Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L06-023 - CITY OF TUKWILA - WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CODE AMENDMENT
CITY OF TUKWILA WIRELESS FACILITIES ZONIGN CODE AMENDMENTS ZONING CODE CHAPTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENISVE LAND USE AMENDMENT L06 -023 • • October 23, 2006 Brandon Miles Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Miles: Enclosure • If you have any questions, please call me at 360 725 -3064. Sincerely, £hula Weyi la Anne Fritzel Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services • RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2006 COMMUNI I Y DEVELOPMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128. 10°'' Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 ' (360) 7254000 Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Adopted Ordinance 2135, amending the zoning code to regulate the placement of wireless communication facilities. These materials were received on 10/19/2006 and processed with the Material ID # 10953. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. October 17, 2006 Growth Management Services Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development PO Box 42525 906 Columbia St. SW Olympia, WA 98504 -8350 Attn: Review Team: In accordance with the RCW 36.70A.106 City of Tukwila notifies Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development of the adoption of amendments to its development regulations, specifically regarding the placement, operation, and construction of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities A public hearing took place on October 16, 2006 before the City Council and no public testimony was provided. We are providing you two copies of the adopted amendment regarding Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. If you have any questions concerning these amendments, please call Brandon J. Miles, Assistant Planner at (206) 431 -3684 or send an email to bmiles @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, 1 Brandon J. Miles Assistant Planner Enclosure Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • • City of Tukwila Washington Ordinance No. D..1_15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA'S ZONING CODE TO REGULATE THE SITING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City has received or expects to receive requests to site wireless communica- tion facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that Congress, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has imposed requirements that local governments not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services, or act in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, while at the same time preserving traditional State and local authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the provisioning of personal wireless services to the residents of the City of Tukwila is in the public interest, and that permitting the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries is necessary to support such service; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent therefore to permit the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City also finds that placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities could adversely affect the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community; and WHEREAS, the City also finds that construction/installation of new towers to support antenna installations is likely to have a more significant adverse impact upon the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community than use of existing towers, structures, and power poles and use of alternative technology for such installations; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a review of its Zoning Code and determined that existing Zoning Code provisions are technologically dated, unclear or non - existent regarding wireless communication facilities, and do not adequately implement the goals, objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan or adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by adding new regulations to the City's Zoning Code regarding the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after conducting three public hearings on May 25, June 22 and July 27, 2006, recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed new wireless communication facilities regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council's Community Affairs and Parks Committee conducted a public meeting on August 29, 2006, at which time it heard a presentation from staff and reviewed the proposed new wireless communication facilities regulations, and upon such review recommended that modifications to language regarding new towers and height waivers and other minor modifications be made; and WHEREAS, the Clty Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing during the regular meeting on October 16, 2006, and subsequently continued further consideration of the proposed text amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has based its findings and conclusions upon consideration of, among other things, the existing topography and geography of the Clty, existing land uses, available wireless communication technology, existing wireless communications facilities and wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 1 of 26 coverage, public testimony, presentations by staff, applicable laws, rules and regulations including, without limitation, the National Environmental Policy Act and the State Environmental Policy Act, applicable court decisions, and the records on file with the office of the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Wireless Communication Facilities. New regulations concerning wireless communication facilities, to be codified at TMC Chapter 18.58, are hereby adopted as follows: 18.58.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Establlsh clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; 7. Allow wireless communication companies to use City property (i.e. City Hall, Community Center, parks, etc.) for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 8. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through engineering, careful siting, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities; and 12. Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be Interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. winless ord. doc, 10/13/06 Page 2 of 26 • • D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an appllcation for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, this Chapter, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 18.58.020 Authority and Application. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the placement, construction or modification of all wireless communication facilities, except as specifically exempted in TMC Section 18.58.030. 18.58.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: 1. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication facilities, excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of antennas, towers or buildings; provided that the wireless communication facility received approval from the City of Tukwila or King County for the original placement, construction or subsequent modification. Changing of antennas on wireless communication facilities is permitted, provided the new antennas have the same area or less of those removed. The total number of antennas must remain the same. Additional ground equipment may be placed within an approved equipment enclosure, provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening fence. 2. An antenna that is designed to receive or send direct broadcast satellite service and /or broadband signals, or other means for providing Internet service including direct -to -home satellite services, and that is 1 meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement, and when the antenna is attached to the residence or business that is utilizing the service. 3. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via multipolnt distribution services, including multi- channel muitipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is 1 meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 4. An antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios, provided that the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district, and are owned and operated by a Federally - licensed amateur radio station operator or are used exclusively for receive -only antennas. In order to reasonably accommodate licensed amateur radio operators as required by Federal Code of Regulations, 47 CFR Part 97, as amended, and Order and Opinion (PRB -1) of the Federal Communication Commission of September 1985, and RCW 35A.21.260, a licensed amateur radio operator may locate a tower not to exceed the height requirements of the applicable zoning district, provided the following requirements are met for such towers located in a residentially -zoned district: a. The tower and any antennas located thereon shall not have any lights of any kind on it and shall not be illuminated either directly or indirectly by any artificial means; b. The color of the tower and any antennas located thereon must all be the same and such that it blends into the sky, to the extent allowed under requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration; c. No advertising logo, trademark, figurine or other similar marking or lettering shall be placed on the tower or any wireless communication facilities mounted or otherwise attached thereto or any building used in conjunction therewith; d. The tower shall be located a distance equal to or greater than its height from any existing residential structure located on adjacent parcels of property, including any attached accessory structures; e. A tower must be at least three- quarters of its height from any property line on the parcel of property on which it is located, unless a licensed engineer certifies that the tower will not collapse or that it is designed in such a way that, in the event of collapse, it falls within itself, and in that event, it must be located at least one -third of its height from any property line; f. No signs shall be used in conjunction with the tower, except for one sign not larger than 81/2" high and 11" wide and as required by Federal regulations; g. Towers shall not be leased or rented to commercial users, and shall not otherwise be used for commercial purposes; and wireless ord. doc, 10/13/06 Page 3 of 26 h. All towers must meet all applicable State and Federal statutes, rules and regulations, including obtaining a building permit from the City, if necessary. 6. Emergency communications equipment during a declared public emergency, when the equipment is owned and operated by an appropriate public entity. 7. Any wireless Internet facility that is owned and operated by a government entity. 8. Antennas and related equipment no more than 3 feet in height that are being stored, shipped or displayed for sale. 9. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 18.58.040 Permits Required. A. No person may place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of TMC Title 18. B. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are totally within City right -of -way. If a project is both on private or public property and City right-of-way, the DCD Director shall review the application. Regardless of whether the DCD Director or the Director of Public Works is reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. C. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (Le., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). D. This Chapter provides guidelines for the placement and construction of wireless communication facilities, not exempt as set forth in TMC Section 18.58.030 from its provisions and modification of wireless communication facilities. E. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking or landscaping on a site. F. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under TMC Chapter 18.72. Any request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. G. Third Party Expert Review — Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the applicant. H. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review his /her qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site - specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and /or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the application. The expert review shall address the following: 1. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; 2. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; 3. The validity of conclusions reached; 4. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and 5. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. I. Any decision by the DCD Director, Director of Publlc Works, or Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a minor modification. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 4 of 26 TABLE A Type of Permit Required, Based on Type of Wireless Communication Facility Zoning Type of Facility Residential Commercial Industrial Transmission tower co- location Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Adding antennas to an existing tower Type 1 (2) Type 1 (2) Type 112) Utility pole co- location Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Concealed building attached Type 2' Type 2 13) Type 1 Non - concealed building attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 New tower or waiver request Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 • • 18.58.050 Types of Permits /Priority/Restrictions. A. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table A: Zoning for any private /public property or right-of-way: Residential — LDR, MDR, or HDR. Commercial — 0, MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI or TVS. Industrial — LI, HI, MIC /L, or MIC /H. (2) Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square footage of the enclosure area does not increase. (3) An applicant may request to install a non - concealed building attached facility, under TMC Section 18.58.150. In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the DCD Director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into Table A. B. The priorities for the type of wireless communication facility shall be based upon their placement in Table A; most desirable facilities are located toward the top and least desirable facilities toward the bottom. Any application for a wireless communication facility must follow the hierarchy of Table A. For example, an applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that using a transmission tower co- location is not possible before moving to a utility pole co- location, and so forth, with the last possible siting option being a new tower or waiver request. C. The City's preferences for locating new wireless communications facilities are as follows: (U 1. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers. 2. Place wireless communication facilities in nonresidentially -zoned districts and nonresidential property. 3. Place antennas and towers on public property and on appropriate rights-of-way if practical, provided that no obligation is created herein for the City to allow the use of City property or public right-of-way for this purpose. 4. City Property/Public Rights -of -Way. The placement of personal wireless communication facilities on City-owned property and public rights -of -way will be subject to other appllcable sections of the Tukwlla Municipal Code and review by other departments (i.e., Public Works, Parks and Recreation, etc.). 5. Wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted on property designated as landmark or as part of a historic district. D. Appllcants shall submit all of the information required pursuant to TMC 18.104.060 and the following: wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page S of 26 Development; 1. Type 1 — Applicant shall submit: a. A completed application form provided by the Department of Community b. Four sets of plans prepared by a design professional. The plans shall include a vicinity map, site map, architectural elevations, method of attachment, proposed screening, location of proposed antennas, and all other information which accurately depicts the proposed project. Minimum size is 8.5" by 11". Plans shall be no greater than 24" x 36 "; c. A letter from the applicant outlining the proposed project and an evaluation from the applicant with regard to the City's Code requirements; d. Sensitive Area studies and proposed mitigation (if required); e. If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with TMC Chapter 8.22, "Noise"; and f. SEPA Application (if required). 2. Type 2 — Applicant shall submit all information required for a Type 1 application, plus the fallowing: a. Four sets of photo simulations that depict the existing and proposed view of the proposed facility; b. Materials board for the screening material; c. Landscaping plan; d. Letter from a radio frequency engineer that demonstrates that the facility meets Federal requirements for allowed emissions; e. If the facility is located within a residential zone, a report from a radio frequency engineer explaining the need for the proposed wireless communication facility. Additionally, the applicant shall provide detailed discussion on why the wireless communication facility cannot be located within a commercial or industrial zone; and f. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a landscaping plan prepared by a Washington State - licensed architect. 3. Type 4 — The applicant shall submit all the information required for Type 1 and Type 2 applications, plus the following: a. All information required for new towers under TMC Section 18.58.070; b. The radio frequency engineer report shall include a discussion of the information required under TMC Section 18.58.070. The report shall also explain why a tower must be used instead of any of the other location options outlined in Table 1; c. Provisions for mailing labels for all property owners and tenants /residents within 500 feet of the subject property; d. Engineering Plans for the proposed tower; e. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area; 1. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower and ancillary structures and ancillary facilities from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to be mutually agreed upon by the Director of DCD and applicant. All plans and photo simulations shall include the maximum build -out of the proposed facility; g. Evidence of compliance with minimum Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions; h. Evidence of compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for height and lighting and certificates of compliance from all affected agencies; and f. Evidence that the tower has been designed to meet the minimum structural standards for wireless communication facilities for a minimum of three providers of voice, video or data transmission services, including the applicant, and including a description of the number and types of antennas the tower can accommodate. 18.58.060 New Towers. A. New towers are not permitted within the City unless the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. Coverage objective — There exists an actual (not theoretical) significant gap in service, and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such significant gap in service; and wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 6 of 26 2. Alternates — No existing tower or structure, or other feasible site or other alternative technologies not requiring a new tower in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least intrusive: The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the significant gap in service in a manner that is, In consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth In this chapter, TMC Title 18, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. B. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the application to construct a new tower, and shall determine whether or not each of the above requirements are met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the tower height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing towers or structures or alternative sites are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That the fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner or operator in order to share an existing tower or structure, or to locate at an alternative site, or to adapt an existing tower or structure or alternative site for sharing, are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower construction by 25% are presumed to be unreasonable; 7. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new tower, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low- powered transmitters /receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 8. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. All engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. C. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, or remand the application back to staff for further investigation in a manner consistent with the Planning Commission order. 18.58.070 General Requirements. The following shall apply to all wireless communication facilities regardless of the type of facility: 1. Noise — Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise must demonstrate compliance with TMC Chapter 8.22, "Noise ". A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. 2. Business license requirement — Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a tower also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. 3. Signage — Only safety signs or those mandated by other government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. 4. Parking — Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. 5. Finish — A tower shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. wireless orddoc, 10/13/06 Page 7 of 26 6. Design — The design of all bulldings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities with the natural setting and built environment. 7. Color — All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. 8. Lighting— Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other appllcable authority. If lighting is required, the reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. 9. Advertising— No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment compound. 10. Equipment Enclosure — Each applicant shall be limited to an equipment enclosure of 360 square feet at each site. However, this restriction shall not apply to enclosures located within an existing commercial, industrial, residential or institutional building. 18.58.080 Electrical Transmission Tower Co- Location- Specific Development Standards. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Height — There is no height requirement for antennas that are located on electrical transmission towers. 2. Antenna aesthetics— There are no restrictions on the type of antennas located on the electrical transmission tower. The antennas must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 3. Antenna intensity — There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an electrical transmission tower structure. 4. Feed lines and coaxial cables — shall be attached to one of the legs of the electrical transmission tower. The feed lines and cables must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 5. Cabinet equipment — Cabinet equipment shall be located directly under the electrical transmission tower where the antennas are located or a concealed location. The wireless communication equipment compound shall be fenced; the fence shall have a minimum height of 6 feet and a maximum height of 8 feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels, or other materials to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in a utility right-of-way that is not zoned residential. 6. Setbacks — Since the facility will be located on an existing electrical transmission tower, setbacks shall not apply. 18.58.090 Adding Antennas to Existing WCF Tower-Specific Development Standards. The following requirements shall apply: L Height — The height must not exceed what was approved under the original application to construct the tower. If the height shall exceed what was originally approved, approval as a Type 2 decision is required for any height which will be less than the maximum height of the zone. 2. Antenna aesthetics— Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the tower. 3. Antenna intensity — There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an existing tower. 4. Feed lines and coaxial cables — Feed lines and coaxial cables shall be located within the tower. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables (such as when extended out of the tower to connect to the antennas) must be painted to match the tower. 5. Cabinet equipment — A new cabinet shall be located within the equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original application. if the applicant wishes to expand the equipment enclosure from what was approved by the City or County under the previous application, the applicant shall seek a wireless communication facility (Type 2) application for only the equipment enclosure increase. 6. Setbacks — Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs new antennas on an existing tower and uses an existing equipment enclosure. If the equipment enclosure is increased, It must meet setbacks. wireless ord.doc, 10 /13/06 Page 8 of 26 1 • s • 18.58.100 Concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Height — The proposed facility must rneet the height requirement of the applicable zoning category. The antennas can qualify under TMC Section 18.50.080, "Rooftop Appurtenances ", if the antennas are located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower, mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human occupancy. Stand -alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop appurtenances. 2. Antennas aesthetics — The antennas must be concealed from view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could include steeple -like structures and parapet walls. The screening must be made out of the same material and be the same color as the building. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed lines and coaxial cables— Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the rooftop. 4. Cabinet equipment— If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then the City's first preference is to locate the equipment on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building In terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a 6- foot -tall fence, and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used In the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 5. Setbacks — The proposed wireless communication facilities facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the facility is to be located. 18.58.110 Non - concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Height — The proposed facility must meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning category. If the building where the facility is located is at or above the maximum height requirements, the antennas are permitted to extend a maximum of 3 feet above the existing roof line. Non - concealed building mounted facilities shall not qualify as "Rooftop Appurtenances" under TMC 18.50.080. 2. Antenna aesthetics — The first preference for any proposed facility is to utilize flush - mounted antennas. Nonflush- mounted antennas may be used when their visual impact will be negated by the scale of the antennas to the building. "Shrouds" are not required unless they provide a better visual appearance than exposed antennas. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the bullding(s). 3. Feed lines and coaxial cables— Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the rooftop. If the feed lines and cables must be visible, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 4. Cabinet equipment— If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a 6- foot -tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 18.58.120 Utility Pole Co- location. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Height — The height of a utility pole co- location is limited to 10 feet above the replaced utility pole, and may be not greater than 50 feet in height in residential zones. Within all other zones, the height of the utility pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the underlying zoning, whichever is greater. 2. Replacement pole — The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the utility pole to support its utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles in the area. 3. Pole aesthetics — The replaced utility pole must have the color and general appearance of the adjacent utility poles. wireless orddoc, 10/13/06 Page 9 of 26 4. Coaxial cables— Coax cables limited to 1/2" in diameter may be attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than '/Z" must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the total size of all coax cables being utilized on the utility pole. 5. Pedestrian Impact — The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be made to improve the pedestrian environment If necessary. 6. Cabinet equipment — Unless approved by the Director of Public Works, all cabinet equipment and the equipment enclosure must be placed outside of City right -of -way. If located on a parcel that contains a building, the equipment enclosure must be located next to the building. The cabinet equipment must be screened from view. The screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a 6- foot -tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC/L, and MIC /H zones. 7. Setbacks — Any portion of the wireless communication facilities located within City right -of -way is not required to meet setbacks. The City will evaluate setbacks on private property under the setback requirements set forth in TMC Section 18.58.170. 18.58.130 Towers - Specific Development Standards. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Height — Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the height standards of the zoning district where the tower will be located. 2. Antenna and tower aesthetics — The applicant shall utilize a wireless communication concealed facility. The choice of concealing the wireless communication facility must be consistent with the overall use of the site. For example, having a tower appear like a flagpole would not be consistent if there are no buildings on the site. If a flag or other wind device is attached to the pole, it must be appropriate in scale to the size and diameter of the tower. 3. Setbacks — The proposed wireless communication facilities must meet the setbacks of the underlying- zoning district. If an exception is granted under TMC Section 18.58.180 with regards to height, the setback of the proposed wireless communication facilities will increase 2 feet for every foot in excess of the maximum permitted height in the zoning district. 4. Color— The color of the tower shall be based on the surrounding land uses. 5. Feed lines and coaxial cables— All feed lines and cables must be located within the tower. Feed lines and cables connecting the tower to the equipment enclosure, which are not located within the wireless communication facility equipment compound, must be located underground. 18.58.140 Request to Use Non - concealed Building Attached in Lieu of a Concealed Building Attached. The use of concealed building facilities shall have first priority in all residential and commercial zones. However, an applicant may request to construct a non - concealed building attached wireless communication facility in lieu of a concealed wireless communication facility. The following criteria shall be used: 1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the antennas, the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in relation to the building. 2. Cables are concealed from view and any visible cables are reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where they are located. 3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view. 4. Due to the style or design of the building, the use of a concealed facility would reduce the visual appearance of the building. 5. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet from the Duwamish/Green River. 18.58.150 Landscaping /Screening. A. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures, with the exception of wireless communication facilities located on transmission towers, or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The DCD Director, Director of Public Works or Planning Commission, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, wireless ord. doc, 10/13/06 Page 10 0126 • s decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots and natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. B. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: 1. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. 2. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. 3. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall at the time of planting. 4. Appllcant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. C. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal, and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving 30 days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the landscaping at the expense of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 18.58.160 Zoning Setback Exceptions. A. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view. B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when: 1. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or 2. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or 3. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially -zoned (LDR, MDR, and HDR) properties. C. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive /modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 18.58.170 Height Waivers. Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties, or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compllance with the height limitations of the Zoning Code, or the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these regulations; provided that the applicant demonstrates that the waiver(s) will substantially secure the values, objectives, standards, and requirements of this Chapter, TMC Title 18, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and demonstrate the following: 1. The granting of the height waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare, or injurious to other property, and will promote the public interest; and 2. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: a. Topography and other site features; b. Availability of alternative site locations; c. Geographic location of property; and d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of co- location. B. In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the objectives of the values, objectives, standards and requirements of this Chapter, TMC Title 18, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 110/26 C. A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. 18.58.180 Expiration. Any application to install or operate a wireless communications facility shall expire exactly one year from the date of issuance of the application unless significant progress has been made to construct the facility. The City may extend the expiration period by up to one additional year due to circumstances outside of the control of the applicant. However, the City shall not issue an extension if any revisions have occurred to the City's Zoning Code which would affect the wireless communication facility approved application. 18.58.190 Removal of Abandoned Wireless Communication Facilities. Any antenna or tower that, after the initial operation of the facility, is not used for the purpose for which it was intended at the time of filing of the application for a continuous period of 12 months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such antenna or tower shall remove same within 90 days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove such abandoned tower shall result in declaring the antenna and /or tower a public nuisance. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this section shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. Section 2. Ordinance 1758, as codified at Chapter 18.06 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add the following definitions: "Ancillary Wireless Communication Facilitles" means any facilities, component, part, equipment, mounting hardware, feed lines, or appurtenance associated with, attached to, or a part of a tower, antenna, ancillary structures, or equipment enclosures, facilities equipment compound, and located within, above, or below the facilities equipment compound. "Ancillary Wireless Communication Facility" means any form of development associated with a wireless communications facility, including but not limited to foundations, concrete slabs on grade, guy anchors, and transmission cable supports; however, specifically excluding equipment enclosures. "Antenna(s)" means any exterior system of electromagnetically-tuned wires, poles, rods, reflecting disks, or similar devices used to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals), wireless telecommunications signals, or other communication signals between terrestrial and /or orbital based points, including without limitation: directional antennas (also known as "panel" antennas) which transmit and receive radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees; omni- directional antennas (also known as "whip" antennas) which transmit and receive radio frequency signals in a 360- degree radial pattern, but do not include antennas utilized specifically for television reception; and parabolic antennas (also known as "dish" antennas) which are bowl- shaped devices for the reception and /or transmission of radio frequency communication signals in a specific directional pattern. "Antenna(s) Array" means one or more antennas and their associated ancillary facilities, which share a common attachment device, such as a mounting frame or mounting support. "Antennas, Rush Mounted" are antennas or antenna array attached directly to the face of the tower or building such that no portion of the antenna extends above the height of the tower or building. "Public Entity" mean any Federal, State, or local government body or agency. "Public R(ght -of Way" means all public streets, alleys and property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to publlc use for streets and alleys, together with all public property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use, including but not limited to walkways, sidewalks, trails, shoulders, drainage facilities, bikeways and horse trails, whether improved or unimproved, including the air rights, subsurface rights, and easements related thereto. "Public Safety Communications Equipment" means any radio or other communication equipment that is owned and exclusively used by public entities for emergency communication or communication between fire, police, and other rescue personnel. "Significant Cap in Service, Wireless Communications" means a large geographic area within a service area(s) of the applicant in which a large number of applicant's remote user subscribers are unable to connect or maintain a connection to the national telephone network through applicant's wireless telecommunications network. A "dead spot" (defined as small areas within a service area where the field strength is lower than the minimum level for reliable service) does not constitute a significant gap in service. "Tower, Electrical Transmission" means any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that supports electrical lines which carry a voltage of at least 115kV. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 12 of 26 "Tower, Guy "means a tower that is supported with cable and ground anchors to secure and steady the tower. "Tower, Lattice" means a tapered style of tower that consists of vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross - bracing and metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas or similar antenna devices. "Tower, Monopole" means a freestanding tower that is composed of a single shaft, usually composed of two or more hollow sections that are in turn attached to a foundation. This type of tower is designed to support itself without the use of guy wires or other stabilization devices. These facilities are mounted to a foundation that rests on or in the ground. "Tower, Wireless Communication Facility" means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including self - supporting lattice towers, guy towers or monopoles. The term includes, without limitation, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, and alternative tower structures. "Tower - Mounted Facilities" means a wireless communication facility that is mounted to a tower. "Utility Pole" is any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that supports electrical lines which carry a voltage of less than 115kV, or any Qwest facility which carries telephone lines. "Wireless Communication Facility"means any tower, antenna, ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof, which is used for the transmission of radio frequency signals through electromagnetic energy for the purpose of providing phone, Internet, video, information services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission, broadband, unlicensed spectrum services utilizing part 15 devices, and other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. "Wireless Communication Facility, Building Mounted" means a wireless communication facility that is attached to an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. "Wireless Communication Facility, Concealed Facility" means a wireless communication facility that is not readily identifiable as such, and is designed to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the existing building(s) on a site; or a wireless communications facility disguised, hidden or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole or tower; or a wireless communication facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure or tower or mounted within trees, so as to be significantly screened from view or camouflaged to appear as a non- antenna structure or tower (i.e., tree, flagpole with flag, church steeple, etc.). "Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Enclosure" means any structure, including without limitation cabinets, shelters, pedestals and other devices or structures, that is used exclusively to contain radio or other equipment necessary for the transmission and /or reception of wireless communication signals including, without limitation, air conditioning units and generators. "Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Compound" means an outdoor fenced area occupied by all the towers, antennas, ancillary structure(s), ancillary facillties and equipment enclosures, but excluding parking and access ways. "Wireless Telecommunication Carrier" means any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or manages any plant, equipment, structures or property within the City for the purpose of offering wireless telecommunication service within the City. "Wireless Communication Facility, Feed Lines or Coaxial Cables" means cables used as the interconnection media between the transmission/recelving base station and the antenna. Section 3. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part) and 1976 §19, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.10, "Low - Density Residential District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.10.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Low - Density Residential District, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Bed and breakfast facilities, provided: a. the manager /owner must live on -site, b. the maximum number of residents, either permanent or temporary, at any one time is twelve, c. two on -site parking spaces for the owner and permanent residents and one additional on -site parking space is provided for each bedroom rented to customers, wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 13 of26 d. the maximum length of continuous stay by a guest is 14 days, e. breakfast must be offered on -site to customers, and f. all necessary permits or approvals are obtained from the Health Department. 2. Cemeteries and crematories. 3. Churches and community center buildings. 4. Dormitories 5. Electrical substations -- distribution. 6. Fire and police stations. 7. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 8. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 9. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 10. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior and senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 4. