of -way and to start requiring them there now. Can a jurisdiction do this? Kreines & Kreines, Inc. thinks so. What if the carrier says: "We can't do that." Kreines & Kreines, Inc. advises its clients to allow carriers who insist on locating on private property to do so, but at a price. A local government should always leave the carrier some alternatives, but they don't have to be simple procedures and their facilities don't have to be allowed "by right" Personal wireless service facilities should not be allowed by right, but rather encouraged under certain conditions. Eventually, these short poles must be in residential areas in order to deploy a developing system. The "by right" approach that keeps "towers" out of residential zoning districts won't work as the Simulation of an actual submittal for a 30 -foot mast next to a right - of -way in suburban Chicago personal wireless service facilities become shorter and more ubiquitous, so it is incumbent on local government to determine how to get personal wireless service facilities low and how to get them into the right -of- way ... as soon as possible. Is there a revenue potential here for cities and counties? Kreines & Kreines, Inc. thinks so. HeIIo, Industry, HeIIo Ted Kreines, AICP, publisher of PlanWireless, will be on a panel at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) Wireless '98 Convention & Exposition. CTIA calls the Convention, to be held in Atlanta on February 23 to 25, 1998, "the most respected, best attended, highest ranked, largest, and most imitated convention and exposition in the Wireless Industry!" The title of the panel is "The Antenna Summit Bringing Carriers and Communities into Dialog." Kreines & Kreines, Inc. is excited, and so should you be, because this may be the first time someone from the "other side" has been given a chance to speak at an industry convention. If you have any issues you think should be raised during this panel, let PlanWireless know them as soon as possible. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. sees this panel as an opportunity to sit at a table where words such as "antenna siting," "towers" and "preemption" are tossed around without any attempt to define them. Perhaps Ted Kreines can introduce such concepts as "wireless planning," "short poles and masts" and "public /private partnership" into the dialogue. And, yes, we can define our terms. More on Rock Grundman et al v. 3600 Communications ... It's Not Just About RFR PlanWireless noted in the January 1998 issue that this lawsuit had been "deferred" to the FCC by the 8th Judicial District Court in Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435 -9214 phone and (415) 435 -1522 fax e -mail: wireless.update@worldnetatLnet - web site: http : //www.infinitefaculty. .com/planwireless Friday, February 06, 1998 06:55:05 PM Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Page 2 of 4 Texas. Mr. Grundman has provided comments to the FCC, where he notes: The 360° petition on its face appears to address the narrow parochial concern of the siting of one tower. In fact, it is part of an industry attempt to broaden the very limited federal preemption of local zoning regulation to eliminate the "nuisance" of common law suits. 360° puts its petition in line with another industry wide petition to expand federal exemption. So why is the FCC making a federal case out of a local nuisance lawsuit based on common law? A possible answer was provided by John Pestle, a telecommunications attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who, though not a part to Grundman, thinks that the wireless industry believes any time that a municipal issue of radio frequency radiation (RFR) is raised, it jeopardizes the entire action because the industry believes that only the FCC can deal with the RFR issue. Mr. Grundman supports Mr. Pestle's theory, as follows: • No one wants to impede the buildout of the cellular and personal communications industries. It should be done in an orderly fashion, with forethought. The laws in place are adequate to accomplish this without the need to expand federal preemption to cover common law suits, but the right to bring an action at common law should be preserved to provide a remedy where there is unthinking or ill- considered action and injury can be demonstrated. • It is not the intention of respondents to contest the adequacy of the Commission's RF emissions regulations to protect human health and. safety. That is being done in three separate actions in appellate courts, including one brought by the Communications Workers of America. • 360° Communications calls the Commission's attention to the fact that wireless telecommunications service providers are having "difficulty obtaining access to sites for their transmission towers" and reminds the Commission of the "delays and difficulties inherent in the state and local zoning process." We, in turn, would ask the Commission to be cognizant of the fact that there is no state or local zoning process involved in this matter, only common law issues of nuisance and negligence in which we allege 360° was at fault in not using due diligence in siting the tower and at fault in attempting to erect a nuisance with a number of damaging effects, only some of which are engendered by concerns over exposure to long -term, low- level, microwave radiation. PlanWireless would like the message to cities and counties to be dear: when preparing findings of fact (and pointing to substantial evidence), it may be advisable not to mention RFR. Any use of RFR in the argument to deny an application for a personal wireless service facility may be viewed by the wireless industry as grounds for preemption by the FCC, even though there are several other compelling arguments for denial. For the record: Kreines & Kreines, Inc. can show local government how to monitor for FCC compliance after a personal wireless service facility is approved. John Brown's Body Aside, Just How Important is Harpers Ferry? The January 1998 issue of PlanWireless mentioned that a milestone of sorts was passed when the FCC forced US Cellular to consider the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by filing an Environmental Assessment on a proposed personal wireless service facility near a Civil War battlefield. To hear a trade journal tell it, one gets the impression that this is about "aesthetics" and politics: "When you go up against Civil War buffs ... there will be no surrender." (RCR, 1/19/98). But PlanWireless thinks it's about process and following the law. Consider these facts: • The alarm was first sounded by Wm. G. Gavin, owner of the Cliffside Inn and Conference Center near Harpers Ferry. He claimed the following damages from the proposed project - Decrease in occupancy due to substantial degradation of scenic appeal from the Cliffside Inn. - Requirement by Cliffside Inn to expend funds to mitigate the impact of aviation hazard lights that will be affixed to the communication facility. - Reduction in overall value of property as a result of the construction of the communication facility. - Subsequent reduction of Harpers Ferrys employee base as a result of decrease in occupancy and income deriving from the loss of scenic appeal of the area surrounding Cliffside. • It took a citizen, Mr. Gavin, to remind Jefferson County, the State of West Virginia and the federal government that several official protocols, including NEPA, had not been followed. On 12/18/97, Gavin appealed the County Board of Zoning Appeals approval of U.S. Cellular's proposed personal wireless service facility to Jefferson County. • The next day, the National Park Service wrote to the FCC to inform the FCC of their obligations under NEPA as well as the National Historical Preservation Act • Four days later, the FCC reminded U.S. Cellular that "an environmental assessment will be required to be prepared and filed with the Commission before it (U.S. Cellular) is authorized to construct and operate the antenna facility at the proposed location." • The Hagerstown Morning Herald reported on 1/8/98 that Jefferson County approved a personal wireless service facility at this controversial site "while the head of the planning department worked on a draft of an ordinance governing communication towers. The planning director is expected to have a final draft of the ordinance by January 13." • Since then, several parties have met to consider alternatives, but, according to Don Campbell of the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park, "an attorney for Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415) 435 -9214 phone and (415) 435 -1522 fax e -mail: wireless.update @worldnetatLnet - web site: http:// www. infinitefaculty .com/planwireless „! Friday, February 06, 1998 06:55:05 PM Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Page 3 of 4 1.0)g Do You Want to Continue Receiving PlanWireless? 0 Q C Cities and counties that have not received a free subscription in the past can receive a free subscription to PlanWireless. Cities I and counties that have received free subscriptions in the past can subscribe for $30 for 6 issues. Private companies & ( individuals can subscribe for $60 for 6 issues. If you would like to receive a subscription to PlanWireless, please send the ( following information to Kreines & Kreines, Inc. by mail (58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920), phone (415 -435- 9214), fax (415 - 435 - 1522), or e- mail ( wireless .update@worldnetattnet): I Name /Title: (Jurisdiction /Company: Staple Your Mailing Address: Business Card Here City, State, Zip Code: I Back Issues ($10 each): Please let us know the back issues you wish to order (March 1996 to February 1998). 'This newsletter is designed to provide information about planning for personal wireless service facilities. It is sold and distributed free with the understanding that PlanWireless is not providing legal, planning or any other professional advice or ( services with this newsletter. Please contact Kreines & Kreines, Inc. if you would like to obtain professional planning services. 'If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. J Jefferson County weighed in saying if U.S. Cellular selected a new site, their county permit approvals would not fall under the cell tower moratorium Jefferson County has adopted." To recap, if a brave and resourceful citizen, Mr. Gavin, hadn't appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, this proposed personal wireless service facility might have been built in close proximity to the Harpers Ferry Historic Park, the Appalachian Trail, the C &O Canal National Historic Park, a Civil War battlefield and other properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places unbeknownst to anyone at the FCC. Turns out that the local planning director was almost done with an ordinance, but the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals went on and approved the facility anyway. And now that the horse has left the barn, Jefferson County adopted a moratorium that will have no effect on a new site selected by U.S. Cellular. Meanwhile, Mr. Gavin will get a hearing on his appeal on 2/13/98. PlanWireless wonders if this hearing will take place after Jefferson County and U.S. Cellular have already agreed to another site. And, do you think Jefferson County will ask to see a copy of the Environmental Assessment before they dispose of Mr. Gavin s appeal? Ladies and Gentlemen, line up your carts in front of these horses ... we're in a hurry here. PlanWireless wonders who, if anyone, at the FCC is monitoring whether required Environmental Assessments are being filed? The FCC's interpretation of NEPA requires that an Environmental Assessment be prepared by an applicant for a cell site if the cell site falls into one, or more than one, of nine categories. One of those categories includes facilities that may affect historic districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture, that are listed, or are eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. Think of what could have happened in Easton, Massachusetts (see adjacent article) if someone at the FCC had been minding the store. The sad truth is: if the carrier fails to file an Environmental Assessment, no one (until now) blows the whistle. If your jurisdiction would like to set up a program to monitor whether Environmental Assessments are required for personal wireless service facility sites in your community, call Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Town of Easton PlanWireIess thanks the firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer, P.C. for providing a copy of this case in time to discuss it in February's issue. The Easton Board of Appeals denied Sprint Spectrum's application for a Special Permit to construct a 150 -foot PCS "tower." The Board of Appeals denied the application with the following findings: • The proposed use is permitted by Special Permit • The use is neither essential nor desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The Easton Board of Appeals opined that PCS technology is similar to existing cell telephone and remote beeper services. • Sprint Spectrum was uncooperative in studying alternative sites. • The use will not create undo traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. • The use will not create any sewer or water impacts. • The use will not impair the integrity of the zoning district or its nearby zones. • A national historic district is close by the propose use. (See the Harpers Ferry article for the importance of NEPA to historic sites.) Sprint Spectrum sued on four counts in federal court. Violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Judge agreed with Sprint Spectrum that Easton unreasonably discriminated among providers of functionally equivalent services when the Board determined that the existing cellular service in Easton is all that is necessary. The Judge said that This reasoning frustrates the primary purpose of the Telecommunications Act to increase competition in the Telecommunications industry. Friday, February 06, 1998 06:55:05 PM Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Page 4 of 4 Kreines & Kreines, Inc. Consultants to Cities & Counties on Planning for Personal Wireless Service Facilities 58 Paseo Mirasol Tiburon, CA 94920 Route to: 1. afanagerorC5.O 2. P(anningDirector 3. CounseO$.ttorner/ 4. your fixed-carrier Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Tiburon, CA Permit No. 275 Further, the Judge found that citing a lack of need for additional functionally equivalent services is tantamount to the prohibition of services. The