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part) and 1976 §22, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.12, "Medium- Density Residential District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.12.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Medium Density Residential District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Bed and breakfast facilities, provided: a. the manager /owner must live on -site, b. the maximum number of residents, either permanent or temporary, at any one time is twelve, c. two on -site parking spaces for the owner and permanent residents and one additional on -site parking space is provided for each bedroom rented to customers, d. the maximum length of continuous stay by a guest is 14 days, e. breakfast must be offered on -site to customers, and f. all necessary permits or approvals are obtained from the Health Department. 2. Boarding houses. 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Convalescent and nursing homes for not over 12 patients. 6. Dormitories. 7. Manufactured /mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: a. the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; b. overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; c. vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and d. emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwlla Fire Department. 8. Electrical substations - distribution. 9. Fire and police stations. 10. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 11. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 12. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 13. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. wireless ord. doc, 10/13/06 Page 14 of 26 • s Section 5. Ordinance Nos. 1758 § 1(part) and 1976 §26, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.14, "High- Density Residential District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.14.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the High - Density Residential District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Bed and breakfast facilities, provided: a. the manager /owner must live on-site, b. the maximum number of residents, either permanent or temporary, at any one time is twelve, c. two on -site parking spaces for the owner and permanent residents and one additional on -site parking space is provided for each bedroom rented to customers, d. the maximum length of continuous stay by a guest is 14 days, e. breakfast must be offered on-site to customers, and f. all necessary permits or approvals are obtained from the Health Department. 2. Boarding houses. 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Dormitories. 6. Electrical substations - distribution. 7. Fire and police stations. 8. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 9. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 10. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (publlc), and equivalent private schools. Section 6. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §6, and 1865 §16, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.16, "Mixed Use Office District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.16.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Mixed -Use Office District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64, Conditional Use Permits. 1. Bed and Breakfast lodging. 2. Cemeteries and crematories. 3. Churches and community center buildings. 4. Colleges and universities. 5. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 6. Electrical substation - distribution. 7. Fire and police stations. 8. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 9. Park- and -ride lots. 10. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 11. Recreation facillties (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 12. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 7. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §9, 1865 §19, and 1976 §33, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.18, "Office District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: wirelessord.doc, 10 /13/06 Page ISof26 18.18.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Office District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by TMC 18.18.64, Conditional Use Permits. 1. Cemeteries and crematories. 2. Churches and community center buildings. 3. Colleges and universities. 4. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 5. Electrical substations - distribution. 6. Fire and police stations. 7. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 8. Park -and -ride lots. 9. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 10. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 11. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 8. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1814 §3, and 1976 §38, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.20, "Residential Commercial Center District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.20.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Residential Commercial Center District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Brew pubs. 2. Churches and community center buildings. 3. Convalescent and nursing homes for not more than 12 patients. 4. .Fire and police stations. 5. Fraternal organizations. 6. Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). 7. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, urses. 9. Restaurants, including cocktail lounges in conjunction with a restaurant. 10. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 9. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §12, and 1865 §23, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.22, "Neighborhood Commercial Center District", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.22.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Neighborhood Commercial Center District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions establlshed by TMC Chapter 18.64, Conditional Use Permits. 1. Churches and community center buildings. 2. Colleges and universities. 3. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 4. Electrical substations - distribution. 5. Fire and police stations. 6. Park - and -ride lots. 7. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (commercial - indoor), including bowling alleys, skating rinks, shooting ranges. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 16 of 26 9. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 10. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (publlc), and equivalent private schools. Section 10. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §15, 1865 §28, and 1974 §3, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.24, "Regional Commercial District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.24.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Regional Commercial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by TMC Chapter 18.64, Conditional Use Permits. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 7. Drive -in theaters. 8. Electrical substations - distribution. 9. Fire and police stations. 10. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 11. Internet data/telecommunication centers. 12. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. 13. Park-and-ride lots. 14. Pawnbrokers. 15. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 16. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 17. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 11. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §18, 1865 §32, and 1974 §4, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.26, "Regional Commercial Mixed -Use District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.26.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Regional Commercial Mixed -Use District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than twelve patients. 7. Drive -in theaters. 8. Electrical substations - distribution. 9. Fire and police stations. 10. Hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 17 of 26 11. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand-forging. 12. Park-and-ride lots. 13. Pawnbrokers. 14. Radios, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 15. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 16. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. Section 12. Ordinance Nos. 2084 §2(part) and 2097 §15, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.28, "Tukwila Urban Center District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.28.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Urban Center District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions establlshed by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Bed•and- Breakfast lodging; must be located on property adjacent to and not greater than 500 feet from the Green River, Tukwila Pond, or Minkler Pond. 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 7. Dwelling • Multi -family units (max. 22.0 units /acre except senior citizen housing which is allowed to 100 units /acre, as a mixed -use development that is non - industrial in nature); must be located on property adjacent to and not greater than 500 feet from the Green River, Tukwila Pond, or Minkler Pond. 8. Indoor animal shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 9. Transit - oriented development housing (which is allowed to 65 units /acre as a mixed -use development that is non - industrial in nature); must be located on property adjacent to and not greater than one - quarter mile from the Sounder Commuter Rail/ Amtrak Station property. 10. Drive -in theaters. 11. Electrical substations - distribution. 12. Fire and police stations. 13. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 14. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. 15. Park and ride lots. 16. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 17. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 18. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior or high schools, and equivalent private schools. Section 13. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §24, and 1865 §36, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.30, "Commercial/Light Industrial District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.30.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Commercial Light Industrial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 18 of 26 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additronal State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than 12 patients. 7. Drive -in theaters. 8. Electrical substations - distribution. 9. Fire and police stations. 10. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 11. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal products (no rendering or slaughtering). 12. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling of previously manufactured metals, such as iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable electrode melting; and similar heavy industrial uses. 13. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. 14. Park -and ride lots. 15. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 16. Recreation facilities (commercial - outdoor), including golf courses, golf driving ranges, fairgrounds, animal race tracks, sports fields. 17. Recreation facilities (publlc) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 18. Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble work, and the assembly of products from the above materials. Section 14. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part) and 1865 §38, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.32, "Light Industrial District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.32.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Light Industrial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Drive -in theaters. 7. Electrical substations - distribution. 8. Fire and police stations. 9. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 10. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal products (no rendering or slaughtering). 11. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling of previously manufactured metals, such as iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable electrode melting; and similar heavy industrial uses. 12. Park- and -ride lots. 13. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 19 of26 14. Recreation facilities (commercial - outdoor), including golf courses, golf driving ranges, fairgrounds, animal race tracks, sports fields. 15. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 16. Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble work, and the assembly of products from the above materials. Section 15. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part) and 1865 §40, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.34, "Heavy Industrial District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.34.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Heavy Industrial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. 6. Drive -in theaters. 7. Electrical substations - distribution. 8. Fire and police stations. 9. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compliance with State siting criteria (RCW 70.105; see TMC Chapter 21.08). 10. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 11. Park and ride lots. 12. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 13. Recreation facilities (commercial - outdoor), including golf courses, golf driving ranges, fairgrounds, animal race tracks, sports fields. 14. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. Section 16. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1865 §42, and 1954 §3, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.36, "Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Light District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.36.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light Industrial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1 Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Heavy metal processes such as smelting, blast furnaces, drop forging, or drop hammering. 5. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soaps, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal products (no rendering or slaughtering). 6. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling of previously manufactured metals, such as iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable electrode melting; and similar heavy industrial uses. 7. Offices including, but not limited to, software development and similar uses, financial services, schools and studios for education or self - improvement, 20,000 square feet and over. 8. Park and ride lots. 9. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 20 of26 10. Recreation facilities (publlc) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 11. Retail sales of health and beauty aids, prescription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. 12. Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble work, and the assembly of products from the above materials. Section 17. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1865 §44, and 2028 §2, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.38, "Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Heavy District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.38.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Colleges and universities. 2. Electrical substations - distribution. 3. Fire and police stations. 4. Hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities (off -site) subject to compllance with State siting criteria (RCW70.105; see TMC Chapter21.08). 5. Offices not associated with other permitted uses, subject to the following location and size restrictions: a. New Office Developments: (1) New office developments shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area per lot that was legally established prior to 09/20/2003. (2) No new offices shall be allowed on lots that abut the Duwamish River and are north of the turning basin. The parcels that are ineligible for stand -alone office uses are shown in Figure 18 -12. b. An existing office development established prior to 12/11/1995 (the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan) that exceeds the maximum size limitations, may be recognized as a conforming Conditional Use under the provisions of this code. An existing office development established prior to 12 -11 -1995 (the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan) may convert to a stand -alone office use subject to the provisions of this code. 6. Park and ride lots. 7. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 8. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 9. Retail sales of health and beauty aids, prescription drugs, food, hardware, notions, crafts and craft supplies, housewares, consumer electronics, photo equipment, and film processing, books, magazines, stationery, clothing, shoes, flowers, plants, pets, jewelry, gifts, recreation equipment and sporting goods, and similar items; limited to uses of a type and size that clearly intend to serve other permitted uses and /or the employees of those uses. Section 18. Ordinance Nos. 1758 §1(part), 1830 §26, and 1865 §46, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.40, "Tukwila Valley South District ", are hereby amended to remove cellular towers as a conditional use: 18.40.040 Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed within the Tukwila Valley South District, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. 1. Amusement parks. 2. Animals shelters and kennels, subject to all additional State and local regulations (less than 4 cats or dogs does not need a permit). 3. Cemeteries and crematories. 4. Churches and community center buildings. 5. Colleges and universities. wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 21 of 26 6. Convalescent and nursing homes for more than twelve patients. 7. Drive -in theaters. 8. Dwelling - Multi - family units (Max. 22.0 units /acre except senior citizen housing which is allowed to 100 units /acre, as a mixed -use development that is non - industrial in nature); must be located on property adjacent to and not greater than 500 feet from the Green River, Tukwila Pond, or Minkler Pond. 9. Electrical substations -- distribution. 10. Fire and police stations. 11. Hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. 12. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling of electrical or mechanical equipment, vehicles and machines including, but not limited to, heavy and light machinery, tools, airplanes, boats or other transportation vehicles and equipment. 13. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling chemicals, light metals, plastics, solvents, soap, wood, coal, glass, enamels, textiles, fabrics, plaster, agricultural products or animal products (no rendering or slaughtering). 14. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling of previously manufactured metals, such as iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable electrode melting; and similar heavy industrial uses. 15. Manufacturing, processing and /or assembling previously prepared metals including, but not limited to, stamping, dyeing, shearing or punching of metal, engraving, galvanizing and hand - forging. 16. Park and ride lots. 17. Radio, television, microwave, or observation stations and towers. 18. Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. 19. Recreation facilities (commercial - outdoor), including golf courses, golf driving ranges, fairgrounds, animal race tracks, sports fields. 20. Rock crushing, asphalt or concrete batching or mixing, stone cutting, brick manufacture, marble work, and the assembly of products from the above materials. 21. Salvage and wrecking operations. 22. Schools, preschool, elementary, junior or high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. 23. Storage (outdoor) of materials is permitted up to a height of 20 feet with a front yard setback of 25 feet, and to a height of 50 feet with a front yard setback of 100 feet; security required. Section 19. Ordinance No. 2119 §1, as codified at TMC Chapter 18.104, "Permit Application Types and Procedures ", Is hereby amended to add classifications of project permit applications for Wireless Communication Facilities to Type 1, Type 2 and Type 4 decisions, to read as follows: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and /or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. 1. TYPE 1 DECISIONS are made by City administrators who have technical expertise, as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. wireless ord. doc, 10/13/06 TYPE 1 DECISIONS TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless As specified by ordinance specifically categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter Page 22of26 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Board of Architectural Review Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC 18.46.110) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Binding Site Improvement Plan (TMC Chap.17.16) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Cargo Container Placement (TMC 18.50.060) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Exception from Single - Family Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Community Development Director City Council Parking standard for use not specified (TMC 18.56.100) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Sensitive Areas (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC 18.45) Community Development Director Planning Commission Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Community Development Director State Shoreline Hearings Board Short Plat (TMC 17.12) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Community Development Director Planning Commission Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Community Development Director Planning Commission Special Permission Parking, and Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC 18.56.065 and .070) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Community Development Director Planning Commission Wireless Communication Facility, Administrative (TMC Chapter 18.58) Community Development Director Hearing Examiner Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC 17.08) Community Development Director Development Permit Building Official Minor modification to BAR - approved design (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Community Development Director Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) Community Development Director Wireless Communication Facility, Minor (TMC 18.58) Community Development Director 2. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 2 DECISIONS 3. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court, wireless onLdoc, 10/13/06 Page 23 0126 TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Conditional Use Permit (TMC Chapter 18.64) Planning Commission City Council Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chap. 18.60) Board of Architectural Review City Council Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.180) Planning Commission City Council Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC 18.44.050) Planning Commission State Shorelines Hearings Board Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020) Planning Commission City Council Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Planning Commission City Council Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Wireless Communication Facillty, Major or Waiver Request (TMC 18.58) Planning Commission City Council TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chap. 18.46) City Council Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) City Council Shoreline Environment Redesignation (Shoreline Master Program) City Council Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.12.030) City Councll Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) Hearing Examiner except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 3 DECISIONS 4. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the City Councll, based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 4 DECISIONS 5. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS Section 20. Ordinance No. 1768 §2(part), as codified at TMC Chapter 18.104, "Permit Application Types and Procedures ", is hereby amended to add Wireless Communication Facility Permits as a land use permit that requires additional information be provided for the application to be considered complete, to read as follows: wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Page 24 of 26 • f • subsequently if new or additional information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur, as determined by the Department. 4. There are additional application requirements for the following land use permits, which must be provided in addition to the materials Identified in this section in order for an application to be deemed complete: a. Land altering permit, see TMC 16.54.100, .110 and .230. b. Construction permits, see TMC Title 16, building and construction codes. c. Water system connections, see TMC 14.04.030. d. Sanitary sewer connection, see TMC 14.12.070. e. Flood control zone permit, see TMC 16.52.070. f. Short subdivisions, see TMC 17.08.030. g. Preliminary subdivisions, see TMC 17.12.020. h. Final subdivisions, see TMC 17.12.030. 1. Binding site improvement plans, see TMC 17.16.030. J. Planned residential developments, see TMC 18.46.110. k. Sign permits, see TMC 19.12.020 and .030. 1. Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances, see TMC Chapter 18.44, RCW 90.58 and the applicable Shoreline Master Program. m. Wireless communication facility permits, see Chapter TMC 18.58. 5. The applicant shall attest by written oath to the accuracy of all information submitted for an application. The Department shall have the authority to require the applicant to submit a title report or other proof of ownership of the property or other proof of the applicant's authority to submit an appllcation regarding the property. 6. Applications shall be accompanied by the payment of applicable filing fees, if any. Section 21 . Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 22. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COIL OF TICITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this / (o day of , 2006. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: E. Cantu, crinC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FO Shelley wireless ord.doc, 10/13/06 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: iv Z o Passed by the City Council: /a Published: je, /i y n Effective Date: /n J.� 4 ,10 Ordinance Number: oZ / S Page 26 of 26 • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVE' PMENT 128. 1 r Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia. Washington 98504 -2525 • (360) 725.4000 September 8, 2006 Brandon Miles Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Miles: 8.4c-p 1 'Pet) Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Proposed creation of a wireless telecommunication chapter within the city's zoning code. The regulations will streamline the process for the placement of wireless telecommunication facilities within the city. These materials were received on 09/07/2006 and processed with the material ID # 10783. Expedited Review is requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then CTED will deny expedited review and the standard 60 -day review period (from date received) will apply. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. If you have any questions, please call me at 360 725 -3064. Sincerely, ,@irzda. Weyi Anne Fritzel Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services Enclosure Cities and counties need to send their development regulations to the agencies' representatives, as listed below, at least 60 days ahead of adoption. Adopted development regulations should be sent to Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) immediately upon publication, as well as to any state agencies that commented on the draft regulation. A jurisdiction does not need to send its regulation to the agencies which have been called ahead and that have indicated the local plan will not be reviewed. The jurisdiction should keep a record of this contact with state agencies and the state agencies response. Elizabeth McNagny Department of Social and Health Services Post Office Box 45848 Olympia, Washington 98504 -5848 (360) 902 -8164 Fax: 902 -7889 Email: mcnagec @dshs.wa.gov Steve Penland Department of Fish and Wildlife Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504 -3155 (360) 902 -2598 Fax: (360) 902 -2946 Email: penlastp @dfw.wa.gov Review Team Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Growth Management Services Post Office Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504 -2525 (360) 725 -3000 Fax: (360) 753 -2950 Email: reviewteam @cted.wa.gov Anne Sharar Department of Natural Resources Post Office Box 47001 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7001 (360) 902 -1739 Fax: (360) 902 -1776 Email: anne.sharar @wadnr.gov John Aden Department of Health Division of Drinking Water Post Office Box 47822 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7822 (360) 236 -3157 Fax: (360) 236 -2252 Email: John.Aden @doh.wa.gov STATE AGENCIES REVIEWING DEV REGS Revised August 9, 2005 Bill Wiebe Department of Transportation Post Office Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7370 (360) 705 -7965 Fax: 705 -6813 Email: wiebeb @wsdot.wa.gov Rebecca Barney Department of Corrections Post Office Box 41112 Olympia, Washington 98504-1112 (360) 753 -3973 Fax: (360) 586 -8723 Email: rmbarney @doc1.wa.gov S: \Gmu \ADMIN \Lists \State Agencies Reviewing Dev Regs 8- 05.doc Maintained by Linda Weyl SEPA /GMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 (360) 407 -6960 Fax: (360) 407 -6904 Email: gmacoordination @ecy.wa.gov Harriet Beale Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Post Office Box 40900 Olympia, Washington 98504 -0900 (360) 725 -5442 Fax: (360) 407 -7333 Email: hbeale @psat.wa.gov August 31, 2006 Mrs. Louise Strander PO Box 88636 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mrs. Strander: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Chapter • In the past you have expressed interest regarding proposed wireless telecommunications (cell facilities) in your neighborhood. The City is proposing the creation of a wireless telecommunication chapter to be incorporated into the zoning code. The chapter will provide guidance to prospective wireless providers who wish to locate within the City. The chapter regulates the location, placement, and design standards for wireless facilities. Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the proposed chapter. A public hearing will be scheduled before the City Council at a future date and the City will advise you of the date and time of the public hearing. If you have any questions or comments, please feel feet to call (206) 431 -3684 or send an email to bmil- ' ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, ndon J. Miles Assistant Planner cc. Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Steven M. Mullet, Mayor h4nn Snuthr•ontor Rnrilvvard_ Saito #ln/) • Tukwila Wachinntnn OR1RR • Phnno• 21M-471-7671) • Fay- 21M- 411 -7hhS • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner RE: Creation of Wireless Telecommunications Chapter DATE: August 16, 2006 Introduction DCD included a budget item in the 2006 budget to create a Wireless Telecommunications Chapter within the City's zoning code. Planning staff began working on the chapter in February of 2006 and staff briefed CAP in March. CAP forwarded the matter to the Planning Commission. Background Cell phones have become an everyday item to the American public. In 1992 the number of Americans using cell phones stood at 11 million. By 2005 the number of Americans using cell phones had increased to 182 million. Cell phones initially provided voice to voice communications. Today cell phones provide more than just phone service, they also provide access to the internet, email, text messages, MP3 player, digital cameras, location capability (GPS) and video. The backbone of cell phone usage is the network of wireless antennas that allow users to communicate with other cell users and landline users. The wireless antennas have a limited coverage and capacity ability. As more people use cell phones, more wireless communication facilities are needed. It is this explosion in cell usage that triggered staff's desire to examine how the City reviews applications for wireless communication facilities. Under the City's current process, all new applications and certain modifications to wireless communication facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP is reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director B. Miles Page 1 08/24/2006 The following are issues with using the CUP process for wireless telecommunication facilities: 1. The criteria provides no standards directly related to the impacts of such facilities. 2. By requiring the same process for all proposals they do not allow the City to provide incentives such as streamlined review times for desirable projects such as stealth facilities, collocations, and facilities located in industrial zones. 3. The CUP guidelines provide no clear direction to a potential applicant about the City's preferences for the location and design of telecom facilities. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission was first briefed of the proposed chapter in April of 2006. A public hearing was set for the May meeting and the public hearing was continued through the July meeting. Planning staff also attempted to solicit input from wireless communication providers and their contractors. An invitation to an informal luncheon was mailed to all applicants for CUPs related to Wireless Communication facilities for the past three years. Staff provided draft copies of the proposed chapter all who sent in an RSVP. The providers who attended the meeting did provide good comments on the draft chapter and changes were made as a result of those comments. At the its July meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft chapter. The vote was 6 -0 with one commission member absent from the meeting. The following are the goals of the creation of this chapter: 1. Protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Establish clear regulations for wireless providers to allow them to have predictability in the review process. 3. Streamline the review process for desirable projects. 4. Encourage providers to locate in commercial and industrial zones and to take advantages of existing elevations (Utility Poles, Transmission Towers, Buildings, etc). 5. Ensure that the City's regulations do not conflict with Federal or State laws regarding construction and operation of wireless communication facilities. Major Criteria of New Chapter As noted, one of the goals of the new chapter is to encourage desirable facilities within the City. To provide an incentive to applicants the new chapter allows desirable projects to have a streamlined review and thus allows an applicant to reduce their "time to market" for new facilities. B. Miles Page 2 Q:1Telecommuications \CAP Memos\STAFF REPORT 2006.08.16.doc 08/24/2006 • • The City's zoning code sets up five types of land use applications. Type I are small scale projects while Type V applications require approval of the City Council. An example of a Type I application is a sign permit and an example of a type V application would be an unclassified use permit. The Planning Commission identified certain wireless applications which should be subject to a Type I application. These include: 1. Locating antennas on transmission towers. 2. Adding antennas to an ex� isting tower. 3. Attaching antennas to an existing building within an industrial zone. The Planning Commission recommended that the following facilities should be subject to a Type II decision. 1. Utility Pole Collocations 2. Adding antennas to existing buildings in residential or commercial zones. Perhaps no other land use application generates as much controversy as a proposal to construct a standalone cell tower. The Planning Commission chose to only permit new cell towers in the City, as a type V permit with a public hearing and a review of specific approval criteria. Any decision by the City on a wireless communications application could be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The chapter sets up specific design standards for wireless telecommunication facilities. The design standards are based on the type of facility. The chapter also provides tools for the City to use in order to ensure that the overall goals of the Chapter are met. These tools include: 1. The ability to require peer review for any wireless telecommunication application. 2. Flexibility on setbacks in order to preserve open space or to conceal a proposed facility. 3. Ability to require a noise study in cases where sound could be an issue. Next Step Planning Staff recommends that the proposed chapter be forwarded to the September 11, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting. B. Miles Page 3 08/24/2006 _._. ....,,._� \CT Art. DcDnDT Alternatives 1. Request additional information from Planning Staff and have staff report back to CAP at the next meeting 2. Send the proposed chapter back to the Planning Commission with specific instructions where additional information or consideration is warranted. B. Miles Page 4 Q: \Telecommuications \CAP Memos \STAFF REPORT 2006.08.16.doc 08/24/2006 • WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,1 is LiL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, ZONING REGULATIONS, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS CHAPTER 18.71, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, AND REGULATING THE SITING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City has received or expects to receive requests to site wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that Congress, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has imposed requirements that local governments not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services or act in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, while at the same time preserving traditional state and local authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the provisioning of personal wireless services to the residents of the City of Tukwila is in the public interest and that permitting the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries is necessary to support such service; and WHEREAS, the City also finds that placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities could adversely affect the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent therefore to permit the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a review of its existing zoning code and determined that the existing zoning code provisions are technologically dated, unclear, or non - existent regarding wireless communication facilities, and do not adequately implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan or adequately protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare by adding a new chapter to the City's zoning code for the purpose of regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after conducting three public hearings on May 25, June 22, and July 27, 2006, recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed chapter; and r J WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing during the regular meeting on , and subsequently continued further consideration of the proposed text amendments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Wireless Communication Facilities. Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 18.71, to be known as "Wireless Communication Facilities," to read as follows: 18.71.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Establish dear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities may create, including, but not limited to, impacts on: aesthetics; environmentally sensitive areas; historically significant locations; flight corridors; and health and safety of persons and property. 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in non - residential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 2 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites, and suitable structures, to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; 7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options, and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques, and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 8. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; • • • 9. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 10. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properti failure through engineering and careful siting, and wireless communication facilities; and 11. Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction, and modification. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the comprehensive land use plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a mariner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. In reviewing any application to place, construct, or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deity the application in accordance with Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, this Chapter, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 18.71.020 Authority and Application. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the placement, construction, or modification of all wireless communication facilities except as specifically exempted in TMC Section 18.71.030. 18.71.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: 1. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication facilities, excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of antennas, towers, or buildings; provided that, the wireless communication facility received approval from the City of Tukwila or King County for the original placement, construction, or subsequent modification. Changing of antennas on wireless communication facilities is permitted provided the new antennas have the same area or less of those removed. The total WIRELE-1, 8 /24/06, 3 1 number of antennas must remain the same. Additional ground equipment may be placed within an approved equipment enclosure, provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening fence. 2. An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 3. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multi- channel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 4. An antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios; provided that, the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district and are owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator or are used exclusively for receive only antennas. In order to reasonably accommodate licensed amateur radio operators as required by Federal Code of Regulations, 47 CFR Part 97, as amended, and Order and Opinion (PRB-1) of the Federal Communication Commission of September, 1985, and RCW 35A.21.260, a licensed amateur radio operator may locate a tower not to exceed the height requirements of the applicable zoning district, provided the following requirements are met for such towers located in a residentially zoned district: a. The tower and any antennas located thereon shall not have any lights of any kind on it and shall not be illuminated either directly or indirectly by any artificial means; b. The color of the tower and any antennas located thereon must all be the same and such that it blends into the sky, to the extent allowed under requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration; c. No advertising logo, trademafk, figurines, or other similar marking or lettering shall be placed on the tower or any wireless communication facilities mounted or otherwise attached thereto or any building used in conjunction therewith; d. The tower shall be located a distance equal to or greater than its height from any existing residential structure located on adjacent parcels of property including any attached accessory structures; e. Towers must be at least three quarters (3/4) of its height from any property line on the parcel of property on which it is located, unless a licensed engineer certifies that the tower will not collapse or that it is designed in such a way that in the event of collapse, it falls within itself, and in that event, it must be located at least one -third (1/3) of its height from any property line; f. No signs shall be used in conjunction with the tower, except for one (1) sign not larger than 8 i" high and 11" wide and as required by federal regulations; WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 4 • • • g. Towers shall not be leased or rented to commercial users and shall not otherwise be used for commercial purposes; and h. All towers must meet all applicable state and federal statutes, rules and regulations, including obtaining a building permit from the City, if necessary. 6. Emergency communications equipment during a declared public emergency, when the equipment is owned and operated by an appropriate public entity. 7. Any wireless internet facility that is owned and operated by a government entity. 8. Antennas and related equipment no more than three feet in height that are being stored, shipped, or displayed for sale. 9. ' Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 18.71.040 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter 18.71 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ("TMC"), the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein; words not defined herein which are defined in TMC Title 18, shall have the same meaning or be interpreted as provided in TMC Title 18. Words not defined here or in TMC Title 18 shall, except as may be otherwise provided, have their ordinary and common meaning. A reference to TMC Title 18 or this Chapter 18.71 TMC refers to the same as amended from time to time or as may be re- enacted. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, words in the singular number include the plural number, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders whenever the sense requires. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. References to governmental entities (whether persons or entities) refer to those entities or their successors in authority. If specific provisions of law referred to herein are renumbered, then the reference shall be read to refer to the renumbered provision. References to laws, ordinances, or regulations shall be interpreted broadly to cover government actions, however nominated, and include laws, ordinances, and regulations now in force or hereinafter enacted or amended. 1. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facilities - Any facilities, component, part, equipment, mounting hardware, feed lines, or appurtenance associated with, attached to, or a part of a tower, antenna, ancillary structures, or equipment enclosures, facilities equipment compound, and located within, above, or below the facilities equipment compound. 2. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facility Structure - Any form of development associated with a wireless communications facility, including but not limited to: foundations; concrete slabs on grade; guy anchors; and transmission cable supports; however, specifically excluding equipment enclosures. 3. Antenna(s) - Any exterior system of electromagnetically tuned wires, poles, rods, reflecting disks, or similar devices used to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 5 9 frequencies (excluding radar signals), wireless telecommunications signals, or other communication signals between terrestrial and/ or orbital based points, including without limitation: directional antennas (also known as "panel" antennas) which transmit and receive radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees; omni- directional antennas (also known as "whip" antennas) which transmit and receive radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radial pattern, but do not include antennas utilized specifically for television reception; and parabolic antennas (also known as "dish" antennas) which are bowl - shaped devices for the reception and/ or transmission of radio frequency communication signals in a specific directional pattern. 4. Antenna Array - One or more antennas and their associated ancillary facilities, which share a common attachment device, such as a mounting frame or mounting support. 5. , Building Mounted Wireless Communication Facility - A wireless communication facility that is attached to an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. 6. Collocation - The practices of installing and operating multiple antennas and antennas of multiple utility companies, wireless carriers, service providers, government wireless and/ or radio common carrier licensees on the same tower using different and separate antennas areas, feed lines, and radio frequency generating and/ or receiving equipment. 7. Feed Lines or Coaxial Cables for Wireless Communication Facility - Cables used as the interconnection media between the transmission /receiving base station and the antenna. 8. Flush Mounted Antennas - Any antennas or antenna array attached directly to the face of the tower or building such that no portion of the antenna extends above the height of the tower or building. 9. Public Entity - Any federal, state, or local government body or agency. 10. Public Right of Way - All public streets, alleys, and property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use for streets and alleys, together with all public property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use including but not limited to, walkways, sidewalks, trails, shoulders, drainage facilities, bike ways and horse trails, whether improved or unimproved, including the air rights, subsurface rights, and easements related thereto. 11. Public Safety Communications Equipment - Radio or other communication equipment that is owned and exclusively used by public entities for emergency communication or communication between fire, police, and other rescue personal. 12. Tower Mounted Facilities - A wireless communication facility that is mounted to a tower. 13. Tower, Electrical Transmission - Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of at least 115kv. 14. Tower, Guy - A tower that is supported with cable and ground anchors to secure and steady the tower. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 6 • • • 15. Tower, Lattice - A tapered style of tower that consists of vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross - bracing and metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas or similar antenna devices. 16. Tower, Monopole - A freestanding tower that is composed of a single shaft usually composed of two or more hollow sections that are in turn attached to a foundation. This type of tower is designed to support itself without the use of guy wires or other stabilization devices. These facilities are mounted to a foundation that rests on or in the ground. 17. Tower, Wireless Communication Facility - Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including self - supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or monopoles. The term includes, without limitation, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, and alternative tower structures. 18. Utility Pole - Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of less than 115kv or any Qwest facility which carries telephone lines. 19. Wireless Communication Concealed Facility - A wireless communication facility that is not readily identifiable as such and is designed to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the existing building(s) on a site, or a wireless communications facility disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole or tower; or, a wireless communication facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure or tower or mounted within trees, so as to be significantly screened from view or camouflaged to appear as a non - antenna structure or tower (i.e., tree, flagpole with flag, church steeple, etc.). 20. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) - Any tower, antenna, ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof, which is used for the transmission of radio frequency signals through electromagnetic energy for the purpose of providing phone, internet, video, information services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission, broadband, unlicensed spectrum services utilizing part 15 devices, and other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. 21. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Compound - An outdoor fenced area occupied by all the towers, antennas, ancillary structure(s), ancillary facilities, and equipment enclosures but excluding parking and access ways. 22. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Enclosure - Any structure, including without limitation, cabinets, shelters, pedestals and other devices or structures, that is used exclusively to contain radio or other equipment necessary for the transmission and /or reception of wireless communication signals, including without limitation, air conditioning units and generators. 23. Wireless Telecommunication Carrier - Any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or manages any plant, equipment, structures, or property within the City for the purpose of offering wireless telecommunication service within the City. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 7 1 / 18.71.050 Permits Required. 1. No person may place, construct, or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of Title 18. 2. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his /her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are totally within City right of way. If a project is both on private or public property and City right of way, the Director shall review the application. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (i.e., Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). 4. This Chapter provides guidelines for the placement and construction of wireless communication facilities not exempt as set forth in TMC Section 18.71.030 from its provisions and modification of wireless communication facilities. 5. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking or landscaping on a site. 6. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 18.72 TMC. Any request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. 7. Third Party Expert Review. Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the applicant. 8. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site - specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/ or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the application. The expert review shall address the following: WIRELE41, 8/24/06, 8 • • • Type of Permit Required Based on Type of Wireless Communication Facility Type of Facility Location Zoning Residential Commercial Industrial Transmission Tower Collocation Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Adding Antennas to an existing tower Type la Type la -- Type la Utility Pole Collocation Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Concealed Building Attached Type 2b Type 2b Type 1 Non - Concealed Building Attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 New tower or waiver request Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. 1. Any decision by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. 2. No alt ons or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, D' actor f Public , or Planning Commission without approval from a Mino hanges which do not change the overall project may be approved by a Directo as a minor modification. 18.71.060 Types of Permits/Priority/Restrictions. 1. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. The types of wireless communication facilities and the corresponding types of review are described in the following matrix: WIRELE -1, 8/24/06, 9 Residential shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, LDR, MDR, or HDR. Commercial shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, 0, MIJO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI or TVS. Industrial shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned LI, HI, MIC /L, or MIC /H. /3 a. Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square footage of the enclosure area does not increase. b. An applicant may request to install a non - concealed building attached, under TMC Section 18.71.150. In the event of uncertainty on the style of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into the matrix. 2. The priorities for the type of wireless communication facility shall be based upon the above matrix. Any application for a wireless communication facility must work down from the above matrix. For example, an applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that using a transmission tower collocation is not possible before moving to a utility pole collocation, and so forth, with the last possible siting option being a new tower or waiver request. 3. The City's preference for locating new wireless communications facilities are as follows: a. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers. b. Place wireless communication facilities in non- residentially zoned districts and non - residential property. c. Place antennas and towers on public property and on appropriate rights of ways if practical; provided that, no obligation is created herein for the City to allow the use of City property or public right of way for this purpose. 4. City Property/Public Rights of Way. The placement of personal wireless communication facilities on City-owned property and public rights of way will be subject to other applicable sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code and review by other Departments (i.e., Public Works and Parks and Recreation). 5. Wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted on property designated as landmark or as part of a historic district. - 6. Applicants shall submit all of the information required pursuant to TMC Section 18.104.060 and the following. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,10 a. Type I. i. A completed application form provided by the Department of Community Development; ii. Four sets of plans prepared by a design professional. The plans shall include a vicinity map, site map, architectural elevations, method of attachment, proposed screening, location of proposed antennas, and all other information which accurately depicts the proposed project. Minimum size is 8.5" by 11 ". Plans shall be no greater than 24" x 36"; iii. A letter from the applicant outlining the proposed project and an evaluation from the applicant with regard to the City's code requirements; • • • iv. Sensitive Area Studies and Proposed Mitigation (if required); v. If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC "Noise "; and vi. SEPA Application (if required). b. Type II. Applicant shall submit all information required for a type I application and the following: i. Four sets of photo simulations that depict the existing and proposed view of the proposed facility; Materials board for the screening material; c. Type IV. The applicant shall submit all the information required for type I and type II applications and the following: i. All information required for new towers under TMC Section 18.71.070; ii. The radio frequency engineer report shall include a discussion of the information required under TMC Section 18.71.070.. The report shall also explain why a tower must be used instead of any of the other location options outlined in Table 1; iii. Provisions for mailing labels for all property owners and tenants /residents within 500 feet of the subject property; iv. Engineering Plans for the proposed tower; v. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area; vi. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower and ancillary structures and WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,11 11. iii. Landscaping plan; iv. Letter from a radio frequency engineer that demonstrates that the facility meets federal requirements for allowed emissions; v. If the facility is located within a residential zone, a report from a radio frequency engineer explaining the need for the proposed wireless communication facility. Additionally, the applicant shall provide detailed discussion on why the wireless communication facility cannot be located within a commercial or industrial zone; and vi. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a landscaping plan prepared by a Washington State licensed architect. / S /L the applicant; ancillary facilities from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to be mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and applicant. All plans and photo simulations shall include the maximum build -out of the proposed facility; vii. Evidence of compliance with minimum Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions; viii. Evidence of compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for height and lighting and certificates of compliance from all affected agencies; and ix. Evidence that the tower has been designed to meet the minimum structural standards for wireless communication facilities for a minimum of three providers of voice, video, or data transmission services, induding the applicant, and including a description of the number and types of antennas the tower can accommodate. 18.71.070 New Towers. 1. New towers are not permitted within the City unless there is evidence on the record demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that no existing tower or structure or other alternative technologies not requiring the use of towers or structures can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the application to construct a tower and shall consider evidence demonstrating the following when acting on an application to construct a new tower in the City (although nothing should be construed to infer that meeting one, some, or all of the following shall entitle the applicant to approval): a. That the new tower will fill a void in the coverage area of b. That the applicant has mitigated the aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower; Q `,+ r v , c. That the proposed tower is needed to fill a significant l' �r' gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network, that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the surrounding area, and that the height is the G \3 .' minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; Cj d. That no existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); e. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; f. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,12 • g. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; h. That the fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner or operator in order to share art existing tower or structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower construction by 25 percent (25 %) are presumed to be unreasonable; i. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structures, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low- powered transmitters /receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and j. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. 2. All engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly demo _ -- e the evidence required. e Planning Commission, after - holding a public hearing, shall er • pprove, approve with conditions, or deny the application, or remand the application back to staff for further investigation in a manner consistent with the Planning Commission order. 18.71.080 General Requirements. The following apply to all wireless communication facilities regardless of type of facility: 1. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device, which will create noise, must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC (Noise). A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. 2. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation, or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued by the City annually. Any person, corporation, or other business entity which owns a tower also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. 3. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by other government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. 4. Parking. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,13 5. A tower shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color, so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. 6. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment. 7. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. 8. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC, or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. 9. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment compound. 10. Equipment Endosure. Each applicant shall be limited to an equipment endosure of 360 square feet at each site. However, this restriction shall not apply to enclosures located within an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. 18.71.090 Electrical Transmission Tower Co- Location- Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. There is no height requirement for antennas that are located on electrical transmission towers. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. There are no restrictions on the type of antennas located on the electrical transmission tower. The antennas must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an electrical transmission tower structure. 4. Feed lines and co -axial cables shall be attached to one of the legs of the electrical transmission tower. The feed lines and cables must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment. Cabinet equipment shall be located directly under the electrical transmission tower where the antennas are located. The wireless communication equipment compound shall be fenced and the fence shall have a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of eight feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels, or other materials to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in a utility right of way that is not zoned residential. 6. Setbacks. Since the facility will be located on an existing electrical transmission tower, setbacks shall not apply. 18.71.100 Adding Antennas to Existing Tower - Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. The height must not exceed what was approved under the original application to construct the tower. If the height shall exceed WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,14 • • • what was originally approved, approval from the Director is required for any height which will be less than the maximum height of the zone. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an existing tower. 4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and coaxial cables shall be located within the tower. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables (such as when extended out of the tower to connect to the antennas) must be painted to match the tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment. A new cabinet shall be located within the equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original application. If the applicant wishes to expand the equipment enclosure from what was approved by the City or County under the previous application, the applicant shall seek a wireless communication facility (type II) application for only the equipment enclosure increase. 6. Setbacks. Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs new antennas on an existing tower and uses an existing equipment enclosure. If the equipment enclosure is increased it must meet setbacks. 18.71.110 Concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. 1. Height. The proposed facility must meet the height requirement of the applicable zoning category. The antennas can qualify under TMC Section 18.50.080 (Rooftop Appurtenances) if the antennas are located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower, mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human occupancy. Stand alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop appurtenances. 2. Antennas Aesthetics. The antennas must be concealed from view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could include steeple like structures and parapet walls. The screening must be made out of the same material and be the same color of the building. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of rooftop. 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then the City's first preference is to locate the equipment on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 5. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the facility is to be located. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,15 18.71.120 Non - concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. 1. Height. The proposed facility must meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning category. If the building where the facility is located is at or above the maximum height requirements, the antennas are permitted to extend a maximum of three feet above the existing roof line. Non - concealed building mounted facilities shall not qualify as "Rooftop Appurtenances" under TMC 18.50.080. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. The first preference for any proposed facility is to utilize flush mounted antennas. Non -flush mounted antennas may be used when their visual impact will be negated by the scale of the antennas to the building. "Shrouds" are not required unless they provide a better visual appearance than exposed antennas. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of rooftop. If the feed lines and cables must be visible, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required: If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, 11, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 18.71.130 Utility Pole Collocation. 1. Height. The height of a utility pole collocation is limited to ten feet above the replaced utility pole and may be not greater than 50 feet in height in residential zones. Within all other zones the height of the utility pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the underlying zoning, whichever is greater. 2. The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the utility pole to support its utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles in the area. 3. The replaced utility pole must have the color and general appearance of the adjacent utility poles. 4. Coax cables limited to one -half ( inch in diameter may be attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than one -half (1/2) inch must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the total size of all coax cables being utilized on the utility pole. 5. The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be made to improve the pedestrian environment if necessary. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,16 • • • 6. Cabinet Equipment. Unless approved by the Director of Public Works, all cabinet equipment and the equipment enclosure must be placed outside of City right of way. If located on a parcel that contains a building, the equipment enclosure must be located next to the building. The cabinet equipment must be screened from view. The screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 7. Setbacks. Any portion of the wireless communication facilities located within City right of way does not have to meet setbacks. The City will evaluate setbacks on private property under the setback requirements set forth in TMC Section 18.71.170. 18.71.140 I, Towers - Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the height standards of the zoning district where the tower will be located. 2. Antenna and Tower Aesthetics. The applicant shall utilize a wireless communication concealed facility. The choice of concealing the wireless communication facility must be consistent with the overall use of the site. For example, having a tower appear like a flagpole would not be consistent if there are no buildings on the site. If a flag or other wind device is attached to the pole it must be appropriate in scale to the size and diameter of the tower. 3. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities must meet the setbacks of the underlying- zoning district. If an exception is granted under TMC Section 18.71.180 with regards to height, the setback of the proposed wireless communication facilities will increase two feet for every foot in excess of the maximum permitted height in the zoning district. 4. The color of the tower shall be based on the surrounding land uses. 5. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. All feed lines and cables must be located within the tower. Feed lines and cables which are not located within the wireless communication facility equipment compound that connect the tower to the equipment enclosure must be located underground. 18.71.150 Request to Use Non - concealed Building Attached in Lieu of a Concealed Building Attached. The use of concealed building facilities shall have first priority in all residential and commercial zones. However, an applicant may request to construct a non - concealed building attached wireless communication facility in lieu of a concealed wireless communication facility. The following criteria shall be used: 1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the antennas, the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in relation to the building. WIRELE -1, 8/24/06,17 2. Cables are concealed from view and any visible cables are reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where they are located. 3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view. 4. Due to the style or design of the building, the use of a concealed facility would reduce the visual appearance of the building. 5. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet from the Duwamish/ Green River. 18.71.160 Landscaping/Screening. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures, and ancillary ' structures, with the exception of wireless communication facilities located on transmission towers or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and, in those locations where large, wooded lots, and natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: 1. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum ten foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. 2. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. 3. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of six feet tall at the time of planting. 4. Applicant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. 5. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving thirty (30) days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the Landscaping at the cost of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. WIRELE41, 8/24/06,18 • 1 ?V 1. The granting of the height waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or injurious to other property, and will promote the • ublic interest 4 40 � The waiver(s) will substantially secure the objectives, standards, • u d d requirements of these regulations; 4,4 a • I$. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific tame warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to:. 18.71.170 Zoning Setback Exceptions. A. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view. B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when: 1. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or 2. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or 3. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned (LDR, MDR, and HDR) properties. C. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive /modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 18.71.180 Height Waivers. Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties, or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the zoning code, or the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these regulations u)\" a. Topography and other site features; b. Availability of alternative site locations; c. Geographic location of property; and d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of collocation. ''b In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the objectives of the standards, objectives, and requirements of TMC Title 18. �,$ w'4 qG ,,� /4.. I - ' WIRELE41, 8/24/06,19 A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. 18.71.190 Expiration. Any application to install or operate a wireless communications facility shall expire exactly one year from the date of issuance of the application unless significant progress has been made to construct the facility. The City may extend the expiration period by up to one additional year due to circumstances outside of the control of the applicant. However, the City shall not issue an extension if any code revisions have occurred to the zoning chapter which would affect the wireless communication facility approved.application. 18.71.200, Removal of Abandoned Wireless Communication Facilities. Any antenna or tower that, after the initial operation of the facility, is not used for the purpose for which it was intended at the time of filing of the application for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned and the owner of such antenna or tower shall remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove such abandoned tower shall result in declaring the antenna and/ or tower a public nuisance. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this section shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. Section 2. TMC 18.104.060, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.060 is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph "m" following section 18.104.060(4)(1) to read as follows: m. Wireless communication facility permits, see Chapter 18.71 TMC. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation.should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity. or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICAi'ED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney WIRELE -'1, 8/ 24/ 06, 20 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: • s FROM: RE: DATE: ATTACHMENTS: Introduction B. Miles City of Tukwila Department of Community Development i 0 A. B. C. STAFF REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Steve Lancaster, Director Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner September 5, 2006 Creation of Wireless Telecommunications Chapter Map of Cell Facility Locations in the City Planning Commission Minutes Photos of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities DCD included a budget item in the 2006 budget to create a Wireless Telecommunications Chapter within the City's zoning code. Planning staff began working on the chapter in February of 2006 and staff briefed CAP in March. CAP forwarded the matter to the Planning Commission. Background Cell phones have become an everyday item to the American public. In 1992 the number of Americans using cell phones stood at 11 million. By 2005 the number of Americans using cell phones had increased to 182 million. Cell phones initially provided voice to voice communications. Today cell phones provide more than just phone service, they also provide access to the internet, email, text messages, MP3 player, digital cameras, location capability (GPS) and video. The backbone of cell phone usage is the network of wireless antennas that allow users to communicate with other cell users and landline users. The wireless antennas have a limited coverage and capacity ability. As more people use cell phones, more wireless communication facilities are needed. It is this explosion in cell usage that triggered staff's desire to examine how the City reviews applications for wireless communication facilities. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Page 1 09/06/2006 Under the City's current process, all new applications and certain modifications to wireless communication facilities require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP is reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The following are issues with using the CUP process for wireless telecommunication facilities: 1. The criteria provides no standards directly related to the impacts of such facilities. 2. By requiring the same process for all proposals they do not allow the City to provide incentives such as streamlined review times for desirable projects such as stealth facilities, collocations, and facilities located in industrial zones. 3. The CUP guidelines provide no clear direction to a potential applicant about the City's preferences for the location and design of telecom facilities. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission was first briefed of the proposed chapter in April of 2006. A public hearing was for the May meeting and the public hearing was continued through the July meeting. .i Planning staff also attempted to solicit input from wireless communication providers and their contractors. An invitation to an informal luncheon was mailed to all applicants for CUPs related to Wireless Communication facilities for the past three years. Staff provided draft copies of the proposed chapter all who sent in an RSVP. The providers who attended the meeting did provide good comments on the draft chapter and changes were made as a result of those comments. At the its July meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the draft chapter. The vote was 6 -0 with one commission member absent from the meeting. The following are the goals of the creation of this chapter: 1. Protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Establish clear regulations for wireless providers to allow them to have predictability in the review process. 3. Streamline the review process for desirable projects. 4. Encourage providers to locate in commercial and industrial zones and to take advantages of existing elevations (Utility Poles, Transmission Towers, Buildings, etc). 5. Ensure that the City's regulations do not conflict with Federal or State laws regarding construction and operation of wireless communication facilities. B. Miles Page 2 Q:1Telecommuications\COW\STAFF REPORT 2006.09.05.doc 09/06/2006 • • Major Criteria of New Chapter As noted, one of the goals of the new chapter is to encourage desirable facilities within the City. To provide an incentive to applicants the new chapter allows desirable projects to have a streamlined review and thus allows an applicant to reduce their "time to market" for new facilities. The City's zoning code sets up five types of land use applications. Type I are small scale projects while Type V applications require approval of the City Council. An example of a Type I application is a sign permit and an example of a type V application would be an unclassified use permit. The Planning Commission identified certain wireless applications which should be subject to a Type I application. These include: 1. Locating antennas on transmission towers. 2. Adding antennas to an existing tower. 3. Attaching antennas to an existing building within an industrial zone. The Planning Commission recommended that the following facilities should be subject to a Type II decision. 1. Utility Pole Collocations 2. Adding antennas to existing buildings in residential or commercial zones. Perhaps no other land use application generates as much controversy as a proposal to construct a standalone cell tower. The Planning Commission chose to only permit new cell towers in the City, as a type IV permit with a public hearing and a review of specific approval criteria. Any decision by the City on a wireless communications application could be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The chapter sets up specific design standards for wireless telecommunication facilities. The design standards are based on the type of facility. The chapter also provides tools for the City to use in order to ensure that the overall goals of the Chapter are met. These tools include: 1. The ability to require peer review for any wireless telecommunication application. 2. Flexibility on setbacks in order to preserve open space or to conceal a proposed facility. 3. Ability to require a noise study in cases where sound could be an issue. B. Miles Page 3 • _...._..tnnciJCT DCDCIDT 1MA no fK rine 09/06/2006 o2 3 Community Affairs and Parks At the August 28 CAP meeting the committee forwarded the draft ordinance to the COW for consideration. At the CAP meeting there was some discussion on some proposed language changes in order to clarify certain issues. Planning Staff and the City Attorney's Office have made several changes to the proposed ordinance. The version of the ordinance that was adopted by the Planning Commission is shown in legislative format. Language that staff proposes to delete is shown with strilEe eugh and proposed new language is shown underline. Next Step Planning Staff recommends that the proposed chapter be forwarded to the September 18, 2006 regular City Council meeting for a public hearing and possible adoption. Alternatives 1. Request additional information from Planning Staff and have staff report back to COW at the next meeting 2. Send the proposed chapter back to the Planning Commission with specific instructions where additional information or consideration is warranted. B. Miles Page 4 Q: \Telecommuications \COW\STAFF REPORT 2006.09.05.doc 09/06/2006 • • 12228 00 51st 13910 InternM Intern S 116 St N 81585 k gligi 15215 S 149 S150 St N S156 S1 160 St S 161 St St 140 St 13400 Interurban Ave S 4220 Interurb s L 10S 1 3 144 St 14800 Interurb 9. N an Ave 18400 Swam m L- L11030 0825 East Marginal A East Marginal S1 y S its St S 115 Legend • Stealth • Facade Mounted • Monopole • Utility • Rooftop • Communications Tower Streets — 1 Tukwila Boundary Feet 0 6251,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 min ing Way S 10915 51st Ave S 18500 Southcen r Blvd 545And. =r Pa W Corpora N Inland Or 1224 Andove Park 518051 Segale Park 0 r Ave S rd St Track r 1 Costco Or 156 St a t Valet Highway Park E 1228 A d • er Park E as St SW 43'11 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES MAY 25, 2006 The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Bill Arthur, Lynn Peterson, Chuck Parrish. Absent: Commissioners Margaret Bratcher and Henry Marvin Representing City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Nora Gierloff, Brandon Miles, and Wynetta Bivens BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE WORKSESSION MINUTES AND THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FROM MAY 25, 2006. GEORGE MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony. PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NUMBER: £06 -030 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modification of chapter 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) regarding changing message signs at Public Facilities within the .City. LOCATION: Citywide Commissioner Arthur gave a public disclaimer that he received an e -mail from Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development. Commissioner Arthur stated that the appearance of the e-mail was different than what he would normally receive from Mr. Lancaster. Commissioner Arthur called Mr. Lancaster and inquired whether the e-mail was from a third party. After receiving confirmation that the e- mail was from a third party, he informed Mr. Lancaster that he was going to delete the e-mail. He said, for the record, that he does not open, receive, or read unsolicited e- mails. Commissioner Arthur also talked about the rules, procedures and policies that the Planning Commission practice. Mr. Lancaster responded to Commissioner Arthur's comments and gave clarification on what transpired He stated that the e-mail he sent to Conunissioner Arthur was also forwarded to all of the Planning Commission members for whom staff has an e -mail address. Mr. Lancaster forwarded the information to one Planning Commission member whom staff does not have an e -mail address for by mail. He explained that the matter was legislative and that he should have been clearer in communicating that to the Planning Commission members. Other Planning Commission members acknowledged that they too had received the e-mail, and that it addressed a legislative matter, concerning a case that was on the 5/25/06 agenda. CASE NUMBER: L06 -030 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Modification of Chapter 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) regarding changing message signs at Public Facilities within the City. LOCATION: Citywide /4 23-1 ,;29 Planning Commission Minutes May 25 2006 Page 2 of 4 Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Miles provided some background and answered numerous questions. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide dir in regards to a possible Sign Code amendment, after conducting a public hearing. Staff has provided four options: 1. No Action. 2. Modify the definition of "animated sign ". 3A, & 3B Exemption for community event announcements. 