Judge also noted Easton's denial lacked substantial evidence and amounted to little "more than generalized concerns." The Judge ordered Easton to issue the Special Permit. The Town of Easton's answer to the Sprint Spectrum complaint appears to PlanWireless to have very little substance in the Town's defense. Anyone who believes that the Easton decision should strike fear in the hearts of towns defending their personal wireless service facility denials should read the entire case. The issue again comes down to providing substantial evidence for all denials in a written record. Perhaps the Town of Easton should have pursued the impact of the proposed 150 -foot "tower" on the nearby historic site. If an impact on the historic site would have been demonstrated, then Sprint Spectrum would have had to file an Environmental Assessment with the FCC. An Environmental Assessment does not stop a proposed project, but it does open the door to discussions that may avoid lawsuits. Copies of the complaint, answer and order are available from Kreines & Kreines, Inc. for the cost of copying, postage and handling. A "Tower Builder" Sues a County & Wins Because of Lack of Substantial Evidence OPM- USA - INC. applied to Brevard County for a conditional use permit to build a 400 -foot multi-user telecommunications tower capable of supporting 60 antennas and associated transmission lines. (PlanWireless calls this a "spec tower. ") The County Planning and Zoning Board denied the conditional use permit based on the following conclusions of law: • Proximity of the tower to the abutting residential property. • The tower cannot be effectively screened or buffered from view from abutting residential property. • The tower would have an unsightly appearance. • There is potential for decrease in property values to surrounding residential properties. • This tower would have a cumulative effect of a third tower close to the entrance to a residential subdivision. The County later revised the above conclusions and added the following: • The tower is a commercial use inconsistent with the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan's wetland policies. OPM sued on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in Federal Court in OPM - USA - INC. v. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County. The Judge noted that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Instead, the Board adopted inconsistent findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not supported by the record to justify its decision to deny the permit. The wetlands argument appeared to the Judge to be: (A)n after-the-fact excuse made by the Board without substantial evidence in the record to support it and merely to justify its earlier decision to deny OPM's application without alerting OPM or giving it the opportunity to object or to present evidence on the wetlands issue. Further, the Judge noted: (I)t appears that the Board made its decision to deny the application and sent its staff off to create written reasons to support such decision and to attempt to comport with the Telecommunications Act. The Court ordered the County to issue a conditional use permit. OPM must then proceed to have its application considered under the County site plan stage review where the wetlands issue can be addressed and a public interest determination may be made at that time. OPM's motion for attorneys' fees and costs was denied. In PlanWireless' view, the real issue in this case should have been whether OPM - USA - INC. could claim the protection of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act. As PlanWireless noted in the January 1998 issue, Section 704 applies to licensed carriers, not entrepreneurs who speculate. However, this issue was not raised as a defense by Brevard County. Copies of this lawsuit are available from Kreines & Kreines, Inc. for the cost of copying, postage and handling. Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director MEMORANDUM January 15, 1998 TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FR: Doug Micheau, Public Works Coordinator RE: Right-of-Way Management Planning Process as it relates to Zoning Code Modifications for Wireless Communication Facilities. Background - Utility Use of Public Right -of -Ways During the past five years, the City has been overrun with requests to occupy the City's rights -of -way by "wireline" telecommunications firms installing fiber optic systems. This has been compounded by similar upgrades by the existing franchise utilities. These fiber optic lines are very expensive to move or to repair when damaged. There are also miles of pipelines in these same right - of-way which belong to City utilities, King County Metro, two gas companies, several water and sewer districts, and the City of Seattle. The following is a list of some of the impacts that these utilities have on the Tukwila community: 1) Utilities are continually "cutting" City streets to install or repair their utilities which seriously erodes the life expectancy of our publicly funded roadway infrastructure; City - constructed projects are severely inflated due to increased design and construction costs associated with locating and /or avoiding or accommodating these utilities; 3) City -owned utilities are frequently damaged due to careless placement of other utilities; and, 4) Tukwila residents and businesses are continually inconvenienced by the disruptions to traffic and subjected to excessive wear on their private and commercial vehicles due to travel through construction zones. Relationship of Wireless Facilities to the Right -of -Wax Not unlike the increase in requests for franchises for "wireline" facilities, the City has recently experienced an increase in requests to develop wireless facilities. Although many of the initial requests have been to develop facilities on private property, this trend will likely shift as the wireless utilities move from the goal to provide "coverage" of an area to that of developing additional "capacity" for a service area. This shift in direction 6300 Southcente Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ` will occur as more and more customers acquire wireless services and as utility providers fulfill their federal obligations for coverage in order to preserve their franchise rights. In the capacity phase of the development of wireless services, the public right -of -way will play a key role in the provision of services. The need for access to right -of -ways will be due to the need for additional antennae (estimated at a ratio of 10 -15:1 for each large scale antennae developed during the coverage phase). These new antennae will also require connections to fiber -optic trunk lines which are primarily placed within the right - of -way to achieve a grid effect. Each node where the antennae is connected to a fiber- optic line will also require a service vault. These vaults are typically placed above ground and may be located in the right -of -way or on private property. An example of a microcell tower and associated vault structures for a wireless provider are attached as Exhibit A. T.,ocal Government Response to the Wireless Movement The 1996 Telecommunications Act prohibits local jurisdictions from creating an "effective barrier" to service provision through the implementation of local codes and standards. It does, however, preserve the local authority to control zoning and management of the public right -of -ways. In order to maximize the benefits of their authority, while maintaining a facilitation role in the expansion of telecommunications services, Cities are choosing to plan for the telecommunications services expansion in their respective communities. Most jurisdictions have chosen to approach this issue through a comprehensive planning effort which consists of four primary elements: 1) Inventory of the existing public properties where telecommunications facilities could be constructed along with an inventory of the types of facilities and the locations of all utilities currently occupying the right -of -ways; 2) Identification of the telecommunication industry's needs for the placement of specific types of facilities and the estimated time frames for construction; 3) A survey or the business and residential demands for telecommunications services as well as their preferences for addressing the impacts of telecommunication facilities; and, 4) Designation of utility corridors in the right -of -ways and the development of City code revisions and standards to regulate the placement of telecommunications facilities on public and private property (including zoning). These planning processes typically take from • 1 -3 years to complete. The resulting plans, however, are extremely valuable in the coordination and implementation of the build -out of telecommunications services in the community. They also have the effect of reducing the administrative effort and review time necessary to process applications. The City of Tukwila has budgeted funds to initiate a right -of -way management /telecommunications planning process in 1998 and the effort is likely to be underway in the second quarter. . Interim Provisions and Moratorium The existing Tukwila Zoning Code provisions have been successful to -date in steering telecom providers away from constructing towers and antennae in residential areas of the City. As the development of services moves towards the capacity phase, it is unlikely that our existing code will be as effective. Therefore, as an interim measure until the plan can be developed, staff will be working with the City Council to discuss adoption of a moratorium on the placement of towers and monopole antennae in residential areas. Conclusion and Recommendations The development and buildout of the wireless and wireline telecommunications industries will extend to every local jurisdiction over the next 5 -10 years. It is up to us as .local officials to maximize the benefits to our communities and mitigate the impacts of this construction to the best of our abilities. The proposed comprehensive planning approach suggested in this paper will integrate these sectors of the industry while facilitating and • directing the construction to those areas in the City where the impacts will be felt the least. It will also provide opportunities for input from all affected parties which will in turn allow us to develop meaningful revisions to our City Codes and create standards which are consistent with the industries abilities. In light of this pending planning process, I recommend that you refrain from initiating any zoning code revisions at this time. Your expertise and experience in the review and development of these code revisions will be invaluable as the planning document unfolds in the near future. .. ✓:. .. .. 1, "'c.. 1. t�n-,ti. (, -1/ :1 • 7771 t_ .4'ti't'•,,k,n"!Z���)�. • 4 . Page 6 LAND USE LAW REPORT January 7, 1998 Appellate Review (Cont.) Moreover, courts may be required by abstention principles either not to decide state -law claims, or at least to delay a decision. Whether such factors might apply was a matter for the 7th Circuit to decide initially. Ed. note: Writing in dissent, Justices Ginsburg and Stevens characterized the majority opinion as "a watershed decision." Litigants asserting either federal - question or diversity jurisdiction will be able to directly appeal to the federal courts from the actions of all manner of local agencies, boards and conunissions. Federal courts will be in a position to directly oversee such agencies by ruling on appeals from their decisions. Until now, it had been taken almost for granted that federal courts had no author- ity to displace state courts as reviewers of local agency actions. Cross - system appellate authority is reserved to the Supreme Court, not the lower federal courts, they_ declared. ecommionicatio^r pose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance." Where a use is classified as "inherently beneficial," there is no requirement that the site be particularly suited for the use, and the burden of proof to demonstrate that it does not impair the intent of the zoning is relaxed. While inherently beneficial uses generally are non - commercial, some commercial uses, including cellular communication sites, have been held inher- ently beneficial, the court said. In balancing the positive and negative criteria for an inherently benefi- cial use, the board should identify the public interest at stake, the detrimental effect from granting the variance, conditions that may reduce the detriment, and whether, on balance, granting the variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good. At its hearings, the board accepted testimony that the tower would increase Comcast's, capacity and signal coverage in the area. It also determined, how- ever, that the inherently beneficial characteristic of the proposed use was significantly less than other types of inherently beneficial use. It noted the pro- posed use simply provided additional service to Comcast's customers. Aesthetic Concerns Supported .Denial of Variance for Monopole nos • The-New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Divi- sion has ruled that a borou h's zoning board pro er1yrw, a...;�aa�' any-- •.,•.- .„..,.- _........ -�sc took aesthetic considerations into accountin'den trig a variance for the erection of a 90- foot -high cellular telephone antenna (New Brunswick Cellular. Tele- phone Co. v. Borough of South Plainfield Board of Adjustment, No. A- 6652 -95T2, Oct. 17, 1997). Late in 1994, New Brunswick Cellular (Comcast) applied for a use variance for an equipment shelter and a 90 -foot monopole on a parcel of land located in the M- 3 zone. Telecommunications facilities are not a permit- ted use in the M -3 zone, even though the zone is the least restrictive use zone in the borough. After conducting three hearings on the application, the board of adjust- ment denied the variance, in an opinion dated May 2, 1995. Comcast appealed the denial to the Superior Court. A trial judge overturned the board's determina- tion and ordered it to approve the application. The appeals court noted that an applicant for a use variance must show the use meets both "positive" and "negative" criteria. Under the positive criteria, the applicant must establish that "special reasons" exist to grant the variance. Under the negative crite- ria, the applicant must prove that the variance will not cause "substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the pur- Aesthetic Detriment Was Significant The board did not consider the detrimental effects Oof the monopole to .be minimal. It noted the facility would be located on a "threshold street" that was in transition from fanning to a manufacturing and office corridor. It concluded the monopole would cause aesthetic detriment to a main corridor, creating a risk that the area would not come out of its transition in accordance with the goals of the borough's zoning plan. The board could find no way to reduce the detrimental impact by imposing conditions. It noted that Comcast was unable to suggest any way of reducing the visual impact of the monopole. There was substantial evidence from which the board could conclude the proposed use posed a detri- ment to the zoning plan, as it applied to future development of the M -3 zone, the court said. There' was uncontroverted evidence that the public benefit was not significant. Considering that there were other, less intrusive technical means to accomplish en- hanced service, the board' s conclusion was not unrea- sonable or arbitrary. The board fulfilled its duty under the Telecom- munications Act of 1996 by issuing a written decision supported by substantial. evidence. It had no duty to prove that the zone plan would be substantially impaired, the court noted. DocuDial Service: To purchase documents flagged with a lit, call (800) 274 -6737 to place your order. t4ry 0. ,,,Accessory Accessory Wireless Communication Antennae A freestanding or building mounted antennae for the sole use of residents, patrons of a MEMORANDA TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael Jenkins DATE: December 19, 1997 RE: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities At the September 25 and October 23, 1997 work sessions, staff provided briefings concerning the growth of cellular facilities in Tukwila. These briefings included a survey of existing and proposed sites in Tukwila, current standards governing siting of facilities in adjacent jurisdictions and suggestions for developing additional regulations for Tukwila. Currently, Tukwila requires a Conditional Use Permit for all new cellular facilities and applies zoning regulations to govern height, setback and other development aspects. Concerns have been raised by the Planning Commission and staff about the appropriateness of these standards and how they may be revised. Following these meetings, staff was directed to provide additional standards that would be used to amend the zoning code to address specific aspects of the technology. The following are definitions and standards that staff had compiled to frame the development of an ordinance to govern wireless facilities. 1. DEFINITIONS Abandonment Intentional discontinuation of- electrical- eerviees -to 0 days or more. Wireless Communication Facility for " sit asrc... business or other occupants of a property for the original transmission or final reception of communications or data as an accessory to a permitted use on the property which the antennae is located. Types of accessory wireless communication antennae include: 1. Radio and/or television antennae or parabolic antennae designed to only receive signals, not exceeding one meter (39.4 inches) in diameter, usually supported by a single post, pole or mast, with an antennae height not exceeding 15 feet above grade or above the height of the building on which it is mounted. ' December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities 2. Citizen band radio antennae or similarly licensed amateur radio equipment, operated by a licensed radio operator, with a height not exceeding the maximum height for buildings in the zone in which the are locate uril.ess authorized under a Cond tjonal or Unclassified Use Permit. G .ss L 3. An accessory mobile antennae device that includes, but is not limited to, test mobile antennae and global positioning satellite (GPS) equipment, or mobile radio or television antennae that are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support structure. 4. Data transmission or communication antennae or parabolic antennae designed to send and receive data, other than those defined in this section, not exceeding one meter (39.4) "2 inches d is usually supported by a single post, pole, or mast with an antennae height • • n • o� exceeding 15 feet above grade or above the height of the building on which it is mounted. NOTE: Accessory wireless regulatio>fjrovide a clear distinction between uses enjoyed by residents and existing businesses for radio, television and information services and new, primary uses established by wireless service providers Antenna Any system of electromagnetically tuned wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves. Antennae's include�the � following: ,4aL r° 1. Omni- directional (or "whip ") antenna that transmit and receive radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radius. For the purposes of this document, an omni- directional antennae is up to 24 feet in height and up to 6 inches in average diameter 2. Directional (or "panel ") antenna that transmil5and receives radio signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees. 3. Parabolic (or "dish ") antenna is a bowl- shaped device for the reception or transmission of communication signals in a specific directional pattern Attached Wireless Communication Facility (Attached WCF) An Attached WCF is an antenna array attached to an existing building or structure. A structure for the purposes of this definition can include: 1. Utility poles 2. Signs 3. Water towers 4. Monopoles 5. Lattice Towers December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities An Attached WCF also includes any transmission cables or Equipment Facility which may be located either inside or outside of the building or structure servings as the host for the WCF. Co- location more than one on building or structiar� a Equipment Facility An Equipment Facili is any structure used to contain ancillary equipment for any . e of WCF or ttached WCF that includes cabinets, shelters, a . ul • ou o an existing structure, s, accompanying structural support and other similar structure re s Height When referring to any type of WCF, attached WCF or microcell, height shall mean the distance measured from ground leve o the highest point on the WCF upport Structure, including the antenna array or any acc mpanying devices related t eration of the WCF. Any safety devices required by Federal or State law are exem2ted. Microcell Microcell, as defined for SEPA exemption in HB 2828, means a wireless communications facility consisting of a single antenna that is either: 1. Four feet in height and with an area of not more than five hundred eighty square inches; or 2. If a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet in length." NOTE: Microcells are primarily reserved for email, fax and pager technolo . Microcells are capable of transmitting only data and are not generally compatible , digital technologies used by telephone service providers. w' Monopole A freestanding structure designed to support antenna(e) or an antenna(e) platform, primarily consisting of a single vertical pole driven into the ground and/or attached to a foundation. �� .z • ; z �w. re 2 6 U. UO; • W= J it co u- w O. =a I— Ill/ z� 0 z� = w, LI O ..z w U= O t~ z December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities Platform JAskirei j4A.‘,4 66/-01;k;,-7 ounting structure to which one or more antenna(e) is attached, sufficient to serve the ess communicarrier. Setbacks coke pKtdc-eS 414-;;,,jeL 24,4, When referring to an attachment structure, setback shall mean the required distance from 4''2 the support structure to the property line of the parcel on which the WCF is located. Temporary Wireless Communication Facility (Temporary WCF) Temporary Wireless Communication Facility shall mean a WCF which is to be placed in use for a limited period of time is not deployed in a permanent manner, and does not have a NOTE: This would govern facilities that were started while waiting for final approval df building or development permits but after a decision was made by the Planning Commission or any other governing body. permanent foundation. Wireless Communication Antenna Array (Antenna Array) A wireless communication antenna array is one or more rods, panels, discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals through electromagnetic energy, which may include omni- directional antenna (whip), directional antenna (panel) and parabolic antenna (dish). NOTE: The antennae array concept has been a consistent theme in all of the applications previously presented to)(the Planning Commission. An important point to note is that some systems require different types of antennae for different area coverage needs. Wireless Communications Wireless Communications shall mean any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which includes FCC licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. ; December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities NOTE: This is an umbrella definition for a variety of technologies currently available, including analog cellular telephones and the emerging digital technologies found primarily in PCS systems. SMR and ESMR are similar technologies to analog and digital cellular, however they operate at a lower frequency that tradition cellular. SMR and ESMR were originally reserved for radio -based cellular services whose licenses have also been purchased by wireless service providers. Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WCF) A wireless communication facility is a public or private primary land use for the transmission and/or reception of radio frequency (RF) signals through electromagnetic energy, including cellular, personal communication systems (pcs), specialized mobile radio (smr), enhanced specialized mobile radio (esmr), paging or other similar services. A WCF usually consists of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support tower or other structure used to achieve the necessary elevation, and the transmission and reception devices or antenna. NOTE: The Wireless Communication Facility, or WCF, concept has also been presented to the Planning Commission in the past. A point to note in your consideration would be distinguishing between a WCF that is attached to a new structure as opposed to a WCF attached to an existing building and the need for specific guidelines addressing either type of system. Wireless Communication Support Structure (Support Structure) Wireless Communication Support Structures are freestanding structures, other than a building, on which communications devices are mounted. Transmission towers may include, but are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, and guyed towers. 2. STANDARDS GOVERNING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES A. Application Requirements i) Documentation a) An application for any new WCF must include the following information: .. , ... > . z ~z trw U. O rn w J='. N LL w0 D. Z o N. 0H•. w, 1--U Z: w co ~ O z December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities • Site and Landscaping Plan, including existing and proposed easements and topography registered at 2 foot intervals • Elevations of all components of the proposal l5, • Antennae Detail • Equipment Detail • A statement of intent describing excess space, if any, and all existing or proposed lease agreements with other service providers • Proof of ownership of the proposed site or authorization to utilize it • An area map identifying any existing wireless facilities within a 2 mile radius • Photosimulations from a minimum of 2 views take >Z at distances of 500 feet, one -half mile and one mile. :wr'� Lou- • Details of any proposed upport structur including structural calculations and amount of additional capacity to support o er service providers ii) Review Process 11 a( s a) DEVELOPMENT PERMITS A development permit from the City of Tukwila is required for all WCF's. The Develop ent permit shall cover all permitted activities in relation to the construction of the WCF's A Development Permit is also required for installation of any Accessory Wireless Communication Antennae. ci- b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS A Conditional Use Permit is required for WCF's that meet the following conditions: • WCF's that include a Wireless Communication Support Structure • Any type of WCF's located in the LDR, MDR or HDR zones • WCF's or Attached WCF's located within 500 feet of a residential zone c) SPECIAL PERMISSION PERMITS A Special Permission Application is required for WCF's, Attached WCF's or Microcells not requiring a Conditional Use Permit. A Special Permission application is approved by the Director of Community Development, as a Type 2 decision pursuant to TMC 18.104 B. Development Standards i) New Support Structures z Q. • z Ir.w NC UO N o w: J w g J.. LL <: -±- C z� 1-0: Z 1—; IL/ uj 2 O 1—. 2 w'. 1---. O w z` U N; 1—Z o 1- z �. December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities No new tower shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the governing authority that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna may consist of any of the following: a). No existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet applicant's engineering requirements. b). Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet applicant's requirements. c). Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. d). The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing towers or structures woul cau 4nterce `nth the applicant's proposed antenna. Gfyt c Wt.) e). The fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower development are presumed to be unreasonable. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable." Placement of a broadcast and relay tower shall be denied if an alternative placement of the antenna(e) on a building or other existing structure can accommodate the communications needs. ii) Color and Placement a) a WCF a upport structure ed-, the design of the related structures shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment. !— z 2 6n -J C.) o 0 to 0, wz J N tL; w o' g tl ut z�: 1-0. z I- 11.3 ui gip` N;. .0 1- w W z' ui -. 0 z December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities b) If an Attached WCF is approved, on a structure other than a tower, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. iii) Screening and Landscaping a) WCF support structures shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that will effectively screen the view of at least one -half of the support structure from adjacent properties within 5 years of planting. b) 1; A buffer shall consist of a landscape strip at least ten (10) feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. In locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal, the landscaping requirement may be reduced or waived as part of the approval process by the Planning Commission or other approval body. Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. All equipment shelters, cabinets, or other on- the -grou must use a security device to prohibit unauthorized entry. • cceptable forms include chain -link material with wood or man-made slats woven into the security fence. Wood fencing may also be used as long as it effectively screens the equipment. ancillary equipment f) In any zone that allows for residential uses, or where the proposed WCF and related infrastructure is within 500 feet of a zone where residential uses are allowed, climbing evergreen shrubs or vines capable of growing on the fence shall supplement any required landscaping as further screening. g) When a Conditional Use Permit for a WCF is required, the Planning Commission or any other review body may require landscaping in addition to the minimum requirements in the underlying zone, if it is determined by the review body that additional landscaping is necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts of the WCF. z mow. �U: UO coo; cn w' to J CO u. wO z� ZO. II/ uj 2o� o 1- .w La- 0, u.� w z., O z December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities iv) Setbacks Monopoles or other similar structures and any equipment shelters, cabinets, or other on -the- ground ancillary equipment shall meet the setback requirements of the zone in which located. An attached WCF antenna array may extend up to five (5) feet horizontally beyond the edge of the attachment structure so long as the antenna array does not encroach upon an adjoining parcel. v) Lighting and Security a) Towers shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the governing authority may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. Security lighting for the equipment shelters, cabinets and other ancillary equipment is also permitted, as long as it is appropriately down shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site. i) Height The combined height of any WCF, whether attached or not, shall not exceed the underlying height regulations in the zoning district where they are proposed, with the following exceptions: a) The allowed height in those zones located in a Special Height Limitation Area (TMC 18.50.020) or Special Height Exception Area (TMC 18.50.030) shall be considered 13.5 feet per story for the purposes of implementing standards governing Wireless Communication Facilities. b) Microcells are exempt, as long as the proposed Microcell WCF includes no more than 4 antennae. vii) Noise Noise levels detailed in TMC 8.22 shall apply to the construction, maintenance and operation of all approved WCF's. C. General Requirements i) Abandonment and Obsolescence .":.' December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities Any wireless communication facility that is no longer needed and its use is discontinued shall be reported immediately by the service provider to the Director of Community Development. Discontinued facilities shall be completely removed within six months and the site restored to its pre- existing condition. ii) Encourage the use of public facilities and sites for location of WCFs. The City of Tukwila ( "City ") should- encourage3the use of City real property and/or facilities in siting wireless facilities for commercial mobile services and wireless common carrier access exchange services, as defined by Federal law and Federal regulation, when appropriate and when there will be minimal disruptive impacts on neighborhoods. w;. 00. co u.1 I.. City owned facilities that are appropriate for a WCF or Attached WCF include: w 0 N 3. Z �. 1- 0• w2 Di 0. O u� '0 H; w ;. Any application for a WCF or Attached WCF shall be reviewed as a Type 2 application, w z, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. In addition, 0 =u) notice to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of any proposed WCF or Attached 0 WCF is required upon determination that a complete application has been filed and when a Notice of Decision has been made on the application. a) City Hall b) Fire Stations 51, 52, 53 and 54 c) Public Works Facilities d) Tukwila Library e) Tukwila Community Center f) Foster Golf Course g) Bridges h) Light poles i) Traffic signals iii) Expansion of previously approved facilities If the owner or operator of any previously approved WCF seeks to expand the capabilities of said WCF for their sole use, the following must occur a) For expansion of equipment facilities, a Development Permit is required. b) For expansion of an Attached WCF, a Special Permission Application is required c) For a modification in the height of any WCF support structure, a Conditional Use Permit is required :.,!• December 19, 1997 Memorandum to the Planning Commission Re: Code revisions for Wireless Communication Facilities Maintenance All required landscaping shall be maintained per requirements of TMC 18.52. In addition, any painted or otherwise coated surfaces shall be continually maintained. Summary The revisions detailed above provide the basis to improve the review process for Wireless Communication Facilities. The revisions provide: • Definitions that respond p to specifics of the technology • A two- tiered review process based upon the intensity of the use and the likelihood of impacts on surrounding uses Specific standards relating to the approval of new support structures, including monopoles, designed specifically to support wireless antennae communications Specific standards related to height, setbacks, noise, lighting, security and landscaping CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. 623 i)F C .1. 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS, REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, AMENDING SECTIONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 AND 11 OF ORDINANCE NO. 609, REPEALING THE MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTIONS 242 AND 243 AND PROVIDING FOR REINSTATEMENT OF A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES IF ANY SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS FOUND TO tE VOID. WHEREAS, the City of Medina issuance of special use permits facilities in February of 1996 develop appropriate regulations, declared a moratorium on the for wireless communications to allow the City time to and WHEREAS, the City of Medina passed Ordinance No. 609 establishing appropriate locations, regulations and development standards for wireless communications facilities, and WHEREAS, at the urging of a substantial number of citizens, the City Council passed a second moratorium on accepting and processing permits for wireless facilities in order to have an opportunity to study additional concerns raised by these citizens, and WHEREAS, this ordinance is based upon the assumption that the F- ederal Government has completely preempted the ability of cities to regulate location or placement of wireless facilities based upon health concerns related to radio frequency emissions, and WHEREAS, this ordinance is designed to supplement, and in places replace the provisions of Ordinance No. 609 to address i g_�i�nac� ciclz=a c3 nca.:_:6 L:1.: visual impact of wireless facilities and the negative impact of wireless facilities on residential property values, and WHEREAS, advancing technology has eliminated the need for directional (panel) antennas which are typically arranged in one or more sectors of two or more panels each, thereby having 1 ._((. the greatest visual impact of all antennas, and WHEREAS, tubular panel antennas are available which have much less visual impact than directional antenna arrays, and WHEREAS, technology exists to allow all equipment enclosures to be placed underground, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS: A. The definitions contained in Ordinance No. 609 A through E are hereby adopted by reference. B. The following new definitions are added to Ordinance No. 609, Section 2 A. Tubular Panel Antenna: An antenna which is eighteen inches (18 ") in diameter or less and which is capable of receiving or transmitting signals in a three hundred sixty (360) degree pattern and which is less than eight feet (8') in height. Residential Use Property: All portions of any property which contains a residence and all portions of any vacant property which is zoned for residential use. Residential use property includes property located within adjoining jurisdictions. SECTION 2. ORDINANCE NO. 609, SECTION 3 AMENDED: Section 3 of Ordinance No. 609 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 3. PERMITTED LOCATIONS: A. WCFs may be mounted on all currently existing nonresidential buildings which are located at least 566 feet fr•::m c:i neap r si_le.ic___ use property [except a= fo11owz: 1. The Medina City Hall and the] Medina Store which arc excepted because of their historic orchitcctural significance. 2. Any building which is an accessory struetue 2 :': z F.z: .� U. 00: 0 CO w: ILI =. LL wO u- = a mow; z 0! 0 0. LIJ r: ww:. w Z. _. 0 H: z P: •1 to a residence. 3. Building= which, due to their =mall =izc, would be dominated by thc facility, =uch a:, thc rc =t room= at Medina Park . ] B. Building Mounted WCFs must meet the following conditions and criteria: 1. A building mounted WCF may consist of one of the following: a. Up to four nonreflective panel antcnna =. No one antenna =hall cxcccd 480 =quarc inches and thc total of thc combined antenna= =hall not cxcccd 1,440 square inch== of =urfacc arcs; or] One tubular panel antenna; or b. One whip antenna; or c. One nonreflective parabolic dish 1' or less in diameter. d. In the event of co- location, more than one of the facilities described above may be included. 2. In addition to the overall height limitations in Section 4, the antennas must conform to the following height restrictions relating to the existing building: a. [5' mc=urcd to thc top of a panel antenna above the roof proper of thc exi=ting building at thc point of attachment.] 6' 8" measured to the top of a tubular antenna above the roof prover at the point of attachment. b. 10' measured to the tip of a whip antenna above the roof proper of the existing building at the point of attachment. c. 5' measured to the top of a parabolic dish above the roof proper of the existing building at the point of attachment. 3. Whip and tubular antennas shall be camouflaged and located to minimize views from residential structures and rights -of -way. 4. [Panel and] Parabolic, ancillary and other antennas shall be completely screened from residential views and public rights -of -way in 3 �.. � .. • z ~w. 00 :CO 0 cnw: w m: J H, w0 1:3; = a. Z uf 0: ui ;01- ILI =a Iiiz 0 -; O~ z a manner that is architecturally compatible with the building on which it is located. 5. Equipment enclosures shall be located within the building on which the facility is placed or located underground_ [if cite condition: C. WCFs requiring construction of a support structure may be located on the site of existing nonresidential uses except the following: 1. All portions of all City parks_ [except that portion of Medina Park which is substantially sheltered from public view by thc City Shop and thc Puget Power Substation. [2. Arca= where support structures may not be effectively screened from view by existing structures . ] 2. All portions of the Fairweather Nature Preserve except non- forested areas adjacent to the 520 rictht -of -way. 3. Areas where support structures cannot be located.at least 500 feet from the nearest residential use property lines [or thc nearest vaunt property zoncd for residential use,] measured from the property line. D. WCFs requiring construction of a support structure must be located on a portion of a site that is effectively isolated from view of residential areas by structures or terrain features unless they are integrated or act as an architectural_ element of the structure, such as a flag pole. E. WCFs are not allowed on residential properties or on City rights -of -way. SECTION 3. ORDINANCE NO. 609, SECTION 4 AMENDED: Section 4 of Ordinance No. 609 is amended to read as follows: [A]• All WCFs utilizing a free - standing support structure shall be limited to 35' in height [above original grade,] including the height of all [ ^ ] [B. antennas. Omni directions -1 antennas and supporting structures ohall be limited to 49-' in hcight above original grade. SECTION 4. ORDINANCE NO. 609, SECTION 5 AMENDED: A. Free - standing WCFs shall conform to the following site development standards: 5. Equipment enclosures shall conform to the following: a. Equipment enclosures will be placed underground [if cite conditiono permit and if technically fcaciblc. ] Equipment enclosures may not extend more than five inches above the around at original or finished grade whichever is lower. b. Any visible portion of equipment enclosures shall be screened from view. [cxccpt ac provided in c. below.] [c. Walk in equipment enclocurco: 1) May not bc constructed with cxpoced metal zurfaccz. 2) May not bc required to be totally screened from view provided thc Planning Commi:cion findo that: a) The walk in equipment enclosure has been designed uzing materials, colors, and detailing that produccs a structure which emulate= thc residential character of thc City.] 6. All heights shall be measured from original grade or finish Grade, whichever is lower. 