4. Eliminate prohibition of animated sign. The options were listed in detail in the 5/25/06 package. Mr. Lancaster provided some additional information on the last paragraph in option 3A and 3B, which reads `It should be noted that the courts have been increasingly critical of government sign regulations that base privileges or restrictions upon the content of the message.' Mr. Lancaster explained that the courts almost look at these kinds of cases as highly suspect and that they take a very careful and close look with almost a presumption that it could be a constitutional problem. Therefore, he urged the Planning Commission to be a little cautious, suggesting possibly limiting allowing signs that have public service kinds of announcements, to not be subjected to the same regulations as signs that provide a general message. Mr. Lancaster stated that option 2 would be on quite safe ground and staff could support that. He stated t)at option 4 is pretty radical from past practices, but staff could support it. Bill Van de Bogart, School District Business Manager, gave the presentation for the applicant. Mr. Van de Bogart addressed the matter concerning the e-mail that Mr. Lancaster forwarded to the Planning Commissioners. He stated that he wanted to get the information to the .Commission in advance, to provide them time to read the school districts request. Mr. Van de Bogart said their mission is very clear to work with the parents and teach the children the very best that they can. They struggle with how to communicate with the multi languages in the community. He gave a PowerPoint presentation, showing a picture of the existing sign and the new proposed sign, calling the old sign worthless because it is time consuming to change and unfeasible to change in several different languages. The proposed sign would change to several different languages to reach the children. Mr. Van de Bogart answered numerous questions. Kathy Znak, a citizen, expressed her concerns regarding the accident probability for non - english speaking people in the community trying to fmd something in their languages. She suggested that a traffic study is done. REBUTTAL: None. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Mr. Lancaster asked the Planning Commission, "If the applicant's request was accommodated how broadly do you want to accommodate it?" After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission determined they needed some additional information m order to make a decision. Staff needs to follow up on the following: 1. Check with the City Attorney to see if allowing what is otherwise a static sign to change to different languages permissible? 2. Provide additional information on brightness. 3. What are the variances of frequency for the changing message sign? 4. What would be a good timeframe for allowing animation? Planning Commission Minutes May 25 2006 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Lancaster suggested that the Commission take a look at what other Cities are allowing. Mr. Lancaster stated that his goal is to bring back to the next meeting, a proposed ordinance for the Planning Commission to look at. There was discussion on possible legal ramifications if a decision is challenged. The simplest thing would be to apply whatever decision the Planning Commission makes across the board to any legal sign in Tukwila. There were no further comments. Chair Ekberg continued the case to the June 22, 2006 Public Hearing. CASE NUMBER: L06 -023 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Creation of a "Wireless Telecommunications Chapter" within the City's Zoning Code. The chapter will regulate the placement and operation of wireless communication facilities. The chapter will provide guidance on where such facilities can locate in the City, development standards, approval process, and exception criteria. LOCATION: Citywide Brandon Miles, Planners Department of Community Development, gave the presentation for staff. Mr. Miles facilitated discussion on the seven areas of the ordinance as listed in the May 10, 2006 Staff Report to provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to incorporate any revisions. The next step will be for the Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Parrish raised the question whether staff had discussed the proposed purpose and intent with the IT Department and Council Member Haggerton. Staff stated there has been discussion with Councilmember Haggerton and that he has not provided them with any input at this time. There have also been informal conversations with other Cities and departments. Suggested Revisions: Item 1: Purpose and Intent: # 4 Remove the word `adequate' Item 2: Exemptions: # 2 Revise language Item 3: Definition # 9 - (this section already exist in the Zoning Code, however, it will be amended in order for Planning and PW to have the exact definition) - Take a look at Black's Law dictionary for the definition of Rights of Way #10 Correct misspelled word. Item 4: Permit Review Matrix • Staff was asked to retum with a recommendation regarding the benefits, risk, and cost of changing Type 3 decisions to Type 2 decisions. • Staff will return with some good design standards for Utility Pole Co- Location — Possibly changing from a Type 2 decision. Mr. Lancaster made the request that very very clear design standards should be in place if it's a Type 2 decision. One possibility is that it has to be a metal pole with all of the 3 3�- Planning Commission Minutes May 25 2006 Page 4 of 4 cables concealed inside the pole to be a Type 2. If this guideline is not feasible, the decision type bumps up to a higher level: • Staff shall provide a recommendation for the following option: If there are no design standards and the utility pole co- location is changed only in a residential area, should it be a Type 4 decision? Kathy Johnson, a Wireless Provider Consultant, provided some insight regarding utility poles because there has been a bit of contention. Wood poles are preferred by the utility providers because of the time involved in designing and engineering steel poles capable of holding the antennas. Most in the community find the wood pole less intrusive in the area and there are ways to mount the antennas around them. Ms. Johnson offered to bring in some pictures for the Planning Commission to review. Ms. Johnson also offered to arrange to have a RF Engineer come wi, her, to speak at the next Planning Commission meeting. Item 5: New Monopoles: • The following sentence should be incorporated in the draft policy — ` Any new monopole within the City will be required to allow co- location of other providers who wish to locate on the facility'. • Incorporate language for a certain amount of growth to support co- locations. Draft Ordinance Revisions: Page 3, letter b. _ Sentence needs to be modified Page 3, Type (table) - Numbers need to be consistent in table in both the draft and the Staff Report Page 5, No. 4 - Parking - Modify language Page 5, No. 4 Page 6, No. 2 Adopted 6/22/06 - Antenna Intensity — Modify language `Feed lines and coaxial cables shall be attached securely and appropriately to one of the transmission towers ' - Antennas Aesthetics - Modify language — `The screening must be made out of the same material and match the color scheme'. Mr. Miles recommended that the public hearing is continued and that staff return with additional information. There were no further comments. REBUTTAL: None. Chair Ekberg continued the case to the June 22, 2006 Public Hearing. Director's Report: • Update on mall construction • Sound Transit Light Rail project going on • Update on Tukwila Station project • Chair Ekberg asked for an update on the Klickitat project Meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary • '1 Absent: Commissioner, Henry Marvin PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JUNE 22, 2006 The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Margaret Bratcher, Bill Arthur, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish. Representing City Staff: Steve Lancaster, Brandon Miles, Sandra Whiting, Cyndy Knighton, and Wynetta Bivens COMMISSIONER ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AS MODIFIED, FROM JUNE 22, 2006. COMNIISSIONER BRATCHER SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development, introduced Cyndy Knighton. Cyndy Knighton, Senior Traffic Engineer, Public Works, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Klickitat Project, whicl} is a significant project for the City. Cyndy provided some background from the beginning of the prdect, listing the goals that the City identified and wanted to accomplish. A study was done to determine what could be done to the area, which resulted in the establishment of the alternative 3B concept. Due to concerns from some consultants that the design wasn't the most feasible to construct, the City came up with the idea of a design competition. HMTB Corporation was awarded the contract and came up with the current design. The City strongly believes the design has a lot of potential for an award winning design and construction. Ms. Knighton shared many details of the project, and then answered questions. Mr. Lancaster also introduced Sandra Whiting. Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist, Department of Community Development, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the wetlands mitigation, which she has already presented to the City Council, whom the program was endorsed by. She provided some background on the program. It has been determined that on site mitigation is not always practical and that off site mitigation might be a better solution. Part of the project is to take a look at what areas could be used as mitigation sites. The objective of the program that was developed is to help facilitate development for smaller developers. It would offer alternatives to on site mitigation by providing some ideas where off site mitigation in Tukwila can occur. In addition, it would provide increased environmental projects and increased wetland functions. Chair Ekberg swore in those wishing to give public testimony. PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NUMBER: L06 -034 • APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to modify an existing wireless communication facility, which will be located on an existing City Light transmission tower. The antennas will be located on the top of the transmission tower. In order to meet minimum clearance from the high voltage electrical lines, the existing tower will be extended five feet in height. Attol'e.Z 3 . Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2006 Page 2 of 6 The associated ground equipment will be located directly below the transmission tower in a 400 square foot enclosure. A chain -link fence with barbwire will enclose the 400 square foot enclosure. The enclosure will include a 256 square foot concrete pad where the cabinet equipment will be located. LOCATION: City Light transmission tower, adjacent to the United States Postal Facility and State Route 99. King County Parcel Number 042304 -9130. Commissioner Arthur made a declaration that his adult daughter that lives with him works for Cingular Wireless. He stated he did not believe the relationship would have any bearing on his objectivity. There was no objection to Commissioner Arthur hearing the case. Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. As a result of the merger between AT &T and Cingular Wireless, a lot of the sites need to be upgraded to accommodate both networks. The maximum height in the MIC/H district is 125 feet. The applicant is proposing that the antennas have a height of approximately 153 feet. This type of application does not trigger compliance with the height requirements bepause it does not trigger a building permit, since it's on City Light's transmission tower. There is no impact to pedestrians. The need to move the antennas is a City Light safety requirement, to make it safer for their employees to service the line. There was a question raised regarding FAA lighting, which Mr. Miles deferred to the applicant. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, as presented, with one condition: 1. All equipment attached to the City Light Transmission tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower. Sara Telschow, for the applicant, Realcom Associates, addressed the question raised regarding FAA lighting. There is no FAA lighting proposed for this project since it is only increasing by five feet in height. The applicant agrees with staff's condition; however, Ms. Telschow explained that it is very difficult to maintain paint on coaxial cables, therefore, requested that it not be a condition to paint them. REBUTTAL: Staff stated that if FAA lighting is necessary as a result of the proposed application, they will address it and determine if it needs to come back to the Planning Commission. There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission Deliberated. CHAIR EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMEIT FOR CASE NUMBER L06 -034 WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE ONE CONDITION TO READ: 1. ALL EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO THE CITY LIGHT TRANSMISSION TOWER SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE COLOR OF THE TOWER, WITH THE EXECPTION OF THE CO -AXIAL CABLES, WHICH SHALL MATCH THE EXSTING CO -AXIAL CABLES ON THE SITE. COMMISSIONER ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. rift az- itfr, ' fl rovi : I �, u • • . • .• • . , • _ - _ ' ' -• • • • • • • • • • . • , • - . . . - • .:.;• • • • • • • • fy L �ytYe• ^.. �, �V J t I ' ' c. s-cAk • om � `�• " `+ s1`�v•�" _ice �3'Q� 4 • s _ti TS • • • r t e • ' _ � . � . . . p . • • • VII. ADJOURN City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CHAIR, ALLAN EKBERG, VICE CHAIR, GEORGE MAUNA, COMMISSIONERS, MARGARET BRATCHER, BILL ARTHUR, HENRY MARVIN, LYNN PETERSON, AND CHUCK PARRISH PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA JULY 27, 2006 TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS OPEN PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES — 06 -22 -06 IV. SWEARING IN OATH PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED V. CASE NUMBER: L06 -023 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Creation of a "Wireless Telecommunications Chapter" within the City's Zoning Code. The chapter will regulate the placement and operation of wireless communication facilities. The chapter will provide guidance on where such facilities can be located in the City, development standards, approval process, and exception criteria. LOCATION: Citywide VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Worksession August 24 at 6:OOpm - Adult Entertainment • Update on APA memberships Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • Absent: Bill Arthur PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES JULY 27, 2006 The Public Hearing was called to order by Chair Ekberg at 7:00 PM Present: Chair, Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair, George Malina, Commissioners, Margaret Bratcher, Henry Marvin, Lynn Peterson, and Chuck Parrish. Representing City Staff: Nora Gierloff, Brandon} Miles, and Wynetta Bivens MARGARET BRATCHER MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES, AS MODIFIED, FROM JUNE 22, 2006. CHUCK PARRISH SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NUMBER I -023 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Creation of a "Wireless Telecommunications Chapter" within the City's Zoning Code. The chapter will regulate the placement and operation of wireless communication facilities. The chapter will provide guidance on where such facilities can locate in the City, development standards, approval process, and exception criteria. LOCATION: Citywide Brandon Miles, Planner, Department of Community Development, continued discussion from the June 22, 2006 public hearing. He stated that the draft ordinance, which was a template for a future ordinance, was incorporated into code language, and put into legal language, by the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney's Office made recommendations for some minor changes. Staff incorporated the five design standards, as listed in the memo from Brandon Miles dated July 19, 2006, in the July Planning Commission packet. There was extensive discussion on the proposed changes to the Utility Pole Collocations. Mr. Miles went over the current proposal for the following five outstanding issues: 1. Utility Pole Collocations Originally staff had made this a Type 3 decision. As a result of concerns expressed by the Commission, staff is proposing a Type 2 decision, for which they have provided specific design standards. SEPA would be required if the project is not categorically exempt from SEPA review. Height is the biggest design issue. Within the residential zone, the height goes from 30 ft. maximum height to 45 ft. in the high density residential zone. Information was provided on City Light's standard differences for residential utility poles. There was lots of discussion, questions, and concems expressed pertaining to the design standard on coaxial cable limitation of one -half inch in diameter. Katie Johnson, Realcom Associates, on behalf of Cingular Wireless, provided some picture samples of different utility installations and a sample of the coaxial cable. Ms. Johnson addressed the issue concerning itivejlW,8 -3 3 lA Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2006 Page 2 of 4 the width of poles. She stated that the bulk of the pole is usually due to the room inside for the conduit, not because of the structure stability. Steve Webster, Realcom Associates, on behalf of Cingular Wireless, went over some of the technology of wireless services. He talked about antenna lines, what drives the extra sizes, cable requirements, and providing the best service. He explained that cable companies want the antenna lines above the surrounding clutter to have a clear signal around the pole. Chair Ekberg asked Katie what her thoughts were regarding the design standard pertaining to height. Katie Johnson, on behalf of Cingular Wireless stated that the design standard on height is really going to remove the ability to utilize any of the utility poles in a residential zone. She stated that residential areas, as set by the proposed ordinance, are the most intensively reviewed and that if they can find a way out of a residential area, they will. She stated that a carrier might have one cell site in four square miles. Ms. Johnson called these types of sites very expensive and said it is the last thing that Cingular Wireless tries to do. She answered several questions for the Commission. Upon further questioning from the Planning Commission, staff stated their intent is to provide basic standards. If a carrier can meet the requirements, they can utilize the basic standards. Mr. Miles provided explanation on how the proposed ordinance may have different impacts on various carriers. Chair Ekberg stated he 'ranted everyone to recognize that cellular carriers will not be able to take advantage of the design standard, unless they go through the exception process. What staff is doing is putting, within the design standards, the ability for wireless interconnect for data internet connectivity. Because there is a half -inch conduit it is not necessary to go up as high on a telephone pole. Mr. Miles stated that under the Communications Act of 1996 there cannot be discrimination against functionally equivalent providers. He said it would be very unlikely that one could argue that Cingular are functionally equivalent providers. They provide different services and technology, therefore, different design standards may apply. If it impacts one differently than another, it's because they are not functionally equivalent. Commissioner Peterson raised several questions that were addressed by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Miles. Commissioner Parrish asked for clarification on whether the intent is to steer installation away from high density areas into other areas. Mr. Miles stated the overall goal of the chapter is to encourage providers to locate in industrial zones or on existing monopoles. He addressed a question that was raised on the lack of enclosure language. He stated it was not included in his memo because it was unchanged from what was originally discussed. He gave an overview of the previous language. He also provided some clarification on transmission towers and utility towers. He explained that the provisions being addressed are for utility towers, which staff defines as anything that provides electric service of less that 115 KB. Anything greater then 115 KB would be considered a transmission tower, which must meet Type 1 requirements. Commissioner Malina asked if there is a clause under the franchise when a pole has to be removed, for it to be relocated. • • Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2006 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Miles indicated that a franchise agreement applies to a specific location and a new one would be obtained if it was moved. Commissioner Malina made addition comments unintelligible. Ms. Johnson responded to comments raised by Commissioner Malina. Mr. Miles continued with his overview on the remaining outstanding issues listed in his memo. 2. Setback Waivers The Commission had no comment on this design standard. 3. Height Waivers The Commission had no comments on this design standard. 4. Structure Type The Commission had no comments on this design standard. i 5. Modifications to a(proved facilities The Commission had no comments on this design standard Next Mr. Miles gave an overview of the proposed changes to the ordinance. He stated that the City Attorney's Office added some legislative intent, which will be included in the.chapter. One modification was pointed out, on page four, listed under provision number 1, `King County' was added in the verbiage pertaining to exemptions. Commissioner Parrish asked for clarification on the difference between provision 2 and 3, under exemptions. Mr. Miles explained that the City Attoney's Office added a catch all, for any type of satellite, or any type of private receiving antennas. Mr. Miles addressed several more questions as he continued with the overview of the ordinance, discussing the following: clarification on what is considered a monopole; permits required; third party expert review; changes made to the matrix, utility poles were initially a Type 3 decision and is now a Type 2 decision; new verbiage for the meaning of residential, commercial, and industrial zones; what an applicant must do in order to submit a waiver, general requirements; permitting new towers in the City; antennas located on transmission towers; existing tower - specific development standards; requirement for concealed building mounting development requirements for non - concealed building mounting development utility pole collocation; tower specific development standards; using non - concealed building attached in lieu of a concealed building attached; landscaping and screening; zoning setback; height waiver, expiration; and the removal of abandoned wireless facilities. Commissioner Peterson had questions regarding the 6 foot chain link fence used for enclosure. Unintelligible..... 41 ya Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2006 Page 4 af 4 Katie Johnson, on behalf of Cingular Wireless responded to the question regarding the height of the fence enclosure. She stated that the manner in which the language was written allows for a lot of review. Ms. Johnson stated that in a residential neighborhood cedar fences are what you would usually see. In conclusion, Mr. Miles stated that the ordinance will go in various chapters. There is going to be a new chapter 18.71. And Chapter 18.06 will be modified. In addition, Chapter 18.104, regarding the types of applications, will be modified. Unintelligible..... Commissioner Malina asked a question regarding striking some language pertaining to landscaping....unintelligible .... Mr. Milts agreed that the language could be striken. Katie Johnson on behalf of Cingular Wireless had some issues that she requested that Mr. Miles address. 1. In response to Ms. Johnson's first question Mr. Miles confirmed that the type of landscaping installed would not require approval from a certified landscape architect. 2. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Miles to remove the following verbiage regarding the new tower criteria. `Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable'. Mr. Miles stated that would be up to the Planning Commission to consider for modification. 3. unintelligible....Ms. Johnson addressed modification safety and site identifying signs....unintelliiible.... Chair Ekberg suggested adding the language, `mandated identification signs'. 4. unintelligible...Ms. Johnson requested not to be required to underground equipment. Ms. Johnson proposed modifying the language to read, `feed lines and equipment. that connect to the tower be located underground, except if located within the same compound'. Mr. Miles agreed to the proposed language. There were no further comments. The Public Hearing was closed. The Planning Commission Deliberated. Commissioner Marvin asked for clarification on the Draft Ordinance, Page 13, Item I. COMNIISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER L06 -023 WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS AND TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. COMIVIISSIONER MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Director's Report: • Worksession in August on Adult Entertainment — City Attorney will attend and discuss adding some legislative record to the code. • Commissioner Parrish inquired about a joint worksession with the City Council —Nora will discuss with Jack and the City Attorney. • Sound Transit lunch bus tour Friday August 18 Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens Secretary Adopted: 8/24/06 • Picture A: The above is an example of Wireless Communication Facility located on a Seattle City Light Transmission Tower. /1777/etibrent Picture B: Existing Monopole in Allentown. Attaching antennas to the existing pole would be a type I decision. Constructing a new monopole or tower in the City would be a type IV decision. 0 • • 1 • • f Picture C: Example of concealed or "stealth" facility. The proposed chapter would permit this facility as a type II decision. Picture D: The above facility is a non - concealed building attachment. Under the proposed chapter the above facility would be permitted as a type II decision in commercial and residential zones and will be outright permitted in industrial zones. • • • • • Picture E: e bb \ The above facility is a utility pole collocation. The new chapter will permit such a facility as a type II permit. • • Draft _9 -6 -06 Revisions - CDB - Kenyon Disend, PLLC 1 WIRELE -1 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18, ZONING REGULATIONS, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS CHAPTER 18.71, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, AND REGULATING THE SITING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City has received or expects to receive requests to site wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that Congress, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has imposed requirements that local governments not unreasonably/ discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services or act in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, while at the same time preserving traditional state and local authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the provisioning of personal wireless services to the residents of the City of Tukwila is in the public interest and that permitting the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries is necessary to support such service; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent therefore to permit the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and _ WHEREAS, the City also finds that placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities could adversely affect the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community; and WHEREAS, the City also finds that construction /installation of new towers to support antenna installations is likely to have a more significant adverse impact upon the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance, and environmental quality of the community than use of existing towers, structures, and power poles and n - -�—�e intent use of alternative technology for such installations, and —_ 1 therefore to permit the placement, constru WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a review of its existing zoning code and determined that the existing zoning code provisions are technologically dated, unclear, or non - existent regarding wireless communication facilities, and do not adequately implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan or adequately protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, it is the City's intent to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare by adding a new chapter to the City's zoning code for the purpose of _ )05 . P +3J f �5 , 9/6/0681-24-/-06, 1 regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after conducting three public hearings on May 25, June 22, and July 27, 2006, recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed new wireless communication facilities chapter; and WHEREAS, the City Council Community Affairs and Parks Committee conducted Lpublic meeting on the 29th day of August, 2006 at which time it heard a presentation from staff and reviewed the proposed new wireless communication facilities chapter, and upon such review recommended modifications to Section 18.71.070 (New towers) and Section 18.71.180 (Height Waivers) and other minor modifications be made, and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing during the regular meeting on , and subsequently continued further consideration of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has based its findings and conclusions upon consideration of, among other things, the existing topography and geography of the city, existing land uses, available wireless communication technology, existing wireless communications facilities and coverage, public testimony, presentations by staff, applicable laws, rules, and regulations including, without limitation, the National Environmental Policy Act and the State Environmental Policy Act, applicable court decisions, and the records on file with the office of the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Wireless Communication Facilities. Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 18.71, to be known as "Wireless Communication Facilities," to read as follows: WIRELE 1 18.71.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Establish dear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities may create, including, but not limited to, impacts on aesthetics; environmentally sensitive areas; historically significant locations; flight corridors; and health and safety of persons and property. 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in non - residential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; OTP 9/6/068fQ4/96, 2 • 1 • • • 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use pf new and existing towers, tower sites, and suitable structures, to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; 7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options, and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques, and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 8. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; 9. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 1 W. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities; and 11. Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction, and modification. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the comprehensive land use plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in 'approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. In reviewing any application to place, construct, or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal WIRELE -1 e :: t 9/6/0681-24f 6, 3 5 1 5 Code, this Chapter, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 18.71.020 Authority and Application. The provisions of Chapter shall apply to the placement, construction, or modification of all wireless communication facilities except as specifically exempted in TMC Section 18.71.030. 18.71.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: 1. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication facilities, excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of antennas, towers, or buildings; provided that, the wireless communication facility received appro' al from the City of Tukwila or King County for the original placement, construction, or subsequent modification. Changing of antennas on wireless communication facilities is permitted provided the new antennas have the same area or less of those removed. The total number of antennas must remain the same. Additional ground equipment may be placed within an approved equipment endosure, provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening fence. 2 An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service;Anduding direct - to-home satellite services, and that is one meter ess in diameter or diagonal measurement. 3. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, induding multi- channel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 4. An antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios; provided that, the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district and are owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator or are used exclusively for receive only antennas. In order to reasonably accommodate licensed amateur radio operators as required by Federal Code of Regulations, 47 CFR Part 97, as amended, and Order and Opinion (PRB -1) of the Federal Communication Commission of September, 1985, and RCW 35A.21.260, a licensed amateur radio operator may locate a tower not to exceed the height requirements of the . applicable zoning district, provided the following requirements are met for such towers located in a residentially zoned district a. The tower and any antennas located thereon shall not have any lights of any kind on it and shall not be illuminated either directly or indirectly by any artificial means; b. The color of the tower and any antennas located thereon must all be the same and such that it blends into the sky, to the extent allowed under requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration; WIRELE --1 • N -�- 916/068-1-241-96, 4 v • • 1 • public use including but not limited to, walkways, sidewalks, trails, shoulders, drainage facilities, bike ways and horse trails, whether improved or unimproved, including the air rights, subsurface rights, and easements related thereto. 11. Public Safety Communications Equipment - Radio or other communication equipment that is owned and exclusively used by public entities for emergency communication or communication between fire, police, and other rescue personal. 12. Significant Gap in Service - A large geographic area within a service area(s) of the applicant in which a large number of applicant's remote user subscribers are unable to connect or maintain a connection to the national tele hone network through applicant's wireless telecommunications network. A "dead spot" (defined as small areas within a service area s here the field strength is lower than the minimum level for reliable service) does not constitute a significant gap in service. 13. Tower Mounted Facilities - A wireless communication facility that is mounted to a tower. 14. Tower, Electrical Transmission - Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of at least 115kv. 15. Tower, Guy - A tower that is supported with cable and ground anchors to secure and steady the tower. 16. Tower, Lattice - A tapered style of tower that consists of vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross- bracing and metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas or similar antenna devices. 17. Tower, Monopole - A freestanding tower that is composed of a single shaft usually composed of two or more hollow sections that are in turn attached to a foundation. This type of tower is designed to support itself without the use of guy wires or other stabilization devices. These facilities are mounted to a foundation that rests on or in the ground. 18. Tower, Wireless Communication Facility - Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including self - supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or monopoles. The term includes, without limitation, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, and alternative tower structures. • 19. Utility Pole - Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of less than 115kv or any Qwest facility which carries telephone lines. 20. Wireless Communication Concealed Facility - A wireless communication facility that is not readily identifiable as such and is designed to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the existing building(s) on a site, or a wireless communications facility disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole or tower; or, a wireless communication facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure or tower or mounted within trees, so as to be significantly screened from view or camouflaged to 1 WIRELE -1 OTII• 'MP e . R . . : • n , 911111L6871-24/436, 7 15D appear as a non - antenna structure or tower (Le., tree, flagpole with flag, church steeple, etc.). 21. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) - Any tower, antenna, ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof, which is used for the transmission of radio frequency signals through electromagnetic energy for the purpose of providing phone, internet, video, information services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission, broadband, unlicensed spectrum services utilizing part 15 devices, and other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. 22. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Compound - An outdoor fenced area occupied by all the towers, antennas, ancillary structure(s), ancillary facilities, and equipment enclosures but excluding parking and access ways. 23. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Enclosure - Any structure, induding without limitation, cabinets, shelters, pedestals and other devices or structures, that is used exclusively to contain radio or other equipment necessary for the transmission and /or reception of wireless communication signals, including without limitation, air conditioning units and generators. 24. Wireless Telecommunication Carrier - Any person or entity that difectly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or manages any plant, equipment, structures, or property within the City for the purpose of offering wireless telecommunication service within the City. 18.71.050 Permits Required. 1. No person may place, construct, or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without fist having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this • Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of TMC Title 18. 2. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his /her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are totally within City right of way. If a project is both on private or public property and City right of way, the Director shall review the application. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. 3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (i.e., Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). 4. This Chapter provides guidelines for the placement and construction of wireless communication facilities not exempt as set forth in TMC Section 18.71.030 from its provisions and modification of wireless communication facilities. 5. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking landscaping on a site. WIRELE =1 1.• e , 1 ,■ -... • r e . . r. : . -. g/6 06g/- 24/-BH, 8 • • i • s 6. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 18.72 TMC. Any request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. 7. Third ;Party Expert Review. Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the applicant. 8. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site - specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/ or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used and is not intended to be a.,subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the application. The expert review shall address the following a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of condusions reached; d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. 9. Any decision by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. 10. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a minor modification. 18.71.060 Types of Permits/Priority/Restrictions. 1. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. The types of wireless communication facilities and the corresponding types of review are described in the following matrix: 1 WIRELE '-1 Type of Permit Required Based on Type of 9/6/0_68 9 51 6cb �t a Residential shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, LDR, MDR, or JDR. C ommercial shall mean any private /public property or right of way zoned, 0, MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI or TVS. IndusMa shall mean any private /publ property or right of way zoned LL HI, MIC /L, or MIC /H. a. Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square footage of the enclosure area does not increase. b. An applicant may request to install a non-concealed building attached, under TMC Section 18.71.150. In the event of uncertainty on the style of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to de a . ' e how a proposed facility is incorporated into the matrix. Vin 2. The priorities for the type o ' wireless communication facility shall be based upon the above ma . Any application for a wireless communication facility must wor om the above matrix. For example, an applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that using a transmission tower collocation is not possible before moving to a utility pole collocation, and so forth, with the last possible siting option being a new tower or waiver request. 3. The City's preference for locating new wireless communications facilitiest as follows: a. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers. b. Place wireless communication facilities in non- residentially zoned districts and non - residential property. c. Place antennas and towers on public property and on appropriate rights of ways if practical; provided that, no obligation is WIRELE =1 ireless Communication Facility n /44"j Type of Facility Zoning ransmission ower ollocation dding tennas to an . ' ting tower esidential ype 1 ype la tility Pole ype 2 ollocation oncealed ype 2b uilding ttached on- Concealed ype 2 uilding ttached ew tower or ype 4 aiver request Location Commercial Type 1 Type la Type 2 Type 2b Type 2 Type 4 Industrial Type 1 Type la Type 2 Type 1 Type 1 Type 4 • ^_ e . -t . e. 9/6I8' 10 • • i 1 created herein for the City to allow the use of City property or public right of way for this purpose. 4. City Property/Public Rights of Way. The placement of personal wireless communication facilities on City -owned property and public rights of way will be subject to other applicable sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code and review by other Departments (i.e., Public Works and Parks and Recreation). 5. Wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted on property designated as landmark or as part of a historic district. 6. Applicants shall submit all of the information required pursuant to TMC Section 18.104.060 and the following. a. Type �. L A completed application form provided by the Department of Community Development; ii. Four sets of plans prepared by a design professional. The plans shall include a vicinity map, site map, architectural elevations, method of attachment, proposed screening, location of proposed antennas, and all other information which accurately depicts the proposed project. Minimum size is 8.5" by 11 ". Plans shall be no greater than 24" x 36' ;, iii. A letter from the applicant outlining the proposed project and an evaluation from the applicant with regard to the City's code requirements; iv. Sensitive Area Studies and Proposed Mitigation (if required); v. If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC "Noise "; and vi. SEPA Application (if required). b. Type II. Applicant shall submit all information required for a type I application and the following: i. Four sets of photo simulations that depict the existing and proposed view of the proposed facility; ii. Materials board for the screening material; Landscaping plan; iv. Letter from a radio frequency engineer that demonstrates that the facility meets federal requirements for allowed emissions; v. If the facility is located within a residential zone, a report from a radio frequency engineer explaining the need for the proposed wireless communication facility. Additionally, the WIRELE 1 • • _ _" ::: -- 9/6/068/24f.06,11 6 applicant shall provide detailed discussion on why the wireless communication facility cannot be located within a commercial or industrial zone; and vi. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a landscaping plan prepared by a Washington State licensed architect. c. Type IV. The applicant shall submit all the information required for type I and type II applications and the following. L All information required for new towers under TMC Section 18.71.070; The radio frequency engineer report shall include a discussion of the information required under TMC Section 18.71.070. The report shall also explain why a tower must be used instead of any of the other location options outlined in Table 1; Provisions for mailing labels for all property owners and tenants /residents within 500 feet of the subject property; iv. Engineering Plans for the proposed tower; v. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area; vi. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower and ancillary structures and ancillary facilities from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to be mutually agreed upon by the Director of DCD and applicant. All plans and photo simulations shall include the maximum build -out of the proposed facility; vii. Evidence of compliance with minimum Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions; viii. Evidence of compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for height and lighting and certificates of compliance from all affected agencies; and ix. Evidence that the tower has been designed to meet the minimum structural standards for wireless communication facilities for a minimum of three providers of voice, video, or data transmission services, including the applicant, and induding a description of the number and types of antennas the tower can accommodate. WIRELE -1 18.71.070 New Towers. 1� M , 9/6/086,12 • f • 1. New towers are not permitted within the City unless t? e- .• evideeet cr :he e.eid- deelen ti,atingthe Planning Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Coverage Objective: There exists an actual (not theoretical) significant a • in service and the • ro • osed wireless communication facili will eliminate a . tlae-applleanti such significant gap in service;t e- +zae-- ieeen4e4t netwer4 and f 2) Alternates: Nno existing tower or structure, or other feasible site -e or other alternative technologies not requiring the u:,e- ewers -cp s rue esa new tower in the City can accommodate the applicant's proposed a tenn.awireless communication facility; and (3) Least Intrusive: The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and' located to remove the significant gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, Title 18 TMC, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the application to construct a new tower and shall determine whether or not each of the above requirements are met. and shall consider evidence b o new to &cr in the City (although nothing sherd - be cent eel tc ' that . e bane, seine, or all of the following sly- -emit 4 1 ° eppre l)Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: ene the -prepe a * c. That the -pry gap--irk-tlae-ability-okerfiete-us.em-te,aecerz the he signific mt dap in service is That the tower height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; b. That no existing towers or structures or alternative sites are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); c. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not be feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; d. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; e. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or 1 WIRELE —i _ e . _ , . . _ 9/6/OG836,13 te I structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; f. That the fees, costs, or contractual provisions required by the owner or operator in order to share an existing tower or structure or to locate at an alternative site or to adapt an existing tower or structure or alternative site for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower construction by 25 percent (25%) are presumed to be unreasonable; g. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structurcaa new tower, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low- powered transmitters /receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and h. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. All engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, or remand' the application back to staff for further investigation in a manner consistent with the Planning Commission order. 18.71.080 General Requirements. The following apply to all wireless communication facilities regardless of type of facility: 1. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device, which will create noise, must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC (Noise). A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. 2. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation, or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued by the City annually. Any person, corporation, or other business entity which owns a tower also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. 3. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by other government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. 4. Parking. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. 5. A tower shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color, so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. WIRELE-1 9/6/068/24/06,14 6. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment. 7. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or dosely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. 8. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC, or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. 9. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment compound. 10. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall be limited to an equipment endosure of 360 square feet at each site. However, this restriction shall not apply to enclosures located within an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. 18.71.090 Electrical Transmission Tower Co- Location- Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. There is no height requirement for antennas that are located on electrical transmission towers. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. There are no restrictions on the type of antennas located on the electrical transmission tower. The antennas must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an electrical transmission tower structure. 4. Feed lines and co-axial cables shall be attached to one of the legs of the electrical transmission tower. The feed lines and cables must be painted to match the color of the electrical transmission tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment. Cabinet equipment shall be located directly under the electrical transmission tower where the antennas are located. The wireless communication equipment compound shall be fenced and the fence shall have a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of eight feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels, or other materials to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in a utility right of way that is not zoned residential. 6. Setbacks. Since the facility will be located on an existing electrical transmission tower, setbacks shall not apply. 18.71.100 Adding Antennas to Existing Tower-Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. The height must not exceed what was approved under the original application to construct the tower. If the height shall exceed what was originally approved, approval from the Director is required for any height which will be less than the maximum height of the zone. 1 WIRELE -1 e Y e . r.; , , 9.16/116,8/441 15 2. Antenna Aesthetics. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an existing tower. 4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and coaxial cables shall be located within the tower. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables (such as when extended out of the tower to connect to the antennas) must be painted to match the tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment. A new cabinet shall be located within the equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original application. If the applicant wishes to expand the equipment endosure from what was approved by the City or County under the previous application, the applicant shall seek a wireless communication facility (type II) application for only the equipment endosure increase. 6. Setbacks. Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs new antennas on an existing tower and uses an existing equipment enclosure. If the equipment endosure is increased it must meet setbacks. 18.71.110 Concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. 1. Height. The proposed facility must meet the height requirement of the applicable zoning category. The antennas can qualify under 'FMC Section 18.50.080 (Rooftop Appurtenances) if the antennas are located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower, mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human occupancy. Stand alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop appurtenances. 2. Antennas Aesthetics. The antennas must be concealed from view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could include steeple like structures and parapet walls. The screening must be made out of the same material and be the same color of the building. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of rooftop. 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then the City's first preference is to locate the equipment on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, U, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 5. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the facility is to be located. 18.71.120 Non - concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. 9/6/0_681-241 16 • 1. Height. The proposed facility must meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning category. If the building where the facility is located is at or above the maximum height requirements, the antennas are permitted to extend a maximum of three feet above the existing roof line; Non - concealed building mounted facilities shall not qualify as "Rooftop Appurtenances" under TMC 18.50.080. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. The first preference for any proposed facility is to utilize flush mounted antennas. Non -flush mounted antennas may be used when their visual impact will be negated by the scale of the antennas to the building. "Shrouds" are not required unless they provide a better visual appearance than exposed antennas. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of rooftop. If the feed lines and cables must be visible, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six-foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 18.71.130 Utility Pole Collocation. 1. Height. The height of a utility pole collocation is limited to ten feet above the replaced utility pole and may be not greater than 50 feet in height in residential zones. Within all other zones the height of the utility pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the underlying zoning, whichever is greater. 2. The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the utility pole to support its utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles in the area. 3. The replaced utility pole must have the color and general appearance of the adjacent utility poles. 4. Coax cables limited to one -half ( inch in diameter may be attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than one -half ( inch must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the total size of all coax cables being utilized on the utility pole. 5. The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be made to improve the pedestrian environment if necessary. 6. Cabinet Equipment. Unless approved by the Director of Public Works, all cabinet equipment and the equipment enclosure must be placed outside of City right of way. If located on a parcel that contains a building, the equipment enclosure must be located next to the building. I WIRELE -'1 9/6/068i-24{Q6,17 (p5 The cabinet equipment must be screened from view. The screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style, and material. If the cabinet equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 7. Setbacks. Any portion of the wireless communication facilities located within City right of way does not have to meet setbacks. The City will evaluate setbacks on private property under the setback requirements set forth in TMC Section 18.71.170. 18.71.140 Towers- Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the height standards of thezoning district where the tower will be located. 2. Antenna and Tower Aesthetics. The applicant shall utilize a wireless communication concealed facility. The choice of concealing the wireless communication facility must be consistent with the overall use of the site. For example, having a tower appear like a flagpole would not be consistent if there are no buildings on the site. If a flag or other wind device is attached to the pole it must be appropriate in scale to the size and diameter of the tower. 4,, Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities must meet the setbacks of the underlying- zoning district. If an exception is granted under TMC Section 18.71.180 with regards to height, the setback of the proposed wireless communication facilities will increase two feet for every foot in excess of the maximum permitted height in the zoning district. 4. The color of the tower shall be based on the surrounding land uses. 5. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. All feed lines and cables must be located within the tower. Feed lines and cables which are not located within the wireless communication facility equipment compound that connect the tower to the equipment enclosure must be located underground. 18.71.150 Request to Use Non - concealed Building Attached in Lieu of a Concealed Building Attached. The use of concealed building facilities shall have first priority in all residential and commercial zones. However, an applicant may request to construct a non - concealed building attached wireless communication facility in lieu of a concealed wireless communication facility The following criteria shall be used: 1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the antennas, the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in relation to the building. 2. Cables are concealed from view and arty visible cables are reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where they are located. 3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view. WIRELE11 ,9/6/06886,18 • 4. Due to the style or design of the building, the use of a concealed facility would reduce the visual appearance of the building. 5. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet from the Duwamish /Green River. 18.71.160 Landscaping/Screening. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures, and ancillary structures, with the exception of wireless communication facilities located on transmission towers or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and, in those locations where large, wooded lots, and natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used / as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: 1. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum ten foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. 2. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. 3. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of six feet tall at the time of planting. 4. Applicant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. 5. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving thirty (30) days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the landscaping at the cost of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 18.71.170 Zoning Setback Exceptions. A. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some 1 TATTDCT �...'1 :: . 9/6/068JJ86,19 circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view. B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when: 1. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or 2. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or 3. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility !to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned (LDR, MDR, and properties. C. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive /modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 18.71.180 Height Waivers. Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties, or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the zoning code, or the purpose of these regulations maybe served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these regulations; provided that the applicant demonstrates that the waiver(s) will substantially secure the values, objectives, standards, and requirements of this Chapter, TMC Title 18, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and demonstrate the following:: 1. The granting of the height waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or injurious to other property, and will promote the public interest; and, a--A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: a. Topography and other site features; b. Availability of alternative site locations; c. Geographic location of property; and d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of collocation. 4. In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the objectives of the values, objectives, standards, and requirements of this Chapter, TMC Title 18, and the Comprehensive Land Use Planst a 4ards, WIREL &-1 , 9/6/068124/86, 20 4 • • e 5. A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. 18.71.190 Expiration. Any application to install or operate a wireless communications facility shall expire exactly one year from the date of issuance of the application unless significant progress has been made to construct the facility. The City may extend the expiration period by up to one additional year due to circumstances outside of the control of the applicant. However, the City shall not issue an extension if any code revisions have occurred to the zoning chapter which would affect the wireless communication facility approved application. 18.71.200 Removal of Abandoned Wireless Communication Facilities. Any antenna or tower that, after the initial operation of the facility, is not used for the purpose for which it was intended at the time of filing of the application for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned and the owner of such antenna or tower shall remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove such abandoned tower shall result in declaring the antenna and /or tower a public n isance. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this section shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. . Section 2. TMC 18.104.060, Amended. Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.104.060 is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph "m" following section 18.104.060(4)(1) to read as follows: m. Wireless communication facility permits, see Chapter 18.71 TMC. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2006. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Shelley M. Kerslake, City Attorney WIRELE -1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Y e .. • . ri : : w Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: , 9/6/0684/86, 21 Cp 1 Community Affairs and Parks Committee August 29, 2006 - 5:00 p.m. Present: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Joe Duffle, and Pam Linder. Steve Lancaster, Director of Department of Community Development; Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner; Chris Bacha, Assistant City Attorney; and Diane Jenkins, Administrative Assistant to the Council. Business Agenda: A. Wireless Telecommunications Chapter Briefing Mr. Lancaster reminded the committee that a 2006 Budget Goal was the creation of a wireless telecommunications chapter within the city's zoning code. Mr. Miles indicated that Planning staff began working on this project and briefed the Community Affairs and Parks (CAP) Committee in March 2006. CAP referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bache has extensive background and expertise on this subject and has reviewed drafts of the proposed ordinance. The explosion of cellular device usage has triggered the need for the City to examine the process used to review applications for wireless communication facilities. The Planning Commission has held'three public hearings as part of the process of developing the new telecommunications chapter. As a result of those hearings and much discussion, the Planning Commission recommended restrictions on how new cell towers are permitted. Mr. Miles reviewed the draft ordinance and responded to questions. He explained.that one of the provisions of the ordinance is that a third party expert review be made of permit applications, for which the applicant would be required to pay. Currently, the City pays for a third party review. Ms. Linder suggested that this language be incorporated into other ordinances. Discussion of the proposed ordinance language continued. Ms. Linder asked how long it would take to process an application under each category. Mr. Miles replied that,Type 1 would take approximately 28 days; Type 2, 3 months; and Type 4, 4 -5 months. Ms. Hemari4ez asked what would be classified as a "waiver request." Mr. Miles noted that that would constitute.height variances. Mr. Miles continued and noted that there has not been a request for a new tower since 1990. A new tower is typically the last option for companies since it requires a large capital investment and a lengthy application process wherein they must demonstrate that a stand alone monopole is the only way they can provide; service in a particular area. Mr. Bacha relayed information conceming telecommunications litigation and topics that have or have not been addressed by the courts. Ms. Under referred to new towers, "The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the application to construct a tower and shall receive evidence demonstrating the following when acting on an application to construct a new tower in the City (although nothing should be construed to infer that meeting one, some, or all of the following shall entitle the applicant to approval) " Ms. Linder noted that even if the applicant met all of the requirements, a permit could be denied. Mr. Bacha replied that an applicant would have to meet the standard set by the 9 Circuit Court. Ms. Linder asked that this t of antennas on buildings with historical e and nd placement ignificance. Forward to Committee of the p Whole. Adjournment: 5:50 p.m. Committee Chair Approval Minutes by DJ. • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner RE: Wireless Communications Chapter Permit Process DATE: July 21, 2006 Attached you will find chapter 18.104 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. This section of the code deals with application procedures and types. Only those portions of TMC 18.104 that are being modified have been provided. Planning Staff has amended the tables for type I, type II, and type IV decisions to reflect Planning Staff's discussions regarding wireless communication facilities. The added language is shown underline. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 l Chapter 18.104 PERMIT APPLICATION TYPES AND PROCEDURES Sections: 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications 18.104.020 Consolidation of SEPA Procedures and Appeals 18.104.030 Consolidation of Permit Applications 18.104.040 Relationship to SEPA 18.104.050 Pre - application Conferences 18.104.060 Application Requirements 18.104.070 Notice of Complete Application to Applicant 18.104.080 Notice of Application - Contents 18.104.090 Notice of Application - Procedure 18.104.100 Party of Record 18.104.110 Posted Notice 18.104.120 Mailed Notice 18.104.130 Time Periods for Permit Issuance 18.104.140 Applications - Modifications to Proposal 18.104.150 Vesting 18.104.160 Hearing scheduling - Notice of Hearing 18.104.170 Notice of Decision 18.104.180 Referral to Other City Departments 18.104.190 Date of Mailing 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public notice is required, whether a public meeting and/or a public hearing is required before a decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided. 1. TYPE 1 DECISIONS are made by City administrators who have technical expertise, as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions. TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically ❑ ategorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this Chapter As specified by ordinance Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation (TMC 17.08) Community Development Director Development Permit Building Official Minor modification to BAR- approved design (TMC 18.60.030) Community Development Director Minor Modification to PRD (TMC 18.46.130) Community Development Director Sign Permit, except for those sign permits specifically requiring approval of the Planning Commission, or denials of sign permits that are appealable Community Development Director Tree Permit (TMC 18.54) Community Development Director Wireless Communication Community Facility, Minor (TMC 18.71) Development Director TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (open record appeal) Administrative Design Review (TMC 18.60.030) Community Developmen t Director Board of Architectura 1 Review Administrative Planned Residential Development (TMC 18.46.110) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner Binding Site Im- provement Plan (TMC Chap.17.16) Short Plat Committee Hearing Examiner TYPE 1 DECISIONS 2. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, City Council or, in the case of shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 2 DECISIONS Cargo Container Placement (TMC 18.50.060) Community Developmen t Director Hearing Examiner Code Interpretation (TMC 18.90.010) Community Developmen t Director Hearing Examiner Exception from Single - Family Design Standard (TMC 18.50.050) Community Developmen t Director City Council Parking standard for use not specified (TMC 18.56.100) Community Developmen t Director Hearing Examiner Sensitive Areas (except Reasonable Use Exception) (TMC 18.45) Community Developmen t Director Planning Commission Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (TMC Chapter 18.44) Community Developmen t Director State Shoreline Hearings Bd Hearing Examiner Short Plat (TMC 17.12) Short Plat Committee Sign Area Increase (TMC 19.32.140) Community Developmen t Director Planning Commission Sign Permit Denial (TMC Chapter 19.12) Community Developmen t Director Planning Commission Special Permission Parking, and Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC 18.56.065 and .070) Community Developmen t Director Hearing Examiner Special Permission Sign, except "unique sign" (various sections of TMC Title 19) Community Developmen t Director Planning Commission Wireless Community Hearing Communication Developmen Examiner Facility, t Director Administrative (TMC 18.71 • 3. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION MAKER APPEAL BODY (closed record appeal) Conditional Use Permit (TMC Chapter 18.64) Planning Commission City Council Modifications to Certain Parking Standards (TMC Chapter 18.56) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Design Review (TMC Chap. 18.60) Board of Architectura 1 Review City Council Reasonable Use Exceptions under Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.180) Planning Commission City Council Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (TMC 18.44.050) Planning Commission State Shorelines Hearings Board Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (TMC 17.14.020) Planning Commission City Council Unique Signs (TMC 19.28.010) Planning Commission City Council TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk, land alteration, sign) Hearing Examiner Superior Court, except for shoreline variances that may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 3 DECISIONS 4. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi - judicial decisions made by the Board of Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, based on the record established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58. TYPE 4 DECISIONS • TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER Planned Residential Development (PRD), including Major Modifications (TMC Chap. 18.46) City Council Rezone (TMC Chapter 18.84) City Council Sensitive Area Master Plan Overlay (TMC 18.45.160) City Council Shoreline Environment Redesignation (Shoreline Master Program) City Council Subdivision - Final Plat (TMC 17.12.030) City Council Unclassified Use (TMC Chapter 18.66) City Council Variance from Parking Standards over 10% (TMC 18.56.140) Planning Commission Hearing Examiner Wireless Planning Hearing Communication Commission Examiner Facility, Major or Height Waiver Rice uest (TMC 18.71 1 • 5. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be appealed only to Superior Court. TYPE 5 DECISIONS • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Staff Report Wireless Communication Chapter TO Planning Commission FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director Brandon Miles, Assistant Plann RE: Continued Discussion on Wireless Communication Chapter DATE: June 12, 2006 Planning Staff had intended to bring a final draft ordinance to the Planning Commission (PC) at the June meeting. However, staff proposes that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing until July. The continuation for an additional month is needed due to the following: 1. On June 29, 2006, Planning Staff will be having an open meeting for wireless providers. Invitations were mailed to individuals who in the past had submitted for conditional use permit applications (CUP). Any changes in the draft ordinance as a result of the meeting would not be able to be reviewed by the PC. 2. As some of the PC members may be aware, the City contracts with the law firm of Kenyon - Disend to provide legal service to the City. Kenyon - Disend has just hired a new attorney who has a background in telecommunication issues. Thus, a slight delay is needed so that staff can consult with the City Attorney's Office on the proposed ordinance. Requested Action Planning Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the July meeting. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 r TO: FROM: RE: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director DATE: July 19, 2006 Planning Commission Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner Wireless Communication Chapter Draft Ordinance Attached you will find a copy of the draft ordinance that will create chapter 18.71 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) also known as "Wireless Telecommunications Chapter. The draft incorporates many of the policies and directions that Staff and the Planning Commission wanted included in the proposed chapter. Some of the language is different from what was previously brought before the Planning Commission. These language changes came after working with the City Attorney's Office and after meeting with wireless providers. There are still several outstanding issues that the Planning Staff wishes to discuss at tonight's meeting: A. Utility Pole Collocations B. Setback Waivers C. Height Waivers D. Structure Type E. Modifications to Approved Facilities A. Utility Pole Collocations As part of the new wireless telecommunications chapter, should the City encourage the use of utility poles as appropriate locations for wireless antennas? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, what design standards should be in place for the use of such structures? What type of review should be utilized for the construction of such facilities? To date the City has permitted two utility pole collocations with wireless facilities in the City. Utility poles provide services to most of the City's residential zones. The primary owners of these utility poles are Seattle City Light, Puget Sound Energy, and Qwest. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Typically the poles are placed within City right -of -way. In very rare cases the poles must be located on easements on private property. The typical height of utility poles within the City's residential zones is 30 to 35 feet. The standard for electrical utility poles for Seattle City Light calls for a minimum height of 50 feet. If City Light chose to replace their utility poles within the City, they could replace the shorter poles with the taller poles. There are three common pole types that are used for the placement of wireless antennas. The first is the use of a glue lam pole. The above picture displays a glue lam pole located within the City of SeaTac. The pole is made of pieces of wood laminated to make a larger beam. The antennas have the appearance and color of wood. The coax cables are located within the hollow pole. ti • 1 The above photo shows a steel utility pole being used within the City right of way. The antennas are attached at the top of the steel pole. The coax cables are located within the inside of the pole. The other poles in the area are wood. Design Standards In this location the applicant replaced an existing Qwest utility pole with a taller pole of the same material. The antennas are attached to the top of the pole. The coax cables run along side the utility pole. Staff has prepared some design standards for the use of utility poles as antenna support structures. 1. The height of a utility pole co- location is limited to ten feet above the replaced utility pole and may be not greater than 50 feet in height in residential zones. Within all other zones the height of the pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the underlying zoning, which ever is greater. The zoning height restrictions within all three residential zones ranges from 30 feet in LDR zones to 45 feet in HDR zones. Additionally, City Light Standards call for residential utility poles to be at least 50 feet. This height restriction recognizes the possibility of taller utility poles. 2. The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the utility pole to support their utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles in the area. • I • There have been some examples of utilities replacing the small wood poles that are used to support the guy wires of the actual utility poles. These wood structures are typically very short in height. This code requirement will ensure that the actual utility pole is being replaced. 3. The replaced utility pole must have the color and general appearance of the adjacent utility poles. This code provisions ensures that the replaced utility pole will be consistent with the appearance of other utility poles in the area. This will prevent a steel pole being installed when the other utility poles in the area are wood. - -di01 (4i i >n 4. Coax cables limited to one -half ( %z) inch in diameter may be attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than one -half (1/2) inch must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the total size of all coax cables being utilized on the pole. As was seen in the third photo, often times the coax cable can be more visually intrusive than the antennas. This code provision allows for small antennas to be placed on utility poles without the need to conceal the coax cables. However, antenna facilities that require larger coax cables must conceal them with in the pole. 5. The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be made to improve the pedestrian environment if necessary. Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1 states that the City should improve the pedestrian environment with street improvements that include curbs, sidewalks or trails, and regularly spaced street trees. This code provision would ensure that a proposed Wireless Communication Facility does not hinder the pedestrian use of the area. Informational Items A franchise agreement is required for any wireless provider that wishes to locate within the City's right of way. As part of the franchise agreement the provider agrees to remove the facility if the City has construction projects which necessitate the removal of the pole and other equipment. Additionally, by allowing collocation on utility poles the City will not lose the ability to underground the utility lines in the future. Land Use Approval Process The current land use approval for a utility pole co- location is through a conditional use permit. In order to encourage providers to locate on utility poles, planning staff proposes that all applications for utility pole co- locations be reviewed and approved as a type II permit (Director Approval). Conclusion Within many of the City's residential zones, utility poles provide locations for the placement of wireless antennas. These utility poles are existing and will remain, regardless if antennas are located on them. Policy 12.1.6.36 of the City's Comprehensive Plan notes that utilities are encouraged to consolidate facilities and minimize visual impacts of facilities where technically feasible. By permitting wireless antennas to be placed on utility poles the City is improving wireless service within residential zones, while at the same time reducing height intrusions within residential zones. By providing design standards, the city will minimize the visual impacts. If wireless providers are unable to locate on right of way poles they may seek out locations suitable for the construction of monopoles. If the City does not provide mechanisms for wireless providers to locate within residential zones the quality of service within these areas could be reduced. Staff recommends approval of the language provided regarding utility pole collocations. OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCE B. Zoning Setback Exceptions Staff proposes the following language to allow a wireless provider to have some flexibility regarding setbacks: A. Generally a wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances allowing modifications to setbacks may achieve the goal of this chapter of concealing such facilities from view. B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of application, may permit that modifications be made to setbacks when: 1. An applicant for a Wireless Communication Facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations. 2. The waiver will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site. 3. The proposed location allows for Wireless Communication Facility to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned (LDR, MDR, and HDR) properties. C. This zoning setback waiver cannot be used to waive /mods any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. Staff recommends that above language be retained in the draft ordinance. 1 • 1 C. Height Waivers As has been noted, there may be times when an applicant cannot meet height limits of the City's zoning code and that under Federal law it could be concluded that the City is prohibiting the construction of wireless facilities. The draft ordinance includes the following height waiver language. 18.71.180 Height Waivers Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the zoning code or the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these regulations. The Planning Commission shall not approve any waiver(s) unless a majority of those present and voting shall find that all of the following apply: 1. The granting of the height waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property and will promote the public interest. 2. The waiver(s) will substantially secure the objectives, standards and requirements of these regulations. 3. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: a. Topography and other site features. b. Availability of alternative site locations. c. Geographic location of property. d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of collocation. 4. In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the objectives of the standards or requirements of these regulations. S. A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. Planning Staff recommends that the above language be retained in the draft ordinance. D. Structure Type Planning Staff has included brief language in the code that notes in the event of uncertainly on what a particular structure type is, the Director shall the authority to issue an administrative determination on a particular structure type. E. Modifications to Approved Facilities The new chapter provides many exemptions to when no review is required by City staff. These exemptions are intended for routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities. Staff proposes that a "modification" section be added to the chapter for work that may not be exempted, yet the scope of the work should not require a complete review of a new land use application. The City uses this process as part of design review for small changes to approved plans. Proposed Language: No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director or Planning Commission without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director of Community Development as a minor modification. Staff recommends that the above language be retained in the draft ordinance. Next Step Based on the Planning Commission policy direction staff will amend the draft ordinance and present a Planning Commission recommended draft to the City Council. • DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18 ZONING REGULATIONS, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO BE KNOWN AS CHAPTER 18.71, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND REGULATING THE SITING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS the City has received or expects to receive requests to site wireless communication facilities within its boundaries, and WHEREAS the City recognizes that Congress, pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has imposed requirements that local governments not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services or act in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, while at the same time preserving traditional state and local authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities, and WHEREAS the City finds that the provisioning of personal wireless services to the residents of the City of Tukwila is in the public interest and that permitting the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries is necessary to support such service, and WHEREAS the City also finds that placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities could adversely affect the character, aesthetics, property values, historic significance and environmental quality of the community, and WHEREAS it is the City's intent therefore to permit the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries, and WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a review of its existing zoning code and determined that the existing zoning code provisions are technologically dated, unclear or non - existent regarding wireless communication facilities, and do not adequately implement the goals, objectives and policies of the adopted comprehensive plan or adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare, and WHEREAS it is the City's intent to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by adding a new chapter to the City's zoning code for the Brandon -M Page 1 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 purpose of regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities within its boundaries, and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing during the regular meeting on * *, and subsequently continued further consideration of the proposed text amendments, and WHEREAS * ** NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 18 of the Official Code of the City of Tukwila, Washington, is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 18.71 to be known as Wireless Communication Facilities and reading as follows: 18.71.010 Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communication facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the city. The purpose of this ordinance will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: (1) Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; (2) Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities may create, including, but not limited to, impacts on: aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, , flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property. (3) Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal. (4) Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in non- residential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; (5) Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; Brandon -M Page 2 Q:1Telecommuications\Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 ' DRAFT (6) Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable structures, to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; (7) Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options, and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques, and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. (8) Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; (9) Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; (10) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting, maintenance, and inspection of wireless communication facilities; and, (11) Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction, and modification. In furtherance of these goals, the City shall give due consideration to the comprehensive land use plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. These goals were developed,to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect property values and minimize visual impact while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the city. These goals were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this ordinance are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This ordinance shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. To the extent that any provision of this ordinance is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance this ordinance shall control. Otherwise, this ordinance shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. Brandon -M Page 3 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 ' DRAFT In reviewing any application to place, construct, or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, this ordinance, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 18.71.020 Authority and Application. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the placement, construction, or modification of all Wireless Communication Facilities except as specifically exempted in section 18.71.030 TMC. 18.71.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: 1. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication facilities, excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of antennas, towers, or buildings,}; provided that, the wireless communication facility received approval from the City of Tukwila or King County for the original placement, construction, or subsequent modification. Changing of antennas on a wireless communication facilities is permitted provided the new antennas have the same area or less of those removed. The total number of antennas must remain the same. Additional ground equipment may be placed within an approved equipment enclosure, provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening fence. 2. An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services,that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 3. An antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. 4. An antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios; provided that, the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district and are owned and operated by a federally licensed amateur radio station operator or are used exclusively for receive only antennas. Amateur Radio Station: In order to reasonably accommodate licensed amateur radio operators as required by Federal Code of Regulations, 47 CFR Part 97, as amended, and Order and Opinion (PRB -1) of the Federal Communication Commission of September, 1985, and RCW * *. * * *. * * *, a licensed amateur radio operator may locate a tower Brandon -M Page 4 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21 /2006 DRAFT not to exceed the height requiremen the applicable zoning district, provided the following requirements are met for such towers located in a residentially zoned district: a. The tower and any antennas located thereon shall not have any lights of any kind on it and shall not be illuminated either directly or . indirectly by any artificial means; b. The color of the tower and any antennas located thereon must all be the same and such that it blends into the sky, to the extent allowed under requirements set forth by either the Federal Aviation Administration; c. No advertising logo, trademark, figurines or other similar marking or lettering shall be placed on the tower or any wireless communication facilities mounted or otherwise attached thereto or any building used in conjunction therewith; d. The tower shall be located a distance equal to or greater than its height from any existing residential structure located on adjacent parcels of property including any attached accessory structures. e. Towers must be at least three quarters (3/4) of its height from any property line on the parcel of property on which it is located, unless a licensed engineer certifies that the tower will not collapse or that it is designed in such a way that in the event of collapse, it falls within itself, and in that event, it must be located at least one -third (1/3) of its height from any property line. f. No signs shall be used in conjunction with the tower, except for one (1) sign not larger than 8'/2" high and 11" wide and as required by Federal regulations. g. Towers built and operated under this provision shall not be leased or rented to commercial users and shall not otherwise be used for commercial purposes. i. All towers must meet all applicable state and federal statutes, rules and regulations, including obtaining a building permit from the City if necessary 6. Emergency communications equipment during a declared public emergency, when the equipment is owned and operated by an appropriate public entity. 7. Any wireless internet facility that is owned and operated by a govemment entity. 8. Antennas and related equipment no more than three feet in height that are being stored, shipped, or displayed for sale. 9. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 18.71.30 Definitions. --#0 4' 5/4,1 PA �► 4 For purposes of this Chapter 18.71 of the Tukwila Municipal Code ( "TMC "), the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein; words not defined herein which are defined in TMC Title 18, shall have the same meaning or be interpreted as provided in TMC Title 18. Words not defined Brandon -M Page 5 Q:\Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 ' DRAFT here or in TMC Title 18 shall, except as may be otherwise provided, have their ordinary and common meaning. A reference to TMC Title 18 or this Chapter 18.71 TMC refers to the same as amended from time to time or as may be re- enacted. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, words in the singular number include the plural number, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders whenever the sense requires. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. References to govemmental entities (whether persons or entities) refer to those entities or their successors in authority. If specific provisions of law referred to herein be renumbered, then the reference shall be read to refer to the renumbered provision. References to laws, ordinances or regulations shall be interpreted broadly to cover government actions, however nominated, and include laws, ordinances and regulations now in force or hereinafter enacted or amended. 1. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facility Structure - Any form of development associated with a wireless communications facility, including but not limited to: foundations, concrete slabs on grade, guy anchors, and transmission cable supports; however, specifically excluding equipment enclosures. 2. Ancillary Wireless Communication Facilities — Any facilities, component, part, equipment, mounting hardware, feed lines, or appurtenance associated with, attached to, or a part of a tower, antenna, tower, ancillary structures, or equipment enclosures, facilities equipment compound, and located within, above, or below the facilities equipment compound. 3. Antennas - Any exterior system of electromagnetically tuned wires, poles, road, reflecting disks or similar devices used to transmit or receive electromagnetic waves, digital signals, analog signals, radio frequencies (excluding radar signals) wireless telecommunications signals or other communication signals between terrestrial and /or orbital based points, including without limitation: directional antennas (also known as "panel "antenna) which transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees; omni - directional antennas (also known as a "whip" antenna) which transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360 degree radial pattern, but does not include an antenna utilized specifically for Television reception; and Parabolic Antenna (also known as a dish antenna which is bowl - shaped device for the reception and /or transmission of radio frequency communication signals in a specific directional pattern. 4. "Wireless Communication Concealed Facility" - A wireless communication facility that is not readily identifiable as such and is designed to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the existing building(s) on a site, or a wireless communications facility disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole or tower, or a wireless communication facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure or, new structure, or tower or mounted within trees, so as to be significantly screened from view or camouflaged to appear as a non - antenna structure (i.e.: tree, flagpole with flag, church steeple, etc ). Brandon -M Page 6 Q:1Telecommuications\Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT 5. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) - Any tower, monopole, antenna, ancillary structure or facility, or related equipment or component thereof, which is used for the transmission of Radio Frequency signals through electromagnetic energy for the purpose to provide phone, internet, video, information services, specialized mobile radio, enhanced specialized mobile radio, paging, wireless digital data transmission, broadband, unlicensed spectrum services utilizing part 15 devices, and other similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. 6. Antenna Array - One or more antennas and their associated ancillary facilities, which share a common attachment device, such as a mounting frame, or mounting support. 7. Tower mounted facilities. A wireless communication facility that is mounted to a tower. 8. Public Right of Way - All public streets, alleys and property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use for streets and alleys, together with all public property granted, reserved for, or dedicated to public use included but not limited to, walkways, sidewalks, trails, shoulders, drainage facilities, bike ways and horse trails, whether improved or unimproved, including the air rights, subsurface rights, and easements related thereto. 9. Collocation - The practices of installing and operating multiple antennas and antennas of multiple utility companies, wireless carriers, service providers, government wireless and /or radio common carrier licensees on the same ancillary structure using different and separate antennas areas, feed lines and radio frequency generating and /or receiving equipment. 10. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Compounds - An outdoor fenced area occupied by all the towers, antennas, ancillary structure(s), ancillary facilities, and equipment enclosures but excluding parking and access ways. 11. Public Entity - "Public Entity" means any Federal, State, or Local government body or agency. 12. Wireless Communication Facility Equipment Enclosures - any structure, including without limitation, cabinets, shelter, pedestals and other devices or structures, that is used exclusively to contain radio or other equipment necessary for the transmission and /or reception of wireless communication signals, including without limitation, air conditioning units and generators. 13. Feed lines or coaxial cables for wireless Communication Facility- Cables used as the interconnection media between the transmission /receiving base station and the antenna. 14. Flush mounted antennas - Any antennas or antenna array attached directly to the face of the tower or building such that no portion of the antenna extends above the height of the tower or building. 15. Lattice tower - A tapered style of tower that consists of vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross - bracing and metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas or similar antenna devices. 16. Monopole Tower - A freestanding tower that is composed of a single shaft usually composed of two or more hollow sections that are in turn attached to a Brandon -M Page 7 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT foundation. This type of tower is designed to support itself without the use of guy wires or other stabilization devices. These facilities are mounted to a foundation that rests on or in the ground. 17. Building Mounted Wireless CommunicationFacility - A wireless communication facility that is attached to an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. 18. Public Safety communications equipment - Radio or other communication equipment that is owned and exclusively used by public entities for emergency communication or communication between Fire, Police, and other rescue personal. 19. Wireless Telecommunication Carrier - Any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls, operates or manages any plant, equipment, structures or property within the City for the purpose of offering wireless telecommunication service within the City. 20. Electrical Transmission Tower - Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of at least 115kv. 21. Utility Pole — Any facility owned by Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy or any other electric utility that carries electrical lines which carry a voltage of less than 115kv or any Qwest facility which carries telephone lines. 22. Wireless Communication Facility Tower - Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including self - supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or monopoles. The term includes, without limitation, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, and altemative tower structures 23. Guy Tower - A tower that is supported with cable and ground anchors to secure and steady the tower. 24. Title — Unless other provided and when not inconsistent with the context therein, title shall mean and refer to title 18 of the Tukwilla Municipal Code as now or may be hereafter amended or reenacted. 25. Chapter - Unless other provided and when not inconsistent with the context therein, chapter shall mean and refer to Chapter 18.71 of the Tukwilla Municipal Code as now or may be hereafter amended or reenacted. 18.71.50 Permits required. No person may place, construct, or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of title 18. 1. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his /her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are totally within City right of way. If a project is both on private or public property and City right of way the Director shall review the Brandon -M Page 8 Q: 1Telecommuications\Finai Documents\KENYON DRAFT. DOC 07/21/2006 • ' DRAFT application. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is the reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 2. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (i.e, Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc). I?, 11, D 3- 3. This chapter provides guidelines for the placement and nstruction of wireless communication facilities not exempt as noted in section ( ) of this chapter) from its provisions and modification of wireless communication facilities. 4. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking, or landscaping on a site. 5. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 18.72 TMC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. 6. Third Party Expert Review. Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, topographic constraints that affect signal paths, etc. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be bome by the provider. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site - specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and /or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by a provider. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the application. The expert review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. 7. Any decision by the Director, Director of Public Works, , or Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. Brandon -M Page 9 Q:\Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 Type of Permit Required based on type of Facility Style of Facility Location Zoning Residential Commercial Industrial Transmission Tower Co- Location Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Adding Antennas to an existing tower Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Utility Pole Co- Location Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Concealed Building Attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 Non - Concealed Budding Attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 New tower or waiver request Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 DRAFT 8. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director or Planning Commission without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director of Community Development as a minor modification. 18.71.060 Types of Permits /Priority /Restrictions. 1. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. The types of facilities and the corresponding types of review are described in the following matrix: Residenti Commerci Industrial shall mean any private/public property or right of way zoned, LDR, MDR, or HDR. I shall mean any private/public property or right of way zoned, 0, MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C/LI or TVS. hall mean any private/public property or right of way zoned LI, HI, MIC/ or MIC/H. a. Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square footage of the enclosure area does not increase. b. An applicant may request to install a non - concealed building attached, under TMC ( ©). In the event of uncertainty on the style of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into the matrix. 2. The priorities for the type of wireless communication facility shall be based upon the above matrix. Any application for a wireless communication facility Brandon -M Page 10 Q:1Telecommuications\Final Documents\KENYON DRAFTDOC 07/21/2006 • • DRAFT must work down from the above matrix. For example an applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that using a transmission tower collocation is not possible before moving to a utility pole collocation and so forth with the last possible siting option being a new tower or waiver request. . 3. The City's preference for locating new wireless communications facilities are as follows: a. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers. b. Place wireless communication facilities in non - residentially zoned districts and non - residential property. c. Place antennas and towers on public property and on appropriate rights of ways if practical; provided that, no obligation is created herein for the City to allow the use of city property or public right of way for this purpose. 4. City Property /Public Rights of Way. The placement of personal wireless communication facilities on City -owned property and public rights of way will be subject to other applicable sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code and review by other Departments (i.e, Public Works and Parks and Recreation). 5. Wireless communication facilities shall not be permitted on property designated as landmark or as part of a historic district. 6. Applicants shall submit all of the information required pursuant to Section 18.104.060 TMC and the following: a. Type I. I. A completed application form provided by the Department of Community Development. II. Four sets of plans prepared by a design professional. The plans shall include a vicinity map, site map, architectural elevations, method of attachment, proposed screening, location of proposed antennas, and all other information which accurately depicts the proposed project. Minimum size is 8.5 by 11. Plans shall be no greater than 24" x 36 III. A letter from the applicant outlining the proposed project and an evaluation from the applicant with regard to the City's code requirements. Required) IV. Sensitive Area Studies and Proposed Mitigation (If V. If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC "Noise ". VI. SEPA Application : (If Required). b. Type II. Applicant shall submit all information required for a type I application and the following: I. Four sets of photo simulations that depict the existing and proposed view of the proposed facility. I I. Materials board for the screening material. III. Landscaping plan. IV. Letter from a licensed Radio Frequency Engineer that demonstrates that the facility meets Federal requirements for allowed emissions. Brandon -M Page 11 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT V. If the facility is located within a residential zone a report from an RF Engineer explaining the need for the proposed wireless communication facility. Additionally the applicant shall provided detailed discussion on why the wireless communication facility cannot be located within a commercial or industrial zone. VI. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a landscaping plan prepared by a Washington State licensed leffelseepincralthitect. c. Type IV. The applicant shall submit all the information required for a type I and type II application and the following: I. All information required for new towers under Section 18.71.070 TMC. II. The RF Engineer report shall include a discussion of the information required under Section 18.71.070 TMC. The report shall also explain why a tower must be used instead of any of the other location options outlined in Table ( @). III. Provisions for mailing labels for all property owners and tenants /residents within 500 feet of the subject property. IV. Engineering Plans for the proposed tower. V. A vicinity map depicting the proposed extent of the service area. VI. A graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed tower and ancillary structures and ancillary facilities from five points within the impacted vicinity. Such points are to be mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and applicant. All plans and photo simulations shall include the maximum build -out of the proposed facility. VII. Evidence of compliance with minimum Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements for radio frequency emissions. VIII. Evidence of compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for height and lighting and certificates of compliance from all affected agencies. IX. Evidence that the tower has been designed to meet the minimum structural standards for wireless communication facilities for a minimum of three providers of voice, video or data transmission services including the applicant and include a description of the number and types of antennas the tower can accommodate. X. 18.71.070 New Towers. 1. New towers are not permitted within the City unless there is evidence on the record demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that no existing tower or structure or other altemative technologies not requiring the use of towers or structures, can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the application to construct a tower and shall consider evidence demonstrating the following when acting on an application to construct a new tower in the City (although nothing should be construed to infer that meeting one, some or all of the following shall entitle the applicant to approval): Brandon -M Page 12 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 • a DRAFT a. That the new tower will fill a void in the coverage area of the provider; b. That the applicant has mitigated the aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower; c. That the proposed tower is needed to fill a significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network and the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service and is the least intrusive on the surrounding area and that the height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; d. That no existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicants engineering requirements (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); e. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; f. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; g. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; h. That the fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner or operator in order to share an existing tower or structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower construction by 25 percent are presumed to be unreasonable; -- i. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or structures, such as a cable microcell network using multiple low- powered transmitters /receivers attached to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable. j. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. All engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. 3. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, or remand the application back to staff for further investigation in a manner consistent with the Planning Commission order. 18.71.90 General Requirements. wo'd The following apply to all wireless communication facilities regardless of type of facility: 1. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device, which will create noise, must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 8.22 TMC "Noise ". A Brandon -M Page 13 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT noise report, prepared by an Acoustical Engineer shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. 2. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation, or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued by the City annually. Any person, corporation, or other business entity which owns a tower also i required to obt@in a business license on an annual basis. 3. Signage. Only safety signs may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. 4. Parking. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. 5. Towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color, so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. 6. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities to the natural setting and built environment. 7. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. 8. Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC, or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the Planning Commission shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. 9. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment compound. 10. Equipment Enclosure: Each service provider shall be limited to an equipment enclosure of 360 square feet at each site. However, this restriction shall not apply to enclosures located within an existing commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional building. 18.71.100 Transmission Tower Co- Location - Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. There is no height requirement for antennas that are located on transmission towers. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. There are no restrictions on the type of antennas located on the tower. The antennas must be painted to match the color of the transmission tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an electric transmission structure. Brandon -M Page 14 Q:\Telecommuications \Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 • DRAFT 4. Feed lines and co -axial cables shall be attached to one of the legs of the transmission tower. The feed lines and cables must be painted to match the color of the tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment: Cabinet equipment shall be located directly under the tower where the antennas are located. The equipment compound shall be fenced and the fence shall have a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height ofeight feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels, or other materials to screen the equipment from view. Barbed wire may be used in utility right of way that is not zoned residential. 6. Setbacks: Since the facility will be located on an existing tower setbacks shall not apply. 18.71.110 Adding antennas to existing tower - Specific Development Standards. 1. Height. Height must not exceed what was approved under the original application to construct the monopole. If the height shall exceed what was originally approved, approval from the Director is required for any height which will be Tess than the maximum height of the zone. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the antenna. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an existing tower. 4. Feed lines and Coaxial cables. Feed lines and co axial cables shall be located within the monopole structure. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables (such as when extended out of the monopole to connect to the antennas) must be painted to match the tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment. New cabinet shall be located within the equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original application. If the applicant wishes to expand the equipment enclosure from what was approved by the City or County under the previous application the application shall seek a Director wireless communication facility application for only the equipment enclosure increase. 6. Setbacks. Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs new antennas on an existing monopole and uses and existing equipment enclosure. If the equipment enclosure is increased it must meet setbacks. 18.71.120 Concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements. 1. Height: The proposed facility must meet the height requirement of the applicable zoning category. The antennas can qualify under TMC 18.50.080 "Rooftop Appurtenances" if the antennas are located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower, mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human occupancy. Stand alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop appurtenances. Brandon -M Page 15 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT 2. Antennas Aesthetics. The antennas must be concealed from view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could include, steeple like structures, parapet walls, etc. The screening must be made out of the same material and be the same color of the building. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed lines and Coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables shouldbe located below the parapet of rooftop. 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then the City's first preference is to locate the equipment on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the ground equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC/L, and MIC /H zones. . 5. Setbacks. The proposed wireless communication facilities facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the facility is to be located. 18.71.130 Non- concealed Building Mounted Development Requirements: 1. Height: The proposed facility must meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning category. If the building where the facility is located is at or above the maximum height requirements, the antennas are permitted to extend a maximum of three feet above the existing roof line. Non - concealed building mounted facilities shall not qualify as "Rooftop Appurtenances" under TMC 18.50.080. 2. Antenna Aesthetics: The first preference for any proposed facilities is to utilize flush mounted antennas. Non -flush mounted antennas may be used when there visual impact will be negated by the scale of the antennas to the building. "Shrouds" are not required unless they provide a better visual appearance than exposed antennas. Antennas shall be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 3. Feed lines and Coaxial cables: Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of rooftop. If the feed lines and cables must be visible they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building(s). 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the wireless communication facilities will be located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the ground equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced Brandon -M Page 16 Q:1Telecommuications\Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 • • - DRAFT with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 18.71.140 Utility Pole Collocation 1. Height: The height of a utility pole co- location is limited to ten feet above the replaced utility pole and may be not greater than 50 feet in height in residential zones. Within all other zones the height of the pole is limited to 50 feet or the minimum height standards of the underlying zoning, which ever is greater. 2. The replaced utility pole must be used by the owner of the utility pole to support their utility lines (phone lines or electric). A replaced utility pole cannot be used to provide secondary functions to utility poles in the area. 3. The replaced utility pole must have the color and general appearance of the adjacent utility poles. 4. Coax cables limited to one -half ( %) inch in diameter may be attached directly to a utility pole. Coax cables greater than one -half (1/2) inch must be placed within the utility pole. The size of the cables is the total size of all coax cables being utilized on the pole. 5. The proposal shall not result in a significant change in the pedestrian environment or preclude the City from making pedestrian improvements. If a utility pole is being replaced, consideration must be made to improve the pedestrian environment if necessary. 6. Cabinet Equipment: Unless approved by the Director of Public Works all cabinet equipment and the equipment enclosure must be placed outside of City right of way. If located on a parcel that contains a building, the equipment enclosure must be located next the building. The cabinet equipment must be screened from view. The screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the ground equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, H, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. 7. Setbacks: Any portion of the wireless communication facilities located within City right of way does not have to meet setbacks. The City will evaluate setbacks on private property under the criteria listed under TMC ( @) . 18.71.150 Towers - Specific Development Standards 1. Height: Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the height standards of the zoning district where the tower will be located. 2. Antenna and Tower Aesthetics: The applicant shall utilize a concealed tower. Examples of concealed towers include flagpoles, church spires, or other structures that appear to be a use other than a tower. The choice of concealing the wireless communication facility must be consistent with the overall use of the site. For example, having a tower appear like a flagpole would not be Brandon -M Page 17 Q: \Telecommuications\Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT consistent if there were no buildings on the site. If a flag or other wind device is attached to the pole it must be appropriate in scale to the size and diameter of the tower. 3. Setbacks: The proposed wireless communication facilities must meet the setback of the underlining- zoning district. If an exception is granted under TMC , with regards to height, the setback of the proposed wireless communication facilities will increase two feet for every foot in excess of the maximum permitted height in the zoning district. 4. The color of the tower shall be based on the surrounding land uses. 5. Feed lines and Coaxial cables: All feed lines and cables must be located within the tower. Feed lines and cables that connect the tower to the equipment enclosure must be located underground. AO'sih folk 9Ark 0 18.71.160 Request to use non - concealed building attached in lieu of a concealed building attached. The use of concealed building facilities shall have first priority in all residential and commercial zones. However, an applicant may request to construct a non - concealed building attached facility in lieu of a concealed facility. The following criteria shall be used: 1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the antennas the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in relation to the building. 2. Cables are concealed from view and any visible cables are reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where they are located. 3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view. 4. Due to the style or design of the building the use of a concealed facility would reduce the visual appearance of the building. 5. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet from the Duwamish /Green River. 6. 18.71.170 Landscaping /Screening. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures, and ancillary structures, with the exception of wireless communication facilities located on transmission towers or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director, Director of Public Works, or Planning Commission, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping, in locations where the visual impact of the tower Brandon -M Page 18 Q:1Telecommuications\Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 I • DRAFT would be minimal, in those locations where large, wooded lots, natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: 1. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum ten foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. 2. The landscaping area shall be at a minimum five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. 3. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of six feet tall at the time of planting. 4. Irrigation or an approved maintenance scheduled that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. 5. The applicant or property owner shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving thirty (30) days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the landscaping at the cost of the owner or operator and bill both the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 410 18.71.175 Zoning Setback Exceptions A. Generally a wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances allowing modifications to setbacks may achieve the goal of this chapter of concealing such facilities from view. B. The Director or Planning Commission, depending on the type of application, may permit that modifications be made to setbacks when: 1. An applicant for a Wireless Communication Facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations. 2. The waiver will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site. 3. The proposed location allows for Wireless Communication Facility to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned (LDR, MDR, and HDR) properties. C. This zoning setback waiver cannot be used to waive /modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 18.71.180 Height Waivers Brandon -M Page 19 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 DRAFT Where the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships, practical difficulties or unnecessary and unreasonable expense would result from strict compliance with the height limitations of the zoning code or the purpose of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal, it may approve a height waiver to these regulations. Th lar g C remiss n sha of app ve any iver(s) u ss a rr f nd vot' g sha find tha all of th ollowing ply: 1. The granting of the height waiver wi not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property and will promote the public interest. 2. The waiver(s) will substantially secure the objectives, standards and requirements of these regulations. 4. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: a. Topography and other site features. b. Availability of alternative site locations. c. Geographic location of property. d. Size /magnitude of project being evaluated and availability of collocation. 5. In approving the waiver request, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to substantially secure the objectives of the standards or requirements of these regulations. 6. A petition for any such waiver shall be submitted, in writing, by the applicant with the application for Planning Commission review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all of the facts relied upon by the applicant. 18.71.190 Expiration. Any application to install or operate a wireless telecommunications facility shall expire exactly one year from the date of issuance of the application unless significant progress has been made to construct the facility. The City may extend the expiration period by one additional year due to circumstances outside of the control of the applicant. However, the City shall not issue an extension if any code revisions have occurred to the zoning chapter which would affect the wireless communication approved application. 18.71.200 Removal of Abandoned Wireless Communication Facilities. Any antenna or tower that, after the initial operation of the facility, is not used for the purpose for which it was intended at the time of the application for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned and the owner of such antenna or tower shall remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City notifying the owner of such abandonment. Failure to remove such Brandon -M Page 20 Q :1Telecommuications \Final Documents\KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 I • DRAFT abandoned tower shall result in declaring the structure a public nuisance. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this section shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower. Section 2. Section 18.104.060 of the Official Code of the City of Tukwilla is hereby amended by the addition of new paragraph "m" following section 18.104.060(4)(I) to read as follows: m. Wireless communication facility permits, see Chapter 18.71 TMC. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall 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. Brandon -M Page 21 Q: \Telecommuications \Final Documents \KENYON DRAFT.DOC 07/21/2006 • f June 9, 2006 Dear Interested Party: You are receiving this letter because sometime in the past you or your company was involved in an application to install and /operate a wireless communication facility within the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila is creating a wireless communication chapter within the City's Zoning Code. The goals of the chapter are as follows: 1. Protect the public welfare, safety and the aesthetic appearance of the City 2. To increase predictability for providers who wish to locate in the City 3. Streamline the permit review for providers 4. Ensure consistently with Federal and State Law. The City desires input from wireless providers and consultants regarding the new chapter. The City is interested in feedback on the proposed chapter as well as background on the industry, future technologies, or any other information you feel would be pertinent to the new chapter. On June 29, 2006, the City will host a lunch meeting to gather comments and you are invited to attend. The meeting will be at 12:00 in City of Tukwila Conference Room #5 at 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila 98188. Conference Room #5 is located on the 2 " floor of the building. If you plan on attending, please RSVP by sending an email to bmiles @ci.tukwila.wa.us, or call (206) 431 -3684 by Thursday, June 22, 2006. A draft copy of the proposed chapter will be provided ahead of time to those attending the meeting. If you cannot attend but would still like to review and provide comments on the proposed chapter please contact me. Thank you foreur assistance! Sincerely, Br don J. Miles Assistant Planner cc. File City of Tukwila Departinent of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Justin Abbott Parsons Westl Westlake Ave N #360 ake 98109 Cynthia M. Berne 4742 42nd Ave SW # 629 Seattle, WA 98116 US West 450 110th Ave NE, Room 209 Bellevue, WA 98004 Heather Wright JAB and Associates 23641 20th Ave S, #F -209 Des Moines, WA 98198 Paul Ingraham 500 108 Ave NE Suite 1150 Bellevue, WA 98004 • TOM WHALEN WHALEN & COMPANY INC. 17515 NE 67TH COURT REDMOND, WA 98052 WESTERN WIRELESS 330 120 AV NE #110 Bellevue, WA 98005 PAM MCCOLLOUGH WIRELESS FACILITIES INC 575 ANDOVER PARK WEST #201 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Josh Linn The Walter Group Inc. 120 Lakeside Ave Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98122 Todd Walton Clearwire 5808 Lake Washington Blvd, Ste 300 Kirkland, WA 98033 Chris Listfjeld T- Mobile 19807 N. Creek Pkwy Bothel, WA 98102 Voice Stream PO Box 40120 Bellevue, WA 98015 W &H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Pkwy Bothel, WA 98021 JM CONSULTING 12828 NORTHUP WAY Bellevue, WA 98005 PAUL WOZNIAK ODELIA PACIFIC 208 WESTLAKE AVE N Seattle, WA 98109 Terri Spencer Spence Planning 1370 Stewart St. Seattle, WA 98109 Bob Dyer Odelia Pacific 208 Westlake Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 Christina Suarez 211 May St. Hood River, OR 97032 The Walter Group Inc. 120 Lakeside Ave Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98112 Metricom Inc 1680 Greenspoint Park Dr, Suite 150 Houston, Tx 77060 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Seattle, WA 98104 PATRICK HEWES VCI 4040 LAKE WASHINGTON BL NE Kirkland, WA 98033 City of Tukwila K; AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION { e t : 6 4 , &AAA/L/1 HEREBY DECLARE THAT: ■ N Notice of Public Hearing D Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting M Mitigated Determination of Non- " £"�. Significance _ _ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 6144 dday of in the year 200-A Project Name: Q C-D Project Number: Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: N1)4 2 A-itZL6t) 1 /1 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Dept. Of Community Develo me Cae • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Staff Report Wireless Communication Chapter TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner RE: Continued Discussion on Wireless Communication Chapter DATE: May 10, 2006 At the April Planning Commission meeting, Planning Staff briefed the Commission on issues related to a new telecommunications chapter. There was general consensus from the Commission to have staff continue to work on the chapter. Attached to this staff report is very rough draft of the future ordinance. The draft provided is far from complete, however, staff needs direction from the Planning Commission on the following areas of the ordinance. The proposed language is shown in italics. Item 1: Purpose and Intent The intent section of any new chapter is very important in order to establish what goals and polices that the City is attempting to advance. Staff has provided the following items to be included. These items are in no particular order. 1. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Minimize unnecessary local regulation of wireless telecommunications providers and services; 3. Assure that all telecommunications carriers providing facilities or services within the City comply with the ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city; 4. To insure tite- adeg+ate coverage of wireless communication in the City. 5. Minimize the adverse visual effects of wireless communication facilities through careful siting and design standards. 6. To insure that proposed wireless facilities do not have a negative impact on surrounding residents, property owners, and businesses within the City. 7. Provide a means for public input on major wireless telecommunications facilities within the City. Brandon -M Page 1 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director 05/19/2006 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 • • r ,- 94 _ dc,i Does the Planning Commission have any additional items that should be added to the purpose and intent language? Are there any changes or deletions that the Planning Commission wishes to make? Item 2: Exemptions The proposed new chapter would not apply to the following: 1. Maintenance and repair of existing antennas, feed lines, cabinet equipment, or support structures, provided that the facility received approval from the City of Tukwila for the original construction. Changing of antennas on a WCF is permitted provided the new antennas are the same size or smaller than those replaced. Additionally, the total number of antennas must remain the same. 2. Satellite dishes that are one meter or le s in diameter and are intended for the use of a specific resident or tenant. t,,,1■■c O\ c O *11 3. Television receiving only antennas. 1, 4. Portable temporary wireless communication devices. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios, provided the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district. 6. The construction of a private wireless system constructed totally on private property and intended for use by one particular entity, provided the height requirements of the zone are met. Are there any other exemptions that should be added? Item 3: Definitions The definition section of any new chapter is one of the most important elements of the Chapter. The City can define a term in the manner needed to meet the objectives of the development code. When a chapter does not provide a definition of a term, then the ordinary definition as found in a dictionary of a regular circulation shall apply. Staff has concluded that the following terms need to be included in order to achieve the goals of the wireless telecommunications chapter. 1. Accessory Building (Already provided in zoning code) 2. Ancillary Structures 3. Antennas 4. Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) 5. Antennas Array 6. Antennas supporting structure 7. Building mounted non - concealed antennas 8. Transmissi n tower mounted facilities 1 11. Dire 12. E -911 nhanced 13. WCF quipmentmpounds. 14. WCF quipment Enclosures Brandon -M Page 2 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc ov e rnvl \t`kb1A^ 9. Rights ot� y (This definition already y xists in our zoning code, however it will be n order for Planning and PW to have the exact definition). 05/19/2006 Type of Permit Required based on type of Facility Location Zoning Residential Commercial Industrial Transmission Tower Co- Location Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Adding Antennas to an existing monopole Type 1 Type 1 ype 1 Utility Pole Co- Location - Type 2 pe 2 Type 2 Concealed Building Attached . Type 3 Type 2 Type 1 Non - Concealed Building Attached Type 3 Type 3 Type 1 New Monopole Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 • • 15. Feed lines 16. Flush mounted 17. Height (possible conflict with building height definition) 18. Lattice tower 19. Monopole 20. Stealth Monopole 21. Concealed or Stealth mounted facilities 22. Public Safety communications equipment Are there other terms that the Planning Commission believes should be included? Item 4: Permit Review Matrix As noted at the last meeting, Planning Staff proposed a matrix to simplify the permit requirements for certain types of facilities. Desirable facilities would have a simpler review, while less desirable facilities would require more public involvement and a public hearing. Permits with the City of Tukwila are categorized in five "types ". Planning Staff has used our existing permit process to assign the permit requirements for wireless telecommunication applications. Type 1 decisions are made by City administrators who have technical expertise as designated by ordinance (TMC18.104.010 (1)). The most common Type I permit is a building permit. Type II decisions are decisions which are initially made by the Director or, in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open record appeal, such as a short plat or administrative design review (TMC 18.104.010 (2)). Type 3 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may only be appealed to Superior Court (TMC 18.104.010 (3)). Type 4 decisions are made the Planning Commission and can be appealed to the City Council (TMC 18.104.010 (4)); an example of a Type 4 permit is the Public Design Review process. Brandon -M Page 3 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc AR__ c 05/19/2006 • • • As the chart shows, the facility types with lower impacts have been assigned simpler permit processes. Facility type with higher impacts would still require public hearing. Item 5: Concealed Building Mounted Facilities v Non - Concealed Building Mounted Facilities. In some cases screening walls can have more of a visual impact than if the antennas had been permitted to be exposed. For example: Brandon -M Page 4 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc The above antennas are exposed and visible from view. However, the size of the building reduces the visual impact associated with the antennas. 05/19/2006 • • • The above enclosure was used to screen antennas from view. However, the enclosure is not consistent with the style and shape of the building where it is located. Instead of mandating the use of concealed facilities in certain zones, staff suggests that the ordinance allow the Director to have discretion to determine if a concealed or non - concealed facility should be utilized. The following decision criteria could be used to determine if a non - concealed facility can be used in lieu of a concealed facility. The following language is proposed: 1. Due to the size of the building and the proposed location of the antennas the visual impact of the exposed antennas will be minimal in relation to the building. 2. Cables are concealed from view and any visible cables are reduced in visibility by sheathing or painting to match the building where they are located. 3. Cabinet equipment is adequately screened from view. 4. The building where the antennas are located is at least 200 feet from any residential zoned property and 200 feet from the Duwamish /Green River. Are there any other items that staff should be concerned regarding allowing an applicant to have a non - concealed building mounted facility compared to a concealed building mounted facility? Brandon -M Page 5 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc 05/19/2006 • • • Item 5: New Monopoles The new ordinance will allow the placement of new monopoles in the City only under specific criteria. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body for any new proposed facilities within the City. The following criteria shall be used to evaluate a proposed monopole. 1. That the new tower will fill a void in the coverage area of the provider. 2. That the applicant has mitigated the aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower. 3. Demonstration, by the applicant, that there is no reasonable alternative for the proposed site and that no other method, such as building co- location for the proposed antennas would meet the coverage need 4. The proposed tower is needed to fill a significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network and the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service and is the least intrusive on the surrounding area. The height of the tower is the minimal necessary to achieve coverage requirements. Does the Planning Commission have any other criteria that should be considered when an entity wishes to construct a monopole? Any new monopole within the City will be required to allow co- location of other providers who wish to locate on the facility. 1 �� C `D Federal Issues There is proposed legislation at the Federal level regarding amendment of the Telecommunications Act. The amendments would create a national franchise for video service. The measure would strip cities of some authority within their rights -of -way. It is unclear what impact this would have on the proposed wireless telecommunications chapter. The Association of Washington Cities, US Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties oppose the proposed legislation. A press release from the National League of Cities is included with this staff report. Additional information can be found at www.nlc.orq. Next Step Conduct the public hearing and discuss the various items presented by staff. If a consensus exists on the items presented above, staff will return in June with a final draft ordinance for review by the Planning Commission. At the June meeting, the Planning Commission can take action on forwarding the matter to the City Council for consideration. Brandon -M Page 6 Q: \Telecommuications \Planning Com Memo.doc 05/19/2006 DRAFT • Chapter 18.71 18.71.010 Purpose: 1. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Minimize unnecessary local regulation of wireless telecommunications providers and services; 3. Assure that all telecommunications carriers providing facilities or services within the City comply with the ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city; 4. To insure the adequate coverage of wireless communication in the City. 5. Minimize the adverse visual effects of wireless communication facilities through careful siting and design standards. 6. To insure that proposed wireless facilities do not have a negative impact on surrounding residents, property owners, and businesses with in the City. 7. Provide a means for public input on major wireless telecommunications chapter. Authority and Application 18.71.020: 1. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all WCF and Communications facilities as defined by ( @), except as specifically exempted in section 18.71.030, including but not limited to: a. Existing antenna - support structures. b. Proposed antenna support structures c. Building mounted WCF d. Utility mounted WCF e. Equipment cabinets used for WCF f. Enclosures of cabinet areas for WCF Exemptions 18.71.030: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following actions: 1. Maintenance and repair of existing antennas, feed lines, cabinet equipment, or support structure. Provided that the facility received approval from the City of Tukwila for the original construction. Changing of antennas on a WCF is permitted provided the new antennas are the same size or smaller then those replaced. Additionally, the total number of antennas must remain the same. Brandon -M Page 1 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • • DRAFT 2. Satellite dishes that are one meter or less in diameter and are intended for the use of a specific resident or tenant. 3. Television receiving only antennas. 4. Portable temporary wireless communication devices, expect when used to circumvent the intent of this chapter. 5. Antennas for the receiving and sending of amateur radio devices or HAM radios. Provided the antennas meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district. 6. The construction of a private wireless system constructed totally on private property and intended for use by one particular entity. Provided the height requirements of the zone are met. Definitions 1. Accessory Building 2. Ancillary Structures 3. Antennas 4. Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) 5. Antennas Array 6. Antennas supporting structure 7. Building mounted non - concealed antennas 8. Transmission tower mounted facilities 9. Rights of way 10. Collocation 11. Director 12. E -911 Enhanced 13. WCF equipment compounds. 14. WCF Equipment Enclosures 15. Feed lines 16. Flush mounted 17. Height (possible conflict with building height definition) 18. Lattice tower 19. Monopole 20. Stealth Monopole 21. Concealed or Stealth mounted facilities 22. Public Safety communications equipment Permits required 18.71.050: 1. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall be evaluated by the Director of Community Development and or his /her designee for all projects located on private property. The Director of Public Works shall review all proposed facilities that are totally within City right of way. If a project is both on private and City right of way the Director of Community Development shall review the application. Regardless of which Director is the reviewing individual the Wireless Telecommunications Chapter shall be used to evaluate such an application. Brandon -M Page 2 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc Type of Permit Required based on type of Facility Location Zoning Residential Commercial Industrial Transmission Tower Co- Location Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Adding Antennas to an existing monopole Type 1 -^ Type 1 Type 1 Utility Pole Co- Location Type 2 Type 2 Type 2 Concealed Building Attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 Non - Concealed Building Attached Type 2 Type 2 Type 1 New Monopole Type 4 Type 4 Type 4 • • • DRAFT a. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from the appropriate governing body. b. This chapter provides guidelines for the construction and new of the modifications of existing WCF. However, no provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow a WCF to reduce the minimum parking, or landscaping on a site. c. WCF that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under TMC 18.72. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based on TMC 18.71 "Exceptions ". d. Independent Review. The City may, at the applicant's expense, have an independent radio frequency engineer or other qualified consultant review all materials submitted for review by the City. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost in association with the independent review. 2. Any decision by the Director of DCD, Director of PW, Hearing Examiner, or Planning Commission shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for Wireless Communication Facility. Types of Permits 18.71.060 Based on the type of WCF, A. Provided the height of the tower does not increase and the square footage of the enclosure area does not increase. Brandon -M Page 3 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • • DRAFT New Monopoles 18.71.060: New monopoles are not permitted within the City of Tukwila except under the following circumstances: 1. Only after the applicant can demonstrate that there is no method of providing service in the specific area without constructing a new monopole. The applicant must demonstrate, beyond preponderance of the evidence that the monopole is necessary to provide service. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing body on the proposed application to construct a monopole. a. The Planning Commission shall consider the following when acting on an application to construct a new monopole in the City. 1. That the new tower will fill a void in the coverage area of the provider. 2. That the applicant has mitigated the aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower. 3. Demonstration, by the applicant, that there is no reasonable alternative for the proposed site and that no other method, such as building co- location for the proposed antennas would meet the coverage need. 4. The proposed tower is needed to fill a significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network and the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service and is the least intrusive on the surrounding area and that the height is the minimal necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective. b. The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing shall either approve, approve with conditions, deny, or remand back to staff the application to install the tower. Notification 18.71.060 Notification of adjacent property owners, residents, and /or tenants is only required for type III applications or for a type I or II application that requires SEPA. Notification is also required for any new monopoles in the City. General Requirements 18.71 The following apply to all WCF facilities regardless of type of facility. 1. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device, which will create noise, must demonstrate compliance with TMC 8.22 "Noise ". A noise report, prepared by an Acoustical Engineer shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a WCF that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party at the expense of the applicant. Brandon -M Page 4 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • DRAFT 2. Business License Requirement. Any WCF that operates within the City of Tukwila shall have a valid business license issued by the City of Tukwila annually. Any person, corporation, or other business entity which!owns a monopole tower also is required to obtain a business license on ,an annual basis. 3. Signage. Only safety signs may be located on a WCF. No other types of signs are permitted on a WCF. 4. Parking. Any proposed WCF must be able to show that there is available C`R off - street parking for the proposed facility. A WCF will not require that additional parking be provided. Transmission Tower Co- Location - Specific Development Standards 18.71.070. 1. Height. There is no height requirement for antennas that are located on transmission towers. 2. Antenna Aesthetics. There are no restrictions on the type of antennas located on the tower. The antennas must be painted to match the color of the transmission tower. 3. Antenna Intensity. There is no limit on the numberof antennas that may be located on an electric transmission structure. .�a J (0 4. Feed lines and co -axil cables shall be attached• the er. The feed lines and cables must be painted to match the color of the tower. 5. Cabinet Equipment: Cabinet equipment shall be located directly under the tower where the antennas are located. The equipment compound shall be fenced and the fence shall have a minimum height of six feet. The fence shall include slats, wood panels, or other materials to screen the equipment from view. Sack wire ma be residential. ' - - - • - . - • - . = _ - ... -d if l a -. -. _ . -. • - --- -- -- - - omview. 6. Setbacks: Since the facility will be located on an existing tower setbacks shall not apply. Adding antennas to existing monopole - Specific Development Standards 18.71.... 1. Height. Height must not exceed what was approved under the original application to construct the monopole. 2. Antennas Aesthetics. Antennas shall be painted to match the color of the antenna. 3. Antennas Intensity. There is no limit on the number of antennas that may be located on an existing monopole. 4. Feed lines and Coaxial cables. Feed lines and co axial cables shall be located within the monopole structure. Any exposed feed lines or coaxial cables (such as when extended out of the monopole to connect to the antennas) must be painted to match the tower. Brandon -M Page 5 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • DRAFT 5. Cabinet Equipment. New cabinet shall be located within the equipment enclosure that was approved as part of the original application. If the applicant wishes to expand the equipment enclosure from what was approved by the City under the previous application the application shall seek a type two WFS application for only the equipment enclosure. 6. Setbacks. Setbacks shall not apply when an applicant installs new antennas on an existing monopole and uses and existing equipment enclosure. Concealed - Building Attached Development Requirements. 1. Height: The proposed facility must meet the height requirement of the applicable zoning category. The antennas can qualify under TMC 18.50.080 "Rooftop Appurtenances" if the antennas are located in a church spire, chimney or fake chimney, elevator tower, mechanical equipment room, or other similar rooftop appurtenances usually required to be placed on a roof and not intended for human occupancy. Stand alone antennas shall not qualify as rooftop appurteances. 2. Antennas Aesthetics. The antennas must be concealed from view by blending with the architectural style of the building. This could include, steeple like structures, parapet walls, etc. The screening must be made out of the same material and g. fvtiAkt k C.01 (l. 3. Feed lines and Coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables should be located ��� below the parapet of rooftop. h� 4. Cabinet Equipment. If cabinet equipment cannot be located within the building where the WCF will be located, then it must be located on the rooftop of the building. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the proposed screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. If the ground equipment is to be located on the ground, the equipment must be fenced with a six -foot tall fence and materials shall be used to screen the equipment from view. Barbwire may be used in the TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L, and MIC /H zones. Live landscaping shall be planted around the equipment enclosure. The landscaping shall meet the requirements of TMC ( @). 5. Setbacks. The proposed WCF facility must meet the setback of the applicable zoning category where the facility is to be located. Landscaping 18.71 Landscaping is required to be around all equipment enclosures, with the exception of facilities located on transmission towers. A. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum ten foot portion Brandon -M Page 6 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • • DRAFT of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. B. The landscaping area shall be at a minimum five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. C. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of six feet tall at the time of planting. D. Irrigation or an approved maintenance scheduled that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. E. The applicant or property owner shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal and shall maintain all landscape materials. Brandon -M Page 7 05/19/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Chapter 18.71.doc • • National League ofCities NAco rata 1.1.-num44,-ta 0 „00,...„ 4 ti TeleCommUnity mass NCBM oca/ Government Partner of Pro Video ompetition 3 yn Local governments strongly endorse promoting competition that will allow new broadband -video providers to enter our communities with level playing fields, while maintaining the local franchise authority so important to cities and counties around the country. Severely restricting the authority of local governments through unreasonable streamlined measures would undermine local franchising enforcement and compliance, threaten local budgets, limit the benefit of broadband -video competition to a few well-to -do neighborhoods, weaken provisions that ensure that video providers meet each community's needs and interests, and undermine the ability of local governments to protect their residents. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WANT CABLE COMPETITION AND HAVE ACTIVELY SOUGHT IT FOR YEARS. BUT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO NOT FAVOR: - Subsidizing multinational communications companies' use of local streets and rights -of -way at the expense of local government budgets and local taxpayers. Giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington, D.C., control and oversight over how localities manage their local streets and rights -of -way. Subsidizing service to a few well-to -do neighborhoods while less well -to -do neighborhoods are left behind without competition, and with higher prices and poorer service. - Allowing telephone companies to provide broadband -video services only to some of their telephone customers, leaving others behind. - Cutting current levels of financial support for local community programming and emergency communications. Taking away local authority to handle their residents' cable customer service complaints. CONCERNS WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS, CONSUMER'S CHOICE, AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2006 (S. 2686) First, while the bill ostensibly preserves local franchising authority, the net effect is that it strips local authority and grants it to the FCC to determine virtually all franchise terms by rulemaking, requires that a franchise be granted by federal law within 30 days of a broadband -video provider filing an application, and places an unreasonable and what we believe for most cities and counties will be an unattainable mandate that localities must act within 15 days. The consequence for not acting within 30 days of application is that the bill "federalizes" local video franchising and eliminates the 1% fee for Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) access channels used to carry local programming and appropriate institutional network (I -Net) obligations for government and emergency communications. Second, as crafted, the bill would send all rights -of -way disputes to the FCC, not the courts, which is the current practice. Communities, large and small, would be placed in the difficult position of reaffirming their rights -of -way management and practices by satisfying a set of hurdles, at least six in the current draft, before the FCC. Furthermore, if the provider wins, the local community would be required to pay the costs and attorneys fees of the broadband -video provider. The bottom -line is that the FCC is granted the authority to oversee and second -guess not only the general police powers of the community, but the policies and engineering practices of public works departments nation -wide — a federal agency that has never had the authority to regulate local public rights -of -way and has no expertise concerning local streets, sidewalks, public safety and traffic patterns. Third, this bill abandons commitments to keep localities financially whole in the rewrite of the video franchising process by excluding advertising and other non - subscriber revenues from the current 5% franchise fee. In addition, many communities have made the decision in their local franchises to obtain more than 1% worth of PEG and I -Net support for needs such as fire, police, and other governmental communications, and in those communities, local programming and emergency communications would be diminished as a result of this bill. The pledge to keep localities financially whole would be further marginalized by preemption language that does not allow localities to conduct franchise fee audits. Fourth, while the draft ostensibly prohibits economic redlining through the use of the current Cable Act, it allows providers of the broadband -video services to use the public rights -of -way in a community, but pick and choose which neighborhoods they wish to serve while bypassing all others completely. Fifth, it appears that the bill fails to protect locally- imposed telecommunications taxes as well as any state - imposed telecommunications taxes that are not imposed in lieu of rights -of -way compensation. United States Conference of Mayors — http: / /www.usmayors.org; National League of Cities — http- / /www.nlc org National Association of Counties — http: / /naco.orl.• National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors — http: / /www.natoa.ory Government Finance Officers Association — http: / /www.gfoa.org; International Municipal Lawyers Association — �: / /www.imla.org / /www.imla.org TeleCommUnity — http: / /telecommunityalliance.org, National Conference of Black Mayors — http: / /www.ncbm.org TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director INFORMATION MEMO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of Wireless Facilities in Tukwila B. Minutes from CAP Meeting I. Introduction Planning Commission Steve Lancaster, Director Brandon Miles, Assistant Planner April 12, 2006 In the last 15 years, the use of cell phones has revolutionized American society. However, the concept of cell phones is not new. The basic concept of cell phones began in 1947, when researchers looked at crude mobile (car) phones and realized that by using small cells (range of service areas) with frequency reuse they could increase the traffic capacity. In the 1980s the combination of technological advances and deregulation by the Federal Communications Commission allowed for the explosion of wireless phones that is currently occurring today. According to the Cellular Trade and Internet Association (CTIA), which is the trade group representing wireless providers there are currently 182 million Americans who are wireless customers. In 1992 the number of customers stood at just 11 million. Additionally, phones today are more than devices that provide voice service. Today's phones provide access to the internet, email, text messages, (7.3 billion messages in June of 2005, in June of 2004 the number was just 2.9 billion), MP3 player, digital camera, location capability (GPS), and video. The expanded usage requires additional network capacity and coverage. Some Americans are also choosing to strictly utilize wireless phones and not have landlines. In fact six percent of individuals who have wireless phones do not have landlines. As the demand for wireless service increases, providers need to be able to provide capacity to new and existing customers. Thus, more wireless facilities (cell sites) are required. Brandon -M Page 1 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1.doc Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Ill II. Basic Components of Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Each WCF can vary in appearance. Yet, there are three basic components of all facilities, antennas, support structures, and equipment sheds. ❑ Antennas are the transmitter arrays that communicate with mobile phones and other wireless devices. ❑ Support structures include towers, building rooftops, or other elevated platforms where antennas are mounted. Of the various types of support structures, towers have historically been the most common in the United States, as well as the most visually conspicuous (most facilities in Tukwila are building mounted). ❑ Equipment sheds are cabinets or small buildings filled with electronic equipment, which power the antennas and allow them to communicate with one another. All WCF release radio frequency (RF) emissions. RF emissions are a form of electromagnetic energy and are classified as non - ionizing, or not harmful to biological tissues at genetic levels. At high levels RF radiation can heat tissues, as with microwave ovens. The Federal government regulates the emissions from WCF. As noted in the 2002 fact sheet from the Federal Communications Facility (FCC), "The RF exposures that people get from these antennas are typically thousands of times lower than those they can get from wireless phones ". There has been no research in the United States that conclusively demonstrates a connection between wireless equipment and any health hazards. The current technology in use has been ruled safe by both the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization. One area of concern for the City regarding RF emissions is possible interferences with public safety radios used by law enforcement and fire personnel. Interference can occur when two wireless services that operate at similar frequencies are located in the same area. The City's law enforcement and emergency personnel radios communicate on the 800 MHz frequency. The popular Nextel point -to -point hand sets also operate on the 800 MHz frequency and in some jurisdictions, the City of Seatac most notably, this has caused interference with Police and Fire communication equipment. III. Industry Build -out Early wireless service provided pager and cellular phone service; this was known as the first generation of personnal wireless communication devices. Second generation phones combine voice with text messaging, email, and limited internet access. When the industry moved from first generation services to second generation services it required a large number of new antenna sites. This was due to two factors, second generation phones are more data - intensive and because of the increased popularity of wireless communication devices. Brandon -M Page 2 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction) .doc • The industry is currently moving to third generation phones. Third generation phones will be designed to handle large amount of data, graphics, full internet access and even video - conferencing. As the industry provides more and more service, the number of people using wireless devices has also increased. A report prepared for another local government summarized why the demand for wireless communication will grow in the coming years: "Research has shown that consumers, whether private citizens or business, tend to adopt new technologies incrementally. The American public has become comfortable with both wireless phones and the wired internet, and is prepared for the next technological step to wireless internet. Meanwhile, a concentrated advertising campaign by the industry is creating the expectation that the next generation of services will be available everywhere, and will provide all the features offered by a land -based home or business computer (Wireless Facilities, Planning for the Next Generation of Technology). The report also summarized four trends that are likely to occur in the coming years: A. New antennas will be located lower to the ground. It is reasonable to assume that most wireless providers in the City have achieved their coverage phase of deployment and are now attempting to increase their capacity. Technological improvements have allowed providers to use higher radio frequencies. Higher radio frequencies do not travel as far as lower radio frequencies and thus these antennas tend to be mounted at lower heights. B. The number of new facilities in the country is expected to triple and this is a conservative estimate. As noted, higher frequencies have a smaller range and thus more sites will be required. The third generation devices also require a larger number of antennas in order to serve a particular population. More facilities will also be needed to serve the increasing demand for wireless devices. C. Antennas will be easier to camouflage. As noted in Wireless Facilities - Planning for the Next Generation of Technology, "Lower Antenna heights, advances in technology, and the need to place facilities closer to residential areas will provide local governments with greater leverage to require stealth facilities. To the extent that camouflaging is implemented, some conflicts relating the appearance of wireless facilities will decrease ". D. Antennas will be deployed in new areas of the City. As noted, providers are currently locating antennas closer to the ground. Since these antennas have a lower range then their predecessors more antennas will need to be used to provide coverage and capacity. Additionally, wireless facilities are being used to supplement and in some cases replace land lines, thus Brandon -M Page 3 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommu ications \Introduction 1.doc • • • antennas will be located in residential zones. The demand for wireless internet service will also require more antennas in residential zones. IV. Regulatory Framework Any state or local governmental regulation must be consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act establishes conditions that any zoning code that regulates wireless facilities must satisfy: A. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit wireless facilities or enact indefinite moratoriums. Wireless facilities must be accommodated in the jurisdiction, although the local government may regulate the placement of those facilities. B. A local government must act on a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility within a reasonable period of time. C. A local government decision denying a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility must be based on substantial evidence, and be made in writing. D. A local government decision denying a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility may not be based on environmental or health concerns about the effects of RF radiation, as long as the proposed facility meets FCC rules on emissions. Local governments may ask for documentation that the facility will meet FCC requirements. E. Local government requirements may not unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless services, although facilities with different physical characteristics or safety concerns (such as providers that use different frequencies) may be treated differently. The City of Tukwila currently requires that all telecommunication facilities obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate in the City. The facilities are allowed in all zoning categories. The City's CUP criteria are laid out in TMC 18.64. The following criteria are used to evaluate a CUP application: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated; 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy; 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building, and site design. Brandon -M Page 4 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc • • • 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan; 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts, which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The City permitted its first cell facility in 1991. There are a total of 61 permitted wireless communication facilities in Tukwila. 10 8 6 -._. . 4 2 0 1985 • • • , • • • • CUP History • • • • - -• • • • • • 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year The high for CUPs for wireless occurred in 2000 with nine new sites. In the past two years many of the providers have put on hold installing new sites. There were two well -known mergers in the last few years, AT &T Wireless with Cingular and Nextel with Sprint. New site acquisition was put on hold while these mergers were complete. As part of these mergers, the FCC required that each merged company have a compatible system. In 2006 the City has already received five new CUP applications, one request for a major modification to an approved site and two requests for minor modifications to approved facilities. Using the CUP process for wireless providers presents the following problems: 1. The criteria provide no standards directly related to the impacts of telecom facilities. Brandon -M Page 5 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc • Number of Permits • • • 2. By requiring the same process for all proposals they do not allow the City to provide incentives such as streamlined review times for desirable projects such as stealth installations in commercial and industrial zones. 