7. All applicants shall submit as built drawings following completion and all heights must be confirmed by survey after construction by a licensed surveyor or engineer. SECTION 5. ORDINANCE NO. 609, SECTION 7 C AMENDED: Section 7 C of Ordinance No. 609 is amended to read as follows: C. The permit fee for each new or renewal permit for each site shall be $5,000.00 plus all consulting costs as described in MMC 17.44.020. [the permit fcc shall bc reduced to $3,0$0 plus consulting cooto °t_ an applicant who _c co locating at thc any additional sport structure ee expensien of an existing support structure.] If more than one installation is sought to be approved under a single permit, a full permit fee shall be paid for each installation, provided that if the facility is exempt from FCC regulation and if the City Manager finds that each separate facility is insignificant 6 . Z. tu JU U O: CO 0 W =' CO w w 0; g 5. Via. =w F— Z�.. �0 Z U • 0 O 0 H ww • O w Z' UN 0 H O Z specific WCF at the end of the period must apply for a Special Use Permit renewal application to continue that use at least six months prior to its expiration. In ruling on said renewal the Planning Commission shall apply all regulations in effect at the time of renewal [thcn cxisting regulations] effecting the application. Z [F. The applicant shall netify thc City of all changes 1-z in ownership or operatien of thc facility within re sixty (GO) days of thc change. —J 0 0 i (n Cf wi L' SECTION 8. ORDINANCE NO. 609, SECTION 11 AMENDED: u1O. Section 11 of Ordinance N.o. 609 is amended to read as g follows: = O: SECTION 11. APPLICABILITY: A. The requirements of this ordinance apply to all new z WCFs and the expansion and /or alteration of any existing WCFs_ w [; provided that an in kind or smaller rcplaccmcnt of p transmission equipment will only require a writtcn ,o SP- notification to thc City.] o H w w' B. The requirements of this ordinance apply throughout i- v: the City. It is the express intent of the City to impose all —0 reculations on this ordinance to all land within the City, tii z whether publicly or privately held, including, without v limitation, private property, City property, state owned 0 H; OP- rights-of-way and /or property, church property, utility property and school property. SECTION 9. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES SITING POLICIES. The Wireless Communications Facilities Siting Policies adopted by the City Council on April 14, 1997 shall govern the location and placement of wireless communications facilities within the City. In the event of any conflict between this ordinance and said policies, the provisions of this ordinance SECTION 10. CONCEALMENT TECHNOLOGY: A. Definition. "Concealment Technology" is defined as the use of both existing and future technology through which a wireless communications facility is designed to resemble an object which is not a 8 , wireless communications facility and which is already present in the natural environment. B. Concealment Technology for Wireless Communications Facilities. All wireless communications facilities must use concealment technology. C. Concealment Technology for Equipment Shelters. All shelters for and all associated equipment needed for the operation of a wireless communications facility shall be located within an existing non- residential building or underground. Underground shelters shall not extend more than five inches above the existing surface and shall be completely and immediately screened by approved vegetation. Underground shelters shall not be allowed where their presence would interfere with existing uses of public land. SECTION 11. TESTING: A. Testing Required. All existing and future wireless communications facilities shall be tested, not less frequently than annually, to determine if the facilities are in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Facilities that are in existence on the effective date of this ordinance shall be tested within three (3) months after the effective date of this ordinance. All testing shall be conducted under the direction and control of the City. B. Regulations. The City Manager shall adopt specific testing procedures and protocols. C. Revocation of Permit. Any existing or future wireless communications facilities which does not comply all applicable federal, stata and local regulations shall be removed, upon failure to bring the facility into compliance after thirty (30) days advance written notice. D. Cooperation. All existing and future wireless service providers shaii coopera w_ the City in performing the testing required by this ordinance. Cooperation shall include supplying necessary testing equipment which has current certification from an independent testing laboratory and shall include operating the equipment at up to full capacity and /or shutting off the equipment to allow baseline testing. 9 .,,, z �z re Li/ JU OO CO C: w =' wO L Q. u Da Z Z� O; Z F- LU ui n p. O N` W, LI z: w N` U =: O ~. z E. Baseline Testing. All existing and future wireless service providers shall cooperate with the City in establishing baseline measurements of ambient radio frequency emissions which are present without contribution from the facility. To establish baseline testing, existing wireless service providers may be required to turn off all of their equipment. Future wireless service providers shall notify the City in advance when they are prepared to begin operating their equipment. Future wireless services providers shall not begin to operate their equipment until the City has obtained baseline measurements. F. Costs. All testing shall be at the cost of the wireless service providers. Failure to pay such costs shall be an adequate basis for the City to revoke all special use permits. SECTION 12. REQUIREMENT TO DEMONSTRATE NEED: All applications shall be accompanied with adequate information to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Medina Wireless Communication Facilities Policy Number 8. SECTION 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING: A. No facility, site or permit may be sold, transferred or assigned unless and until the assignee obtains a permit for the facility. B. No sublease shall be entered into by a provider until the sublessee has obtained a permit for its facility. C. An assignee or sublessee seeking a permit shall submit all data required for an original permit. SECTION 14. APPLICATION FORM, INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED: All applications shall be. submitted on a form to be developed under the supervision and control of the City Manager. Aii such applications, in order to be deemed complete, shall answer all enquiries contained in the application form and shall be accompanied by materials described within the application form. At a minimum, the application form shall require the following information: A. A complete description of the proposed facility. 10 z �w re 6 UO: CO CO CI w' W (/) LL: w O. a.Q; co d. _; z F- O z E- UJ U ON W W' H H. IO wz U N. H. 0 z B. Coverage maps in a form acceptable to the City. C. Location map of all sites currently operated by the provider in a five mile radius of the proposed site, together with all sites for which the applicant holds the development rights, including but not limited to a binding commitment or option to lease a site. For each such site, the targeted area and capabilities of the sites shall be adequately described. D. All such additional information as the City Manager may, from time to time, request through modifications of the application form. E. All such additional information as the Planning Commission may identify, from time to time, as being relevant to the permitting process. SECTION 15. VIOLATION, PENALTY: Violation of any provision of this ordinance, or of Ordinance No. 608, shall constitute a civil infraction, punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000. Each day on which a violation continues shall constitute a separate civil infraction, punishable as provided herein. Violation of any provision of this ordinance, or of Ordinance No. 608, if not cured within thirty (30) days after advance written notice, shall constitute adequate cause for the City to modify or revoke any special use permit. SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEALER, REVIVAL OF MORATORIUM: The City Council declares that this is a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and shall be effective upon adoption. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the moratorium upon the acceptance and processing of special use permits for communications facilities established in Resolution No. 242 and confirmed in Resolution No. 243 is repealed, provided, however, that if this ordinance or any section or clause contained in this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or void for any reason, the moratorium established in Resolution No. 242 and confirmed in Resolution No. 243 shall be immediately reinstated i,;_ a p.__ _oc: c2 s_:: m:nths to City to formulate and pass new regulations. 11 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS 12th DAY OF MAY , 1997 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE 19th , DAY OF MAY , 1997. Approved as to form: Susan Potts, Mayor Pro Tem Kirk R. Wines, City ney Attest: ood T. Edvalson, City Clerk Pusxd: 5/17/97 Filed with City Clcrk:S/12 /97 Published: 5,/1647 Effective Date: 5/17/97 12 .; ? City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 4.44T4 .7-c04:Ver MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FROM: Michael Jenkins DATE: October 16, 1997 RE: Issues pertaining to amending the zoning code for Cellular Antennas BACKGROUND lR G . 6dN cER-)0 At the September Plan�ing Co imissisn.work session you were presented with a Cum - 14— memorandum (attached) outlining Tukwila's recent history with Cellular Antennae and lief i,;÷-« t),(j� ccompanying infrastructure. At this meeting, commission members expressed their ���� J ��,�k,���, t'1(rd`� oncern about the increase in the number of sites and the appropriateness of existing y(, _ oning Code regulations governing cellular technology. Accordingly, staff is returning to Gel you to highlight issues concerning these facilities and some consideration of possible new , /regulations. %/ /41LW ►Nto' CL? pp t STANDARDS Cat A (1 P1 mitigation of aesthetic impacts o` rL — � - ti'�/ • Development standards include adoption of definitions governing technology and tiwv- related components; allowed height for rooftop antennae versus monopoles, appropriate location for ground/operating ground/operating equipment, allowed size for operating 0't equipment pads and specific requirements for residential locations 0 `Y.4/, pL 0, • Standards designed to mitigate aesthetic impacts include Design Review requirements '10 V9 for certain zones, landscaping /screening requirements for ground equipment, painting - I� of infrastructure to complement surroundings, use of `stealth' practices to screen Gig I t' where proposed locations are sensitive, prohibition of signage on antennae, tti monopoles and related structures. (F` 4 u, a itd ro.q1./ i w ie_oal- ( IbCel-(c c2a.- ,• ✓t1v�ci�ZiTLI� ��•v�.VcVc7.<< u.sJ4 -4.r M 1."rc( 3 uct, lac, E--{a im-ac Jex.1{cci‹... t`(10 ' At the September work session, staff circulated a chart for your review detailing cellular �«k, regulations in 5 jurisdictions. A copy of this chart has also been attached to this memo. Regulations for these facilities in the jurisdictions outlined in the accompanying chart generally have 3 components - . itti ng requirements, development standards and • Permitting requirements generally include a threshold where a Conditional Use Permit is required versus administrative review through Building Permit review 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • '(106) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 '" �. Memorandum to Planning Commission Re: Revisions to Zoning Code for Cellular Antennae October 16, 1997 NEXT STEPS l7(Q- CJnSJ 60-r ,p x47-0. ►"d- - +'D t2.-/Acc Staff recommends the following actions, to be presented at a later meeting in draft ordinance format: • Allow cellular antennae proposed for existing structures or buildings to be reviewed under a Type 2 process, with final approval made by the Director of Community Development • The existing Type 4 process would be required for construction of new monopoles, designed to allow for co- location by additional carriers • Create development standards to apply to all new cellular facilities, whether reviewed under a Type 2 or Type 4 process, that address landscaping requirements, allowed height for rooftop antennae and/or monopoles, screening of ground equipment, painting of related infrastructure and Design Review requirements • Undertake a study that would designate allowed areas for new monopoles arpt,2_, ii24t(ge-7/AFPPAPa-t ATE, o x-' o G c. Gowv (c✓ti ,CIA-o re/ fr' ELA wl r'yo0' Z i •. Z ILI 6 JU .0 O Co • co w; w z: J �: W 0; Jt u_ a; = a _ . • � z�..: w~ • j Q • '- O— uj 1— V U 0F... z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commiss FROM: Michael Jenkin der- DATE: September 18, 19 RE: Cellular /wireless technology in Tukwila You requested an overview of the city's approach to regulating cellular /wireless technologies. The following is a brief summary of current city policies and codes, an overview of telecommunication facilities in Tukwila, a summary of regulations in surrounding jurisdictions and options to consider. BACKGROUND The 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan includes policies for non city -owned utilities. In addition, the 1995 Zoning Code requires all developments to be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit process. The Comprehensive Plan policies that specifically address these facilities are: • Policies 12.1.34: Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations • Policy 12.1.36: Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible ♦ Shared towers, poles, antennae, trenches, easements and substation sites • Use of existing structures by cellular communications • Telephone switching facilities enclosed in buildings compatible with the surrounding area Currently, all.cellular /wireless facilities require approval of a Conditional Use Permit application in all zones, whether it is a new facility or modification of an existing facility. Any modifications of a previously approved site would also require approval by the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes and if any conditions were placed on the original approval. AVN1 Cnrrthrontor Rnrrlovarn' C,rlto #lnn • T,,ku,fIa Wachinrrrnn OR1RR • 12061 4 ?I - ?■717 • Fax 12061431 -3665 • F-Z. cL 2. U O t 0C w= J '. � lL ai 0: ga. co —a i Z I- o' Z �. 0a 0 1-. wa 0. LI z im co; O H: Memorandum to Planning Commission September 18, 1997 Re: Cellular /wireless technology in Tukwila In addition, all applications must adhere to the underlying development regulations in their proposed zone, including setback, height, landscaping or other requirements. A SEPA determination is required for facilities that include a monopole or other support structures that are taller than 60 feet or where it is proposed for a residential zone, pursuant to Department of Ecology requirements. The City of Tukwila only requires a building permit if there is a monopole or if the proposal requires structural modifications to the host facility. CELLULARNVIRELESS SITES IN TUKWILA There are 12 locations in Tukwila that have received Conditional Use Permit approval, as follows:. FILL LOCATION S. 158th and Nelson Place TYPE OF FACILITY .: PROVIDER Cellular One 90 -1 -CUP Monopole 91 -2 -CUP 12228 - 51st Place S. Monopole Cellular One 91 -03 -CUP 13130 - 44th Ave S. Monopole US West 91 -04 -CUP 566B Industry Drive Monopole US West 91 -05 -CUP 15426 - 35th Ave S Monopole Cellular One L96 -0034 3516 S. 146th Rooftop antennae Sprint Spectrum L96 -0035 16500 Southcenter Parkway Rooftop antennae Sprint Spectrum L96 -0061 16500 Southcenter Parkway Rooftop antennae GTE Wireless L96 -0062 10825 E. Marginal Way S. Rooftop antennae /monopole Sprint Spectrum L96 -0070 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Facade mount antennae AT &T Wireless L97 -0030 12400 - 51st Place S. Monopole Sprint Spectrum L97 - 0045 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Facade mount antennae Western Wireless There are also 3 pending applications, including two separate monopoles. ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS Due to the proliferation of cellular /wireless sites, a number of jurisdictions in King County have started to develop or have approved regulations to govern cellular /wireless facilities. Some jurisdictions (Tacoma, Des Moines, SeaTac, Auburn and Kent) have passed moratoriums on all new cellular /wireless facilities to study and adopt regulations. Moratoriums have been adopted where the jurisdiction has no regulations to govern telecommunication facilities or where there is a history with the community on specific issues related to these facilities. The latter issue is of particular note,' involving the City of Medina's moratorium to prohibit, new facilities based on 'aesthetic' issues. Memorandum to Planning Commission September 18, 1997 Re: Cellular/wireless technology in Tukwila When adopted, moratoriums have lasted approximately 6 to 9 months, allowing staff to develop regulations and hold hearings on the proposed regulations. Generally, moratoriums have resulted in development of the following types of z regulations for cellular /wireless facilities: _ ~' uz ce ♦ Specific definitions of technologies and infrastructure 6 �: ♦ Several tiered review processes (Conditional v. Administrative review o. guidelines; Permitted configurations; Development Permits, etc.) , co w; ♦ Application requirements CO u. ♦ Height, setback and landscaping requirements based on zoning w o; districts 2 ♦ General development standards governing fencing, lighting, g a'. aesthetics, maintenance, etc. cn d 1=—W Tukwila's Zoning Code currently provides for cellular /wireless facilities in its z �: decision processes (i.e. a Type 4 process) and applies existing development z o regulations for staff review. However, the Zoning Code does not provide any ' . 2 D' distinction between types of facilities (rooftop antennae, monopoles, micro sites) °` or alternative processes for evaluating facilities based on their likely impacts on :o L the built environment. = w' H U1 u. ~; — o: z V U); There are several options available to address these uses, including: o I. z OPTIONS • Maintain existing Zoning Code provisions • Revise the Zoning Code to vary decision processes (Conditional Use Permit, Administrative Review, etc.) depending on type of proposal (new location versus collocation) • Revise development standards to address specifics of technology, including: ♦ Height of monopoles ♦ Types of monopoles allowed ♦ Design Review requirements ♦. Requirements for ground equipment ♦ Collocation requirements ♦ Allowed height for rooftop antennae c :Imsoffice...wireless\mpc925.doc * File: m Drawing# 1 ORDINANCE NO. 127 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHORELINE, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE SUBMISSION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELE- COMMUNICATION FACILITIES FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 104th Congress of the United States passed Public Law 104 (Telecommunications Act of 1996) mandating the approval of wireless telecommunication facilities in every city and county of the nation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the community derives much of its value and environmental quality from the way it appears to the residents, businesses, visitors and those passing through, and that the location and appearance of tall structures with the potential to affect these elements is important for the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that wireless telecommunication facilities can be a vital tool in the changing economy of the City's businesses and the social lives of its citizens, provided they are located, sited and designed in a manner consistent with the changing technology and with the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that: (a) it can both regulate and provide incentives to the wireless industry, as provided for in this ordinance; (b) that the provisions of this ordinance relative to Wireless telecommunication facilities supersede all other provisions of the Shoreline Municipal Code that may exist in other sections of the Zoning Code; (c) that varying types of wireless telecommunication facilities and the varying environments upon which they may be best suited shall require a comprehensive set of regulations that provide for the review of permit applications for these facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHORELINE, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION A. PURPOSE C i' The City of Shoreline derives much 'of "its community value and environmental quality from the way it appears to the residents, businesses, visitors, and those passing through. The provisions of this ordinance are intended to establish a greater sense of quality and unity of the proposed wireless telecommunication facilities with the physical assets of the community. The standards are not intended to prohibit wireless telecommunication facilities from locating in the community, but rather to add consistency and predictability for telecommunications providers requesting a permit to site a wireless telecommunication facility within the City. The standard cover three major types of wireless telecommunication facilities, based on the type of permanent mounts. They include building mounted, ground mounted and structure (other than buildings) mounted facilities. The standards include pictures of various types of facilities in the text of this ordinance. SECTION B. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATION OF TECHNICAL TERMS The following technical terms and definitions are used throughout the ordinance. When a word or phrase appears that is also defined in this section, it is identified through the use of italics. 1. Abandonment. To cease operation for period of six (6) or more consecutive month. 2. Antenna. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio - frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: Omni - Directional (or `Whip'), Directional (or `Panel'), Parabolic (or `Dish'), and Ancillary Antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless telecommunication services). 3. Camouflaged. A wireless telecommunication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. 4. Co- location. The use of a single support structure and/or site by more than one wireless communications provider. 5. Conditional use permit (CUP). A process and approval as described in City of Shoreline Ordinance No. 96 and in the Zoning Code, Title 21A 44.040. 6. Corridor. A linear strip of land through the City, usually having a major street, road or other type of right -of -way running through its spine or center. A "communications corridor" represents a high - volume traffic facility (e.g., I -5) along which are found several personal wireless service facilities. 7. Design. The appearance of wireless telecommunication facilities including such features as their materials, colors, and shape. 8. Equipment enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. 9. Guyed tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. 10. Lattice tower. A type of mount that is self - supporting with multiple legs and cross - bracing of structural metal. 11. Licensed carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. 12. Modification. The changing of any portion of a wireless telecommunication facility from its description in a previously approved CUP or SUP. Examples include, but are not limited to, changes in design or ownership. 13. Monopole. A self - supporting antenna, ground - mounted, consisting of a single shaft that is typically made of wood, steel, or concrete and provides a rack (or racks) for mounting antennas at its top. 2 ? 14. Mount. The structure or surface upon which wireless telecommunication facilities are mounted. There are three types of permanent mounts: i) Building Mounted. A wireless telecommunication facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building. ii) Ground- mounted. A wireless telecommunication facility mount fixed to the ground. iii) Structure- mounted. A wireless telecommunication facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, water reservoirs, and bridges. 15. Prime Wireless Location. A site, or area, designated by the City of Shoreline as suitable for location of wireless telecommunication facilities due to their potential for effective service provision to specific areas of the city. 16. Secondary use. A use subordinate to the principal use of the property, e.g., commercial, residential, utilities, etc. 17. Security barrier. A wall, fence or berm that has the purpose of sealing an area from unauthorized entry or trespass. 18. Special use permit (SUP). A process and approval as described in City of Shoreline Ordinance No. 96 and in the Zoning Code, Title 21A.44.050. 19. Unlicensed wireless services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. 20. Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, Personal Communication Services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WTF are composed of two or more of the following components: i) Antenna; ii) Mount; iii) Equipment Enclosure; iv) Security Barrier SECTION C. EXEMPTIONS The following are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance and shall be permitted in all zones: 1. Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2. Machines and equipment that are designed and marketed as consumer products, such as microwave ovens and remote control toys. 3. The storage, shipment or display for sale of antenna(s) and related equipment. 4. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 5. Hand -held, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. 6. Wireless radio utilized for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster. 7. Licensed amateur (Ham) radio stations and citizen band stations. 8. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. 9. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the NB, CB, RB, 0, or I zones. 3 z ~ z , rQQ�. JU o co 0. wI w0 J �¢ -a = W z �o z w uj 'o D-: 0 I_-. w uj . z u O' ui z. O~ z 10. Satellite dish antennas less than two (2) meters in diameter, including direct to home satellite services, when an accessory use of a property. 11. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures, provided that compliance with the standards of this ordinance is maintained. 12. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this ordinance, a building permit z application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until 30 days _ after the completion of such emergency activity.. re W 6 -J 00 U U CO W J =' 1"- V) u.. W 0' g J' tL < co . a 1- _. Permit review procedures for various types of permits are established in the City of Shoreline z �. Ordinance No. 96. This section specifies the types of permits required for the various types of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, based on the type of mount, that meet the standards of w o uj this ordinance. • o' o 59-' w uj - -. O• wz U 0 SECTION DI PROHIBITIONS The following wireless telecommunication facilities are prohibited: 1. Guyed towers. 2. Roof - mounted lattice towers. SECTION E. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS In reviewing any application for wireless telecommunication facility the City shall act within a reasonable period of time, taking into the account the nature and scope of the application. Incentives, shorter and less complex permit processing, are provided for the building and structure mounted facilities and for co-location of facilities on existing towers, based on a reasonable conclusion that such facilities require less additional evaluation compared to review needed for ground mounted facility on a new site. Application submission requirements for Conditional Use Permit and Special Use Permit are specified in the City of Shoreline Zoning Code, Title 21A. TABLE 1- Types of permits required for the various types of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities z SECTION F. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following standards, text and figures, shall be applied to all proposed development of wireless communication facilities located within the City of Shoreline. 1. BUILDING MOUNTED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES STANDARDS: a) Wireless telecommunication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed to the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views. (Figure 1 and 2) b) The maximum height of roof mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard shall apply to all buildings, including those built at the maximum height allowed in a specific zone. c) Equipment for building mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located within the building in which the facility is placed or shall be incorporated into the roof design. d) Building mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall be painted with non - reflective colors. Colors of these facilities and equipment enclosures shall blend in with the building colors. Panels r. Dish _Whip Figure 1 - Wireless facilities integrated into the roof design. Figure 2 - Unintegrated roof mounted facilities are not permitted. 2. GROUND MOUNTED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES STANDARDS: a) All ground mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall conform to the height and setbacks requirements specified in Table 2. 5 TABLE 2 - Height and setback standards for ground mounted wireless telecommunication facilities ZONE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SETBACKS All Residential Zones: R4 -R48 Maximum height specified for each zoning designation in the Shoreline Municipal Code, Title 21A, Zoning Code Minimum 50' from all adjacent residentially zoned properties. Minimum of 30' from any public Right of Way. All Commercial Zones: NB, CB, RB and 0. Maximum height specified for each zoning designation in the Shoreline Municipal Code, Title 21A, Zoning Code Minimum 30' from all adjacent commercially zoned properties and 50' from all adjacent residentially zoned properties. Minimum of 30' from any public Right of Way. Industrial Zone Maximum height specified for the zoning designation in the Shoreline Municipal Code, Title 21A, Zoning Code Minimum 20' from all adjacent industrially zoned properties, 30' from all adjacent commercially zoned properties and 50' from all adjacent residentially zoned properties. Minimum of 30' from any public Right of Way. b) All ground mounted wireless telecommunication facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: i) To the greatest extent possible, ground mounted facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities from prevalent views. (Figures.3, 4, 5 and 7.) ii) Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. (Figure 5.) iii) A.landscaping plan shall be required that shows the best use of the existing vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be supplemented with new landscaping to effectively screen the facility. Indigenous, drought tolerant plants or species proven adaptable to the local climate should be used. New landscaping must provide design continuity between the subject site and neighboring properties. (Figure 3.) iv) Equipment enclosures shall be placed unobtrusively underground if site conditions permit and if technically feasible. When such placement is not feasible, they shall be incorporated in a building design. (Figure 3.) v) Above ground equipment shall be screened around the perimeter by a fence at least six feet (6') high. The fence should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of these. (Figure 8.) vi) The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited, unless fully screened from public views by a minimum eight feet (8') wide landscaping strip. All landscaping shall meet the standards of the City of Shoreline, Zoning Code, Chapter 21 A.16. (Figure 6.) 6 vii) Support structures, antennas and associated hardware and equipment shall be finished in such a manner as to blend with the background against which the wireless communication facility will be viewed. .ecT!7txt.iEtoirilksVtiiia._ ..�'41cTs�+'C.'4Ft7T, Figure 3 - Supplement existing vegetation with new landscaping. Equipment enclosure shall be incorporated into a building design. Figure 5 - Existing trees should be retained in order to conceal the WTF. try., -;��� .01=1".. Ant Figure 4 - Unintegrated facilities dominating the landscape are not permitted. Figure 6 - Use of chain link fence without any landscape screen is prohibited. 7 '.:' • ?. II I I / II 11■ /l■ l BIIIIU I IIII1 IIIII*IIIIIl l l l ll 11.. Mites :. 3III1111 / /Ili1 t1IUIIlll o,IIII /I ISSION li 1111111131111111111111111 (�llplp IIIIII1111 SUMP • IIIuuul uues! nail IIIuuuulp1111111 luuuuul1I IIIIIP IIIIIU■ IIIIIII Figure 7 - Unscreened facilities and chain link fencing are prohibited. Figure 8 - Examples of screening and fencing of WTF from public views. 3. STRUCTURE MOUNTED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES STANDARDS a) Wireless telecommunication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles, towers and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. (Figures 9 and 10.) b) The maximum height of structure mounted facilities shall not exceed the height limits specified for each zoning designation in the Shoreline Municipal Code, Title 21 A, Zoning Code. c) Wireless telecommunication facilities located on structures other than buildings shall be painted with non - reflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. d) Wireless telecommunication facilities located on structures within the City of Shoreline rights -of -way shall comply with Right -of -Way Use Permit requirements (City of Shoreline, Ordinance No. 83). 8 -" z W J U 00 W J F-. W0 lLQ" co Id H = z�. F- 0 Z F-- Do ❑ F-: WW U -- Z' 111 on H= 0 ~. z Risible Antenna location Figure 10 - Antenna mounted on the existing water tank. Figure 9 - Antenna mounted on the light pole. Possible Antenna Locations Equipmer Budding Landsca, Secur' Fence SECTION G. GENERAL SITING CRITERIA FOR THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES 1. The City of Shoreline encourages wireless telecommunication providers to plan more frequent, less conspicuous sites instead of attempting to stretch desirable range through use of taller than necessary towers. 2. The City of Shoreline believes that specific types of wireless telecommunication facilities are better placed in some locations of the City than in others. The City of Shoreline is committed to preserving those locations for existing and future carriers, and to avoid over development (saturation) of any prime location with WTFs. The City may request feasibility studies associated with applications for ground mounted WTF which demonstrate that locations on existing structures have been explored as the preferred alternative. 9 : :' z w. re 00 W =' 'J F. W 0. u. • co = W. H =. z� .1- 0, Z LU N 0 I-. W W, 1-v: z Uk O z 1 3. The development of single -user WTFs tends to use up those few prime locations more quickly than if all these facilities were co- located. Generally, collocation on existing towers and attachment of antenna to existing structures and buildings are encouraged by less complex permit procedures. (Refer to Section E.) mow. 4. Co- location shall be encouraged for all personal wireless service facility applications. J U. U O' No. W =: J CO LL : w O. g Q CI. z �. �O . The following shall be considered by the applicants as preferred locations for WTF: w w :O co o F- = U' i- ll. -. f- O: Z In addition to the application submittal requirements of the City of Shoreline, each application o = for wireless telecommunication facility, where a Conditional Use or Special Use is required, 17_ I -' shall be accompanied by the following items: i) To the greatest extent that is technically feasible, new applicants shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. ii) Co- locations shall be reviewed by the City on the basis of the site being built out (all available mounting capacity in use). iii) Any WTF that requires an SUP under the provisions of this ordinance shall be separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet from any other facility requiring an SUP, unless located within an area designated as a Prime Wireless Location by the City of Shoreline. i) Existing site or tower where a legal WTF is currently located. ii) Publicly -Used Structures such as water towers and other structures and/or buildings. SECTION H. SUBMITTALS 1. Photosimulations of the proposed facility from effected residential properties and public rights -of -way at varying distances. 2. A map showing the service area of the proposed wireless telecommunication facility and an explanation of the need for that facility. 3. A map showing the locations and service areas of other wireless telecommunication facility sites operated by the applicant and those proposed by the applicant that are close enough to impact service within the city. 4. A site, elevation, and landscaping plan showing the specific placement of the wireless telecommunication facility on the site; showing the location of existing structures, trees, other significant site features; and indicating type and locations of plant materials used to screen wireless telecommunication facility components and the proposed color(s) for the facility. 5. A signed statement indicating: a) The applicant and landowner agree to allow for the potential co- location of additional WCF equipment by other providers on the applicants structure or within the same site location; and b) That the applicant and/or landlord agree to remove the facility within 90 days after use of the site is discontinued. 6. Copies of any environmental documents required by any Federal agency. These shall include the Environmental Assessment (EA) required by FCC Para 1.1307, or, in the event that an FCC EA is not required, a statement to this effect that provides the specific numbers (such as height of antenna, ERP and other factors) that obviate the requirement for an EA. SECTION I. MODIFICATION From time to time, the applicant and/or co- applicant may want to alter the terms of the CUP or SUP by modifying specific features of the WTF. If any of the following changes. are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City of Shoreline as a renewal of the CUP or SUP. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of WTF, including "in- kind" replacement. a) Addition to, or replacement of, any equipment specified in the original design submittals. b) Change of the WTF design as specified in the original permit submittals. SECTION J. ABANDONMENT OR DISCONTINUATION OF USE 1. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a personal wireless service facility, such carrier will notify the City of Shoreline Development Services Group by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. 2. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the personal wireless service facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. 3. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the personal wireless service facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to: a) Removal of antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject property. 11 z re W' 6 n J U. U O: wW. w o. gQ. i a. I-0• Z E--, U� 'O U I— W w' N - O W ..z U =; OH z b) Transportation of the antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers to a repository outside of the City of Shoreline. c) Restoring the location of the personal wireless service facility to its natural condition, except that any landscaping provided by the WTF operator shall remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a personal wireless service facility in accordance with this section of this ordinance, the City of Shoreline shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the WTF shall be charged to the landowner in the event the City of Shoreline removes the facility. SECTION K. MAINTENANCE 1. The applicant shall maintain the WTF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. 2. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Shoreline may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. SECTION L. SEVERABILITY If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. SECTION M. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after passage and legal publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 28, 1997. 12 Mayor Connie King z mow. QQ 2 J V UO.. W J w w0. uQ. d Fw z �. z I— LLI U ;0 -: o I- „ 'I I w� - O. i z. Iola U -.. =I O z ATTEST: cSfumpri,1724aue-ti: Sharon Mattioli, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: • Bmce Disend City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: May 2, 1997 May 7, 1997 13 . . • • - . .„ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM Planning Commis) Michael Jenkin September 18, 19 Cellular /wireless technology in Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director You requested an overview of the city's approach to regulating cellular /wireless technologies. The following is a brief summary of current city policies and codes, an overview of telecommunication facilities in Tukwila, a summary of regulations in surrounding jurisdictions and options to consider. BACKGROUND The 1995 Tukwila Comprehensive Plan includes policies for non city -owned utilities. In addition, the 1995 Zoning Code requires all developments to be reviewed under a Conditional Use Permit process. The Comprehensive Plan policies that specifically address these facilities are: • Policies 12.1.34: Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities based upon Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations • Policy 12.1.36: Encourage utilities to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible ♦ Shared towers, poles, antennae, trenches, easements and substation sites ♦ Use of existing structures by cellular communications ♦ Telephone switching facilities enclosed in buildings compatible with the surrounding area Currently, all cellular /wireless facilities require approval of a Conditional Use Permit application in all zones, whether it is a new facility or modification of an p ;it, existing facility. Any modifications of a previously approved site would also Q require approval by the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the 'm � • �0. changes and if any conditions were placed on the original approval_ • 0f4 ` ^ GLLa G .v, 4 �(1` -, J�o ,rv�v �� , �� �° �,v�' Ceti a C��cc ,.ctc w (�c.��"� p, \A'0A ' 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Memorandum to Planning Commission September 18, 1997 Re: Cellular /wireless technology in Tukwila In addition, all applications must adhere to the underlying development regulations in 'their proposed zone, including setback, height, landscaping or other requirements. A SEPA determination is required for facilities that include a ��,/ monopole or other support structures that are taller than 60 feet or where it is proposed for a residential zone, pursuant to Department of Ecology t C requirements. h 1 ("ck' �.� ��r The City of Tukwila only requires a building permit if there is a monopole or if the a° y • CELLULAR/WIRELESS SITES IN TUKWILA �� ,)✓`' Dt There are 12 locations in Tukwila that have received Conditional Use Permit N r° proposal requires structural modifications to the host facility. approval, as follows: I»l :.:::: >.::::.:..:..:: .:.......... 90 -1 -CUP li.#iC+Q.N:: :::.:........: f �<'': >: % %:;:: v% ,� .... n., h�....... n.. ........�iM:•:M,�f�.f:i.�lll�± S. 158th and Nelson Place :. MK �■ :�y : k •.•.{;SS%:ti•f:Y ' Monopole yM�L p' ' %:` "': Cellular One 91 -2 -CUP 12228 - 51st Place S. Monopole Cellular One 91 -03 -CUP 13130 - 44th Ave S. Monopole US West 91 -04 -CUP 566B Industry Drive Monopole US West 91 -05 -CUP 15426 - 35th. Ave S Monopole Cellular One L96 -0034 3516 S. 146th Rooftop antennae Sprint Spectrum L96 -0035 16500 Southcenter Parkway Rooftop antennae Sprint Spectrum L96 -0061 16500 Southcenter Parkway Rooftop antennae GTE Wireless L96 -0062 10825 E. Marginal Way S. Rooftop antennae /monopole Sprint Spectrum L96 -0070 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Facade mount antennae AT &T Wireless L97 -0030 12400 - 51st Place S. Monopole Sprint Spectrum L97 -0045 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Facade mount antennae Western Wireless There are also 3 pending applications, including two separate monopoles. ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS 3 Due to the proliferation of cellular /wireless sites, a number of jurisdictions in King k").< County have started to develop or have approved regulations to govern 414 L, o el) cellular /wireless facilities. Some jurisdictions (Tacoma, Des Moines, SeaTac, 04V1 t{ Auburn and Kent) have passed moratoriums on all new cellular /wireless facilities $C< �iL to study and adopt regulations. V `v •,ur Moratoriums have been adopted where the jurisdiction has no regulations to " govern telecommunication facilities or where there is a history with the a/ community on specific issues related to these facilities. The latter issue is of ��d� particular note, involving the City of Medina's moratorium to prohibit new facilities ,y. abased on 'aesthetic' issues. ti r)) •;:,: _� Memorandum to Planning Commission September 18, 1997 Re: Cellular /wireless technology in Tukwila When adopted, moratoriums have lasted approximately 6 to 9 months, allowing staff to develop regulations and hold hearings on the proposed regulations. Generally, moratoriums have resulted in development of, the following types of regulations for cellular /wireless facilities: ru,P-k ♦ Specific definitions of technologies and infrastructure ♦ Several tiered review processes (Conditional v. Administrative review guidelines; Permitted configurations; Development Permits, etc.) ♦ Application requirements ♦ Height, setback and landscaping requirements based on zoning districts ♦ General development standards governing fencing, lighting, aesthetics, maintenance, etc. Tukwila's Zoning Code currently provides for cellular /wireless facilities in its decision processes (Le. a Type 4 process) and applies existing development regulations for staff review. However, the Zoning Code does not provide any distinction between types.of facilities (rooftop antennae, monopoles, micro sites) or alternative processes for evaluating facilities based on their likely impacts on the built environment. VOPTIONS There are several options available to address these uses, including: • Maintain existing Zoning Code provisions • Revise the Zoning Code to vary decision processes (Conditional Use Permit, Administrative Review, etc.) depending on type of proposal (new location versus collocation) • Revise development standards to address specifics of technology, including: • ♦ Height of monopoles Types of monopoles allowed Design Review requirements Requirements for ground equipment Collocation requirements Allowed height for rooftop antennae c: \rnsoffice...wireless\mpc925.doc ` �' • Edmonds 6 types of facilities allowed • Micro ♦ On existing buildings or support structures ♦ interior wall not a residential space ♦ Exempt from height limits if antennae are 4 -6 feet high and 4 square feet in area ♦ May be placed on nonconforming structures ♦ Exempt from Design Review if painted same color ♦ Operating Equipment must be in a building or structure or otherwise concealed ♦ Providers may not have stations within 1,320 of other facilities they operate Mini ♦ Not permitted in single family residential zones ♦ Interior wall not a residential space ♦ Exempt from height limits if it is an omni directional antennae no more than 10 feet high ♦ May be placed on nonconforming structures ♦ Exempt from Design Review if painted same color as supporting structure ♦ Operating Equipment must be in a building or structure or otherwise concealed Macro ♦ Not permitted in single family residential zones ♦ Interior wall not a residential space ♦ Exempt from height limits if it is an omni directional antennae no more than 15 feet high ♦ May be placed on nonconforming structures ♦ Exempt from Design Review if painted same color as supporting structure ♦ Operating Equipment must be in a building or structure or otherwise concealed • Monopole I ♦ Permitted in general commercial zones without conditional permit approval and in neighborhood /residential zones with a conditional use permit ♦ Not permitted in low /m- •' - - - - idential zones or open space ones ♦ Maximum height for p 60 feet f06.4..- F-s ♦ Maximum height of any attac e• antennae is 15 feet ♦ Co- location on existing facilities are ermitted val- ♦ Operating equipment shall be concea e or placed unde round ♦ Design Review is required ♦ If located adjacent to a single family zone, setback must be at least the height of pole from nearest single family property line ^, • Monopole II • Only allowed in general commercial zones and shall be designed to support at least 2 separate service providers • Monopoles plus antennae in excess 0_feetre located within 300 feet of a residential zone require a conditional use permit hearing • Not permitted in residential zones, residential/neighborhood commercial zones or open space zones • Maximum height for pole is 150 feet • Maximum height of antennae is 15 feet • Design Review required • Co-location on existing facilities are permitted • Operating equipment shall be concealed or placed underground • If located adjacent to a single family zone, setback must be at least the height of pole from nearest single family property line • Must be be separated by at least 1,320 feet from other similar facility • Lattice Tower ..% • Only allowed in general commercial zones and shall be designed to support at least 2 separate service providers • Lattice Towers in excess of 150 feet or are located within 300 feet of a residential zone require a conditional use permit hearing • Not permitted in residential zones, residential/neighborhood commercial zones or open space zones • Maximum height for pole is 150 feet • Maximum height of antennae is 15 feet • Design Review required • Co-location on existing facilities are permitted • Operating equipment shall be concealed or placed underground • If located adjacent to a single family zone, setback must be at least the height of pole from nearest single family property line • Must be separated by at least 1,320 feet from other similar facility Redmond • Building permit required for all telecommunication facilities, except UHFNHF antennae or satellite dishes Tess than 1 meter in diameter • Conditional Use permit required of all new facilities, unless the proposal is a collocation on an existing monopole or tower • Wireless facilities are ranked by preference: 1. Existing Broadcast or Relay Towers 2. Industrial or Manufacturing Zones 3. Publicly -used Structures 4. Business /commercial Zones 5. Residential Zones 6. Residential structures • Development standards ♦ An application for a monopole will be denied if placement of antennae can be accommodated on an existing structure. Collocation efforts must be explored and documented to show that reasonable efforts were made to identify alternative locations ♦ No wireless equipment allowed in setback areas ♦ Combined antennae and support structure may not extend more than 15 feet above existing or proposed roof structure ♦ No signage allowed on wireless facilities ♦ Antennae shall be screened or camouflaged to the greatest extent possible by use of shelters, materials, location, colors or other means ♦ Screening of operating equipment provided with one or a combination of fencing, walls, landscaping, structures or topography to block views from the street and within 500 feet of any residential property Facilities not used during a 12 month period or that falls into disrepair must be removed. Disrepair includes structural features, paint, landscaping or lack of maintenance that results in visual impacts. Lynnwood • Permitted without a Conditional Use Permit ♦ Wireless Facilities, including antennae and operating equipment, that are incorporated into an existing structure that was not designed for a wireless facility ♦ Wireless Facilities at least 300 feet from a residential zone, measured from closest property line • Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit ♦ City-owned wireless facilities ♦ Wireless facilities less than 300 feet from a residential zone, measured from closest property line . . :.. � +�^ ne j V. 00: w= J H. w O' D = C�. z z �- i0 N•. w w. O+ LLiz. U. u 0 z SeaTac • General Development Standards ♦ Maximum height of fencing is 10 feet • Lighting, when required by FM or other approvals, shall be hooded or directed away from surrounding properties, unless required by FAA ♦ Support structures painted to blend with surroundings to the extent possible, as approved by Planning Director ♦ Wireless facilities may not be used for advertising purposes • Abandoned sites must be removed within 6 months of abandonment and restored to condition prior to construction • Building and /or electrical permit required • New support structures only allowed where there is no feasible alternative. Preferred order of location for new support structures is 1. Industrial and General Commercial Zones 2. Neighborhood, Regional Commercial, Light Industrial 3. High Density Residential 4. Low and Medium Density Residential Wireless facilities are permitted outright in Industrial/ Commercial zones under the following standards: ♦ Collocation encouraged through allowing upto 4 providers on one location • Height limit of 24 feet above existing structures • New support structures limited to 80 feet if designed for single carrier or 100 feet if designed for collocation ♦ Minimum setbacks from front (10 feet), side (5 feet) and rear (5 feet) yards are required for new support structures ♦ Must adhere to landscaping standards in underlying zoning, but may be modified where appropriate by Planning Director • Wireless facilities are permitted outright in residential zones under the following standards: • Maximum of 4 providers on one structure, unless the Planning Director determines that Tess than 4 is appropriate to protect the character of the neighborhood ♦ Height limit of 24 feet above existing structure • New support structures are limited to 60 feet in designed for single carrier or 80 feet if designed for collocation ♦ Minimum of 20 foot setback from all property lines • Must adhere to landscaping standards in underlying zoning, but may be modified where appropriate by Planning Director H J 0 00: wW. U) WO Q co d`. I- ,— 41 Z1: 1— O.: Z F— 'O N`, 'Cl f- Ww H 0 LL 0, z U N. z c .�__.._... ..... A COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CELLULAR/WIRELESS FACILITIES, BY JURISDICTION RESIDENTIAL ZONES Public Hearing 0 z Yes, unless collocation on existing monopole Within 300 feet of residential zone, not designed within structure Yes Yes Development Permit Yes Yes Yes o [Mechanical /structural only Design Review Exempt, painted to match structure No requirement No requirement No requirement, painted to match structure If within 300 feet of residential zone Operating equipment Concealed/undergrounded Screened by fencing /vegetation Screened/landscaped Screened /Fenced /Landscaped Addressed in CUP Monopoles /antennae 0 0 IY 0 8 Lo 0 Q. n Zone height limit Demonstrated need 60 feet/80 feet with collocation Zone height limit Rooftop antennae height 1 415 feet 115 foot maximum No standard 24 feet Zone height limit V 0 0 00 0 as 0 E c H- 3 .v N T 0 W CL' J N I- COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL ZONES Public Hearing If taller than 150 feet Yes, unless collocation on existing monopole Within 300 feet of residential zone, not designed within structure 0 Yes [Development Permit Yes Yes ‘7es Yes fechanical/structural only [ Design Review Required for Monopoles No requirement No requirement No requirement, painted to match structure If within 300 feet of residential zone Operating equipment Concealed /undergrounded Screened by fencing /vegetation Screened/landscaped [Screened /Fenced /Landscaped Addressed in CUP [Monopoles /antennae Up to 165 feet Zone height limit Demonstrated need 80 feet/100 feet with collocation Zone height limit Rooftop antennae height 4-15 feet 15 foot maximum 1No standard 124 feet Zone height limit H V to v '0 o o o o m E E v c m Y W a J Cn I= 0 N 13, z z. et W J o 00 j No;. WI --1 I-: W0 J a. 1- w z� 0. Z i-. o �. wW u. 0 w Z File: Lq 35mm Drawin2# 1 ATTACHMENT A Huired Re SCI 3/4" I '-o" MANUFACTURE AND INSTALL (1) DOUBLE FACED ILLUMINATED MONUMENT DISPLAY CABINET/RETAINER ALUMINUM EXTRUSION PAINT 506-E3'TEAL-(SEMI-GLOSS) FACE(S) WHITE LEXAN _ . GRAPHICS TRANSLUCENT VINYL APPUEID FIRST SURFACE. BACKGROUND COLOR 230-246 TEAL LOGO RING MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR AND INSET 230-84 TANGERINE DOG MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR AND INSET 230-22 BLACK CAT MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR, WHITE TEXT MASK OUT OF.BACKGROUND COLOR, WHITE ILLUMINATION INTERNALLY ILLUMINATE WITH FLUORESCENT LAMPS AS REQUIRED BASE CLADDING ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION PAINT BLACK, (SEMI-GLOSS) 8' - 0" RECEIVED SEP 1 8 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . .• RAMSAY SIGNS ESTABLISHED 1911. Date 8.28.95 Client Tulwila Pet Hospital Tulwila. Washington Account Exectuive Bob Pershing Design Ross Hilden POI Approvals Client Date Landlord Date Revisions Date Action Ramsay Signs 9160 SE 74 th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97206 503 777.4555 fax 503 777.0220 This Is a Copy Right protected design. Do not copy, ak er. or use In any way vdthout written permission from Ramsay. .PROJECT NUMBER 97290 5 22'721 PRODUCTION ION I'RIN I 9:10.91 As Re•uired SCALE: • 3/4" = 1' - 0" MANUFACI E AND INSTALL (1) DOUBLE FACED ILLUMINATED MONUMENT DISPLAY CABINET/RETAINER ALUMINUM EXTRUSION PAINT 506 E -3 TEAL (SEMI- GLOSS) FACE(S) WHITE LEXAN GRAPHICS TRANSLUCENT VINYL APPLIED FIRST SURFACE BACKGROUND COLOR 230 -246 TEAL TEXT MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR, WHITE LOGO LOGO BACKGROUND COLOR 230 -1 16 BRIGHT JADE GREEN RING . MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR AND'INSET 230 -84 TANGERINE DOG MASK OUT OF BACKGROUND COLOR AND INSET 230 -22 BLACK CAT ' MASK OUT•OF BACKGROUND COLOR. WHITE ILLUMINATION INTERNALLY ILLUMINATE WITH FLUORESCENT LAMPS AS REQUIRED BASE CLADDING 8' -0" PERMIT CENTER IlliIiii•i lili11I �lll(h iiIiiillllll IIIIIILLLIIIIIIJIIlli' i::-III.Ii i'i ,l iitlliiilli,ii %LIIIII:ILi �i�ill�i i► ��,��ii i�iI�I�lii�iiii[i iiiifil' RAJWSAY SIGNS ESTABLISHED 1911 Date • 8.28.95 Client Tulwila Pet Hospital Tulwila, Washington Account Exectuive Bob Pershing Design Ross Hilden Approvals Client Date Landlord Date Revisions • Date Action 9:5 . Change logo background color Ramsay Signs 9160 SE 74th Avenue -• . Portland, Oregon 97206 S 503 777.4555 fax 503 777.0220 This is a Goy Mehl protected dnn. Do not copy, der, or no In any wsy without written permission from Ranssry P R O J E C T N U M B E R 97290