3. They provide no clear direction to a potential applicant about the City's preferences for the location and design of telecom facilities. V. Telecommunications Chapter Planning Staff propose developing a telecommunications chapter for the Zoning Code. This chapter would give specific design standards for cellular facilities. The standards would be based on land use districts, with facilities in residential districts having the strictest standards while facilities in industrial zones would have minimal design requirements. VI. Policy Issues In examining facilities already permitted in the City and the current trends in the industry, Planning Staff has identified the following items that clearly need to be addressed in the telecommunications chapter. A. Height Limits for new Antennas Issue: As an increasing proportion of new facilities are constructed to serve smaller areas it is likely that these facilities can be constructed at lower heights. However, carriers may not choose to implement these options unless there is a regulatory requirement to do so or the City provides some type of incentive (such as streamlined permit review). Citv's existing regulations: The City uses the maximum height in each zone to dictate the maximum height for any new facility in the City, thus the height of a new monopole in the City could range from 30 feet (LDR) to 125 feet (MIC /L). Antennas that are mounted on rooftops can exceed the height requirement in the underlying zoning if the antennas qualify as a roof -top appurtenances (TMC 18.50.080). Recommendation: No change. If a new monopole is proposed in the City it must meet the height requirements for the zoning where it is located. Allow for wireless facilities to exceed height requirements if they locate on buildings, but provide clear design standards that are separate from the roof -top appurtenances section. If the only possible way of providing service is by the use of a monopole the exceeds height requirements, provide an exception criteria. Alternatives: Require that all facilities meet the maximum height requirement regardless of whether they are located on a building. Brandon -M Page 6 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introductionl .doc • B. New monopoles in the City • • Issue: New monopoles tend to draw the most public reaction and community opposition. City's existing regulations: The City does not ban new monopoles in the City. It should be noted, that the City has not permitted a new monopole in almost ten years. However, there are two applications pending with the City to construct two monopoles and both would be located in residential districts. The City requires that the monopoles meet the development standards for the underlying zoning. Recommendation: Only allow monopoles in certain commercial and industrial zones. Provide an exception section of the chapter to address situations where service cannot be provided without the use of a monopole. Alternatives: Allow monopoles in all zoning categories subject to the facilities meeting the basic development standards. C. Allowing Facilities within residential zones Issue: In order for wireless facilities to be effective they must be located in areas where people will be using the wireless devices. As noted, more Americans are using wireless facilities from home and thus the demand for antennas in residential zones will likely increase in the future. City's existing regulations: The City currently allows WCF in all areas of the City subject to a CUP and being able to meet the development standards of the applicable zoning. Recommendation: The City should continue to allow WCF in residential zones. However, the City should develop uniform development standards to ensure that the facilities are compatible with the residential area. For example the City could require that wireless facilities located in residential zones use stealth designs to minimize visual impacts. As noted, the City should prohibit new monopoles in residential zones. However, if the only possible way to provide service is with a monopole in a residential zone, the City should provide waiver criteria. Alternatives: Provide no standards for facilities in residential districts. D. Allowing Facilities on Utility Towers, Light Poles, and in Rights - of -Way Issue: Locating antennas on utility towers and light poles and in public rights of way is a common method for providing coverage across all parts of the City, Brandon -M Page 7 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1.doc • • • including residential areas. Siting WCF in these locations may also help minimize negative visual impacts on a community by concentrating these facilities in areas where utility equipment is already present. City's existing regulations: The City's currently permits WCF in City right of way, subject to a franchise agreement from the City. The City Council approves all franchise agreements in the City. Right of way is zoned and thus is subject to land use approvals. A proposed WCF in the right of way would also have to have a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Providers should be encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to site wireless facilities in right of way. The City should develop design standards to ensure that the facilities are compatible with the surrounding land uses, especially in single - family zones. Additionally, the City should streamline the permit and approvals to locate in City right of way. Alternatives: Utilize franchise agreements to regulate the placement of facilities in rights of way. E. Encouraging Use of Stealth Facilities Issue: Technological improvements in wireless technology are creating greater flexibility in designing WCF, making it possible for antennas and support structures to be more compact, and making it easier to camouflage the facilities. However, applicants do not normally choose to implement these options, unless required to given strong incentive to do so. City's existing regulations: The City provides no requirements that WCF use stealth technology and instead the City relies on the requirements of the CUP permit process. This creates difficulty because it could be a matter of opinion if a WCF, "...is materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements ". In fact it could be argued that this CUP criteria does not address aesthetic concerns. Recommendation: If the City chooses to allow WCF in residential zones the City should require that the facilities use stealth technology. In other zones, the City should provide an administrative process for stealth facilities to encourage applicants to choose stealth technology. The City may also want to consider allowing antennas that utilize stealth technology to exceed maximum height requirements. Alternatives: The City could also require stealth technology in all commercial zones. The City could also choose not to mandate the use of stealth technology. Brandon -M Page 8 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc • F. Regulating Visibility of Facilities • • Issue: An emerging technique for addressing the height of WCF is to base approval on "visibility" of the structure, taking into account the heights of other nearby structures. This can help mitigate the potential negative visual impacts of taller wireless facilities by limiting them to areas where they will be Tess obtrusive. It can also provide flexibility to providers, giving them a range of options for locating different facilities. City's existing regulations: The City only regulates the height of proposed WCF and does not provide any regulations regarding visibility. Recommendation: The City may wish to use the visibility standards in place of maximum heights, in zones where greater flexibility is desirable. Alternatives: If the City requires the use of stealth facilities the need to regulate visibility is not needed. Regulating visibility would be new to the City and could be complicated; the City may want to continue to use a maximum height for new WCF. G. Existing Monopoles in the City Issue: There are currently ten monopoles in the City. Some of these were permitted prior to the City's current comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and exceed height requirements in some zones. Additionally, the City's code provides no incentives for co- location of new antennas on existing poles. City's existing regulations: Any monopole that was legally established is permitted to remain provide it complies with the conditional use that was approved for the facility. Any new antennas on the monopole require a new conditional use permit. Recommendation: No changes needed to the non - conforming regulations. Providers that wish to locate on an existing monopole should have a streamlined administrative permit process. Alternatives: The City could continue to require a CUP for all new antennas on existing monopoles or the City could allow new antennas outright with no review by City staff. H. Review Process Issue: The City's current use of a CUP process for all WCF and most modifications to existing sites is a long process and provides no predictability for applicants. Brandon -M Page 9 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction) .doc • City's existing regulations: A CUP is required for all WCF and most modifications. • Recommendation: Provide for an administrative review process for certain types of facilities (i.e. stealth facilities, small modifications to existing facilities, facilities in industrial zones, etc). However, new monopoles should be required to obtain a permit that is similar to a CUP, however the City could consider allowing the Hearing Examiner to be the decision maker after a public hearing. Alternatives: Allow for all WCF in Tukwila to be approved through an administrative process. Another option is to require a CUP for all new facilities and modifications to existing facilities (current process). I. Exemptions Issue: The City currently applies no exemptions to certain small -scale WCF projects. Most notably, installing additional antennas on an existing monopole. City's existing regulations: A conditional use permit is required for all new facilities and most modifications to existing facilities. Recommendation: The new telecommunications chapter should include a list of • exemptions for small scale projects. Alternatives: Require a CUP for all WCF in the City regardless of scale of project. Brandon -M Page 10 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction) .doc • • • The above antennas have been placed on a Seattle Light Transmission Line. Brandon -M Page 11 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc o o • T- Mobile chose to locate their antennas on a replaced Qwest Utility Pole. Brandon -M Page 12 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1.doc • • IIIIIIIIIPMIIIIIII , Mtn": T. 7 = 182:2236512i Exposed antennas on an apartment buliding. Brandon-M Page 13 05/25/2006 OffelenommuiooUonoUntnoduotion1doo • • • Building Mounted antennas. Building mounted antennas. The cabinet equipment is also located on the rooftop. Brandon -M Page 14 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction) .doc O O The antennas on this apartment building have been placed within the steeple like structure. Brandon -M Page 15 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc O O O This flag pole, which is not in the City, is actually a monopole. Brandon -M Page 16 05/25/2006 Q:\ Telecommuications \Introduction1.doc • • • XI. Next Step The above monopole, located in Allentown was one of the first facilities permitted in the City. Staff recommends that this matter be continued to the May Planning Commission meeting. At this time, Planning Staff will provide a draft ordinance for the commission's review, address any items from tonight's meeting that the Planning Commission needs additional information on, and hold a public hearing. Brandon -M Page 17 05/25/2006 Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1.doc • • Gity of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director INFORMATION MEMO WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Mayor Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Steve Lancaster, Director DATE: February 9, 2006 ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of Wireless Facilities in Tukwila I. Introduction TO: Brandon -M Page 1 Q: \Telecommuications \introduction l .doc In the last 15 years, the use of cell phones has revolutionized American socie . However, the concept of cell phones is not new. The basic concept of cell phones began in 1947, when researchers looked at crude mobile (car) phones and realized that by using small cells (range of service areas) with frequency reuse they could increase the traffic capacity. In the 1980s the combination of technological advances and deregulation by the Federal Communications Commission allowed for the explosion of wireless phones that is currently occurring today. According to the Cellular Trade and Internet Association (CTIA), which is the trade group representing wireless providers there are currently 182 million Americans who are wireless customers. In 1992 the number of customers stood at just 11 million. Additionally, phones today are more than devices that provide voice service. Today's phones provide access to the interne, email, text messages, (7.3 billion messages in June of 2005, in June of 2004 the number was just 2.9 billion), MP3 player, digital camera, location capability (GPS), and video. The expanded usage requires additional network capacity and coverage. Some Americans are also choosing to strictly utilize wireless phones and not have landlines. In fact six percent of individuals who have wireless phones do not have landlines. As the demand for wireless service increases, providers need to be able to provide capacity to new and existing customers. Thus, more wireless facilities (cell sites) are required. I1. Basic Components of Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Each WCF can vary in appearance. Yet, there are three basic components of all facilities, antennas, support struc = , and equipment sheds. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 13/23/2006 ne A,. - r_ .. n f L A 7, "'LAC ❑ Antennas are the transmitter arrays that communicate with mobile phones and other wireless devices. ❑ Support structures include towers, building rooftops, or other elevated platforms where antennas are mounted. Of the various types of support structures, towers have historically been the most common in the United States, as well as the most visually conspicuous (most facilities in Tukwila are building mounted). ❑ Equipment sheds are cabinets or small buildings filled with electronic equipment, which power the antennas and allow them to communicate with one another. All WCF release radio frequency (RF) emissions. RF emissions are a form of electromagnetic energy and are classified as non - ionizing, or not harmful to biological tissues at genetic levels. At high levels RF radiation can heat tissues, as with microwave ovens. The FecIttal government regulates the emissions from WCF. As noted in the 2002 fact sheet from'the Federal Communications Facility (FCC), "The RF exposures that people get from these antennas are typically thousands of times lower than those they can get from wireless phones ". There has been no research in the United States that conclusively demonstrates a connection between wireless equipment and any health hazards. The current technology in : use has been ruled safe by both the federal Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization. One area of concern for the City regarding RF emissions is possible interferences with public safety radios used by law enforcement and fire personnel. Interference can occur when two wireless services that operate at similar frequencies are located in the same area. The City's law enforcement and emergency personnel radios communicate on the 800 MHz frequency. The popular Nextel point -to -point hand sets also operate on the 800 MHz frequency and in some jurisdictions, the City of Seatac most notably, this has caused interference with Police and Fire communication equipment. III. Industry Build - out Early wireless service provided pager and cellular phone service; this was known as the first generation of personnal wireless communication devices. Second generation phones combine voice with text messaging, email, and limited internet access. When the industry moved from first generation services to second generation services it required a large number of new antenna sites. This was due to two factors, second generation phones are more data - intensive and because of the increased popularity of wireless communication devices. The industry is currently moving to third generation phones. Third generation phones will be designed to handle large amount of data, graphics, full internet access and even video - conferencing. As the industry provides more and more service, the number of people using wireless devices has also increased. Brandon -M Page 2 03/23/2006 Q: 1Telecommuications\Introduction 1 .doc • • • • A report prepared for another local government summarized why the demand for wireless • communication will grow in the coming years: "Research has shown that consumers, whether private citizens or business, tend to adopt new technologies incrementally. The American public has become comfortable with both wireless phones and the wired internet, and is prepared for the next technological step to wireless internet. Meanwhile, a concentrated advertising campaign by the industry is creating the expectation that the next generation of services will be available everywhere, and will provide all the features offered by a land -based home or business computer (Wireless Facilities, Planning for the Next Generation of Technology). The report also summarized four trends that are likely to occur in the coming years: A. New antennas will be located lower to the ground. It is reasonable to assume that most wireless providers in the City have achieved their coverage phase of deployment and are now attempting to increase their capacity. Technological improvements have allowed providers to use higher radio frequencies. Higher radio frequencies do not travel as far as lower radio frequencies and thus these antennas tend to be mounted at lower heights. B. The number of new facilities in the country is expected to triple and this is a conservative estimate. As noted, higher frequencies have a smaller range and thus more sites will be required. The third generation devices also require a larger number of antennas in order to serve a particular population. More facilities will also be needed to serve the increasing demand for wireless devices. C. Antennas will be easier to camouflage. As noted in Wireless Facilities Planning for the Next Generation of Technology, "Lower Antenna heights, advances in technology, and the need to place facilities closer to residential areas will provide local governments with greater leverage to require stealth facilities. To the extent that camouflaging is implemented, some conflicts relating the appearance of wireless facilities will decrease ". D. Antennas will be deployed in new areas of the City. As noted, providers are currently locating antennas closer to the ground. Since these antennas have a lower range then their predecessors more antennas will need to be used to provide coverage and capacity. Additionally, wireless facilities are being used to supplement and in some cases replace land lines, thus antennas will be located in residential zones. The demand for wireless internet service will also require more antennas in residential zones. IV. Regulatory Framework Any state or local governmental regulation must be consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act establishes conditions that any zoning code that regulates wireless facilities must satisfy: • A. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit wireless facilities or enact indefinite moratoriums. Wireless facilities must be accommodated in the Brandon -M Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1.doc Page 3 03/23/2006 jurisdiction, although the local government may regulate the placement of those facilities. B. A local government must act on a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility within a reasonable period of time. C. A local government decision denying a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility must be based on substantial evidence, and be made in writing. D. A local government decision denying a request for installing or constructing a wireless facility may not be based on environmental or health concerns about the effects of RF radiation, as long as the proposed facility meets FCC rules on emissions. Local governments may ask for documentation that the facility will meet FCC requirements. E. Local government requirements may not unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless services, although facilities with different physical characteristics or safety concerns (such as providers that use different frequencies) may be treated differently. The City of Tukwila currently requires that all telecommunication facilities obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to operate in the City. The facilities are allowed in all zoning categories. The City's CUP criteria are laid out in TMC 18.64. The following criteria are used to evaluate a CUP application: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated; 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy; 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building, and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan; 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts, which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The City permitted its first cell facility in 1991. There are a total of 61 permitted wireless communication facilities in Tukwila. Brandon -M Q:\ Teiecommuicationns\lntroduction l .doc 1 Page 4 03/23 /2006 • • • • • 0 10 ■s • 8 • • l_ 6 • • • ® • • 4- • 2 • 2 Z 0 • .... 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 The high for CUPs for wireless occurred in 2000 with nine new sites. In the past two years many of the providers have put on hold installing new sites. There were two well -known mergers in the last few years, AT &T Wireless with Cingular and Nextel with Sprint. New site acquisition was put on hold while these mergers were complete. As part of these mergers, the FCC required that each merged company have a compatible system. In 2006 the City has already received five new CUP applications, one request for a major modification to an approved site and two requests for minor modifications to approved facilities. Using the CUP process for wireless providers presents the following problems: 1. The criteria provide no standards directly related to the impacts of telecom facilities. 2. By requiring the same process for all proposals they do not allow the City to provide incentives such as streamlined review times for desirable projects such as stealth installations in commercial and industrial zones. 3. They provide no clear direction to a potential applicant about the City's preferences for the location and design of telecom facilities. V. Telecommunications Chapter CUP History Year • Planning Staff propose developing a telecommunications chapter for the Zoning Code. This chapter would give specific design standards for cellular facilities. The standards would be Brandon -M Q: \Telecommuications \introduction l .doc Page 5 03/23/2006 • Number of Permits based on land use districts, with facilities in residential districts having the strictest standards while facilities in industrial zones would have minimal design requirements. VI. Policy Issues In examining facilities already permitted in the City and the current trends in the industry, Planning Staff has identified the following items that clearly need to be addressed in the telecommunications chapter. A. Height Limits for new Antennas Issue: As an increasing propo`i of new facilities are constructed to serve smaller areas it is likely that these facilities can be constructed at lower heights. However, carriers may not choose to implement these options unless there is a regulatory requirement to do so or the City provides some type of incentive (such as streamlined permit review). City's existing regulations: The City uses the maximum height in each zone to dictate the maximum height for any new facility in the City, thus the height of a new monopole in the City could range from 30 feet (LDR) to 125 feet (MIC/L). Antennas that are mounted on rooftops can exceed the height requirement in the underlying zoning if the antennas qualify as a roof -top appurtenances (TMC 18.50.080). Recommendation: No change. If a new monopole is proposed in the City it must meet the height requirements for the zoning where it is located. Allow for wireless facilities to exceed height requirements if they locate on buildings, but provide clear design standards that are separate from the roof -top appurtenances section. If the only possible way of providing service is by the use of a monopole the exceeds height requirements, provide an exception criteria. Alternatives: Require that all facilities meet the maximum height requirement regardless of whether they are located on a building. B. New monopoles in the City Issue: New monopoles tend to draw the most public reaction and community opposition. City's existing regulations: The City does not ban new monopoles in the City. It should be noted, that the City has not permitted a new monopole in almost ten years. However, there are two applications pending with the City to construct two monopoles and both would be located in residential districts. The City requires that the monopoles meet the development standards for the underlying zoning. Recommendation: Only allow monopoles in certain commercial and industrial zones. Provide an exception section of the chapter to address situations where service cannot be provided without the use of a monopole. Brandon -M Q:1Telecommuications \Introduction 1 .doc Page 6 03/23/2006 • • • • • • Alternatives: Allow monopoles in all zoning categories subject to the facilities meeting the basic development standards. C. Allowing Facilities within residential zones Issue: In order for wireless facilities to be effective they must be located in areas where people will be using the wireless devices. As noted, more Americans are using wireless facilities from home and thus the demand for antennas in residential zones will likely increase in the future. City's existing regulations: The City currently allows WCF in all areas of the City subject to a CUP and being able to meet the development standards of the applicable zoning. Recommendation: The City should continue to allow WCF in residential zones. However, the City should develop uniform development standards to ensure that the facilities are compatible with the residential area. For example the City could require that wireless facilities located in residential zones use stealth designs to minimize visual impacts. As noted, the City should prohibit new monopoles in residential zones. However, if the only possible way to provide service is with a monopole in a residential zone, the City should provide waiver criteria. Alternatives: Provide no standards for facilities in residential districts. D. Allowing Facilities on Utility Towers, Light Poles, and in Rights -of -Way Issue: Locating antennas on utility towers and light poles and in public rights of way is a common method for providing coverage across all parts of the City, including residential areas. Siting WCF in these locations may also help minimize negative visual impacts on a community by concentrating these facilities in areas where utility equipment is already present. City's existing regulations: The City's currently permits WCF in City right of way, subject to a franchise agreement from the City. The City Council approves all franchise agreements in the City. Right of way is zoned and thus is subject to land use approvals. A proposed WCF in the right of way would also have to have a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission. Recommendation: Providers should be encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to site wireless facilities in right of way. The City should develop design standards to ensure that the facilities are compatible with the surrounding land uses, especially in single- family zones. Additionally, the City should streamline the permit and approvals to locate in City right of way. Brandon -M Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction l .doc Page 7 03/23/2006 !`ll� �c1 Alternatives: Utilize franchise agreements to regulate the placement of facilities in rights of way. E. Encouraging Use of Stealth Facilities Issue: Technological improvements in wireless technology are creating greater flexibility in designing WCF, making it possible for antennas and support structures to be more compact, and making it easier to camouflage the facilities. However, applicants do not normally choose to implement these options, unless required to given strong incentive to do so. City's existing regulations: The City provides no requirements that WCF use stealth technology and instead the City relies on the requirements of the CUP permit process. This creates difficulty because it could be a matter of opinion if a WCF, "...is materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements ". In fact it could be argued that this CUP criteria does not address aesthetic concerns. Recommendation: If the City chooses to allow WCF in residential zones the City should require that the facilities use stealth technology. In other zones, the City should provide an administrative process for stealth facilities to encourage applicants to choose stealth technology. The City may also want to consider allowing antennas that utilize stealth technology to exceed maximum height requirements. Alternatives: The City could also require stealth technology in all commercial zones. The City could also choose not to mandate the use of stealth technology. F. Regulating Visibility of Facilities Issue: An emerging technique for addressing the height of WCF is to base approval on "visibility" of the structure, taking into account the heights of other nearby structures. This can help mitigate the potential negative visual impacts of taller wireless facilities by limiting them to areas where they will be less obtrusive. It can also provide flexibility to providers, giving them a range of options for locating different facilities. City's existing regulations: The City only regulates the height of proposed WCF and does not provide any regulations regarding visibility. Recommendation: The City may wish to use the visibility standards in place of maximum heights, in zones where greater flexibility is desirable. Alternatives: If the City requires the use of stealth facilities the need to regulate visibility is not needed. Regulating visibility would be new to the City and could be complicated; the City may want to continue to use a maximum height for new WCF. Brandon -M Q:1Telecommuications \Introduction l .doc Page 8 03/23/2006 • • • • G. Existing Monopoles in the City Issue: There are currently ten monopoles in the City. Some of these were permitted prior to the City's current comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and exceed height requirements in some zones. Additionally, the City's code provides no incentives for co- location of new antennas on existing poles. City's existing regulations: Any monopole that was legally established is permitted to remain provide it complies with the conditional use that was approved for the facility. Any new antennas on the monopole require a new conditional use permit. Recommendation: No changes needed to the non - conforming regulations. Providers that wish to locate on an existing monopole should have a streamlined administrative permit process. Alternatives: The City could continue to require a CUP for all new antennas on existing monopoles or the City could allow new antennas outright with no review by City staff. H. Review Process • Issue: The City's current use of a CUP process for all WCF and most modifications to existing sites is a long process and provides no predictability for applicants. City's existing regulations: A CUP is required for all WCF and most modifications. Recommendation: Provide for an administrative review process for certain types of facilities (i.e. stealth facilities, small modifications to existing facilities, facilities in industrial zones, etc). However, new monopoles should be required to obtain a permit that is similar to a CUP, however the City could consider allowing the Hearing Examiner to be the decision maker after a public hearing. Alternatives: Allow for all WCF in Tukwila to be approved through an administrative process. Another option is to require a CUP for all new facilities and modifications to existing facilities (current process). I. Exemptions Issue: The City currently applies no exemptions to certain small -scale WCF projects. Most notably, installing additional antennas on an existing monopole. City's existing regulations: A conditional use permit is required for all new facilities and most modifications to existing facilities. • Recommendation: The new telecommunications chapter should include a list of exemptions for small scale projects. Brandon -M Q: \Telecommuications \Introduction 1 .doc Page 9 03/23/2006 Alternatives: Require a CUP for all WCF in the City regardless of scale of project. VII. How Other Jurisdictions regulate WCF The City of Tukwila is one of the only cities in the area not to have a telecommunication chapter in the Zoning Code. Planning Staff conducted a review of adjacent Cities and will provide a discussion at the CAP meeting on how other cities regulate wireless communication facilities. VIII. Options A. Staff's Suggested Option Staff recommends that the CAP forward this matter on to the Planning Commission. Staff will working with the Planning Commission to prepare a draft ordinance to bring back to CAP B. Alternative 1 Send the matter to full COW for consideration and discussion C. Alternative 2 Request that staff address specific questions and provide additional information to CAP before selecting a course of action. D. No Action Alternative CAP can choose to not pursue creation of a telecommunications chapter of the zoning code. Telecommunication facilities will continue to be evaluated based on the current CUP process. Brandon -M Q: 1Telecommuications\lntroduction 1.doc Page 10 03/23 /2006 • • • ,\O - \17\-\ 3 '" 4,0 tti14,1 3 43a ink - Burien Kirkland Monroe Distance between Towers "In no case shall towers be located closer than 500' from another tower whether it is owned or utilized by applicant or another provider, unless the city designates areas where mulitple towers can be located in closer proximity." Color h r� k- kit- L. O a. O �+n Q V, ✓tc VA "Towers shall have a color generally matching the surroundings or background that minimizes their visibility, unless a different color is required by the FCC or FAA. Lights, signals, and signs none permitted unless required /allowed by the FCC or FAA Fencing "A well- constructed wall or wooden fence not less than 6' high from finished grade shall be provided around' each personal wireless service facility. Access to the tower shall be through a locked gate. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl, or wire fencing is prohibited unless it is fully screened from public view by a minimum 8' wide landscaping strip. Landscaping (B) The visual impacts of monopoles and ground- mounted equipment enclosures shall be mitigated through installation of a 5' wide Type 1 landscape strip around the perimeter of the monopole, equipment enclosure and the outside of the security fence (if any). The City may waive or modify this requirement for those sides of the facility that are not visible from streets or adjacent property. landscaping /buffers required outside of fences surrounding the tower: vegetation types and required heights listed, with maintenance requirements outlined. Enforcement of Landscape Maintenance (C) Landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, thriving condition. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated either by an irrigation system, or by regular servicing and irrigation bya landscape maintenance co. In the event that landscaping is not maintained as required, the City after giving 30 days advance written notice to the PWSF provider and property owner, may maintain or establish the landscaping. Both the PWSF provider and the property owner shall be billed or such costs until the City is paid. _ _.- - • ,\O - \17\-\ 3 '" 4,0 tti14,1 3 43a ink - • • Burien Kirkland Monroe Screening screening takes priority over increased height - "To be considered screened the tower or mount shall be placed amongst and adjacent to (w /in 20') of the drip line of 3+ trees at least 75% of the height of the facility. To ensure the screening trees are preserved the following note shall be recorded on the property title: "All trees w /in 50' of the telecommunications facility located on this property, which serve to screen the telecommunications facility shall be retained fo rthe life of the telecommunications facility. Screening trees may only be removed if deemed diseased or dangerous by a certified arborist. Before any trees can be removed a report from the certified arborist shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Unless approved by the City, only that portion of the tree required to remove the hazard can be removed." Required Parking adequate parking shall be required for maintenance Antenna Criteria like Monroe, new support structures for PWSFs must be built to accommodate collocation. All other provisions are exactly the same as Monroe's except section (B) Antennas mounted on other structures - -> "Antenna platforms are prohibited. External projections from the structure shall be limited to the smallest projection technically feasible." Must be architecturally compatible on the wall on which it is mounted, designed and located so as to minimize any adverse aesthetic impact; must be mounted as flush to wall as technically possible IN NO EVENT SHALL AN ANTENNA PROJECT MORE THAN 16' ABOVE THE ROOFLINE, INCLUDING PARAPETS; the antenna shall be constructed, painted, or fully screened to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the building, but may not project any higher than the enclosure (e) accessory equipment shelters must blend with surrounding buildings in architectural character and color; (g) site location and development shall preserve the pre- existing character of the site as muchl as possible. Exising vegetation should be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography of the site should be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impacet of the site on the surrounding area.The effectiveness of visual mitigation techniques must be evaluated by the city, in the city's sole descretion; (h) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS 30' OR LESS IN HEIGHT (i) req • • • • • Burien Kirkland Monroe Rooftop antennas (a) antenna and equipment structure height is measured above the top of the roof, not the parapet, (b) only omni - directional antennas may be roof - mounted, © all roof - mounted antennas must be set back from the edge of the roof a distance equal to 100% of the antenna height, (d) roof - mounted antennas and equipment structures shall be incorporated into the pitched or stepped roof form, and not appear as a separate penthouse or box., (e) roof - mounted antennas shall be consolidated and centered in the roof to the maximum extent feasible rather than scattered, (f) antennas may be attached to an existing conforming mechanical equipment enclosure which projects above the roof of the building, but may not project any higher than the enclosure, (g) in no instance shall equipment structures, antenna and related equipment occupy more than 25% of the total roof area of a building, (i) no antennas shall cause localized interference w/ the transmission or reception of any other communications signals including, but not limited to, public safety signals, and TV and radio broadcast signals, (j) no guy or other Locating on utility poles requirements not subject to a variance (A) The utility pole at the proposed location may be replaced w/ a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating a PWSF; provided, that the new pole shall not exceed a height that is a max. of 15' taller than the existing pole - (B) Panel antennas shall not project out from the surface of the utility pole by more than 12 ", shall not exceed 6' in height, and shall be placed such that the top of the panel antenna does not extend above the height of the utility pole (C) A cylindrical antenna may be mounted as an extension on top of an existing utility pole, but the existing pole shall not be replaced w/ a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating the cylindrical antenna. A cylindrical antenna mounted on top of a utility pole shall not exceed 18" in diameter and 8' in height (D) A whip antenna may be mounted as an extension on top of an existing pole, but the existing pole shall not be replaced w/ a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating the whip antenna. A whip antenna shall not exceed 15' in height, and shall be enclosed w /in a cylinder that is painted to match the pole (E) All PWSF, including but not limited to antennas, equipment, cables and conduit which are mounted on utility poles shall be painted to match the pole • • • • • • Burien Kirkland Monroe (F) The visual effect of the PWSF on all other aspects of the appearance of the utility pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible (G) The use of the utility pole for the siting of a PWSF shall be considered secondary to the primary function of the utility pole. If the primary function of a utility pole serving as the host site for a PWSF becomes unnecessary and any regulation requires its removal, the utility pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the PWSF and the PWSF and all associated equipment shall be removed immediately (H) Equipment enclosures for PWSF located on utility poles in residential zones shall be located underground, unless an existing building other than a single - family residence, such as a garage, which has been in place for at least one year prior to the date of application, is available to accomodate the equipment enclosure(s). Equipment enclosure(s) which are located underground may be located within the front setback in all zones. (I) In all cases where a utility pole is replaced for the purpose of accommodating a PWSF installation, the cables and other wiring necessary for the PWSF shall be routed inside the new pole. If routing inside thepole is not allowed by the utility and that determination is confirmed in writing by the utility, then all cable, wiring and conduit routed outside the pole shall be painted to match the pole. (J) There is no collocation requirement for PWSF located on utility poles and there shall be no more than 1 PWSF located on any one utility pole. PWSF located on utility poles shall be located no closer than 1000' from any other PWSF located on a utility pole in a residential zone. Non- use /Abandonment if use of the facility has lapsed for 60 days, the owner or operator must let the City know in writing, at which point it is deemed to be abandoned. "Determination of date of abandonment shall be made be the City which shall have the right to request documentation and affidavits from the support structure or antenna owner or operator regarding the issue of its usage. Upon deemed date, owner or operator shall have an additional 60 days to reactivate use or to dismantle and remove. In addition to the same requirements the other cities have, Kirkland may require a bond to cover the costs of removal of the antenna or tower and they also require an annual report: (2) Annual Report - The provider must confirm in writing to the City on an annual basis that the personal wireless service facility is still in use on a form to be provided by the City. "No less than 30 days prior to the date that a personal wireless service provider plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a facility, the provider must notify the City of Monroe by certified US Mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. Upon such abandonment, the provider shall have 60 days or additional period of time determined in the reasonable discretion of the city within which to: (1) reactivate use, (2)co- locate another service on the tower, (3) dismantle and remove facility. In the event that there is a physical reduction in height of substantially all of the providers towers in the city or surrounding area then all of the towers within the city shall similarly be reduced in height. • • • City Ordinance Port Angeles Redmond University Place Code Section 20D.170.45 City of University Place, Ordinance No. 152. Review Process Unclassified Use Permit: Towers may be located in any zone with approval of an unclassified use permit (UUP). Co- location shall be given first priority and may be required. The use of public properties shall be subject to approval by the City and the City's determination that the public's intended use of the site will not be unreasonably hindered. Application for an unclassified use permit shall be made to the DCD in the manner provided in this Chapter. An application to locate a new tower shall be accompanied by technical information identifying and documenting the need for such a location per Section 17.52.025.0 PAMC. The final authority for applications made under this section shall be defined by the appropriate permit procedure as outlined in the Permitted Land Uses Charts (see different charts according to zone). Where a tower or antenna support structure will be 60' or Tess in height, in addition of the other provisions of this ordinance, an applicant will be required to obtain an Administrative Use Permit. In the event that a proposed tower or antenna support structure will be located in a residential zone, or an unscreened tower in the City Center Area, or will be more than 60' in height, in addition to the other provisions of this ordinance, an applicant will be required to obtain a CUP. With respect to the placement of antenna on a tower or antenna support structure, the requirements for a CUP or Administrative Use Permit will be applicable based on the height of the tower and antenna or mount and antenna unless this ordinance proveds other requirements to the contrary. Site Selection Criteria (A) Any applicant proposing to construct an antenna support structure, or mount an antenna on an existing structure, shall evaluate different sites to determine which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant's local grid system. If the proposed site does not provide the best opportunities for screening and camouflaging then the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best screened and camouflaged and why the antenna must be located at the proposed site. Further, the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that the height requirested is the minimum height necessary to fulfill the site's function within the grid. • Priority (highest to lowest) (B) Applications for necessary permits will only be processed when the applicant demonstrates either that it is an FCC - licensed telecommunications provider for use of lease of the support structure or that it has agreements with an FCC - licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the support structure. • • • • • • Port Angeles Redmond University Place 1 (C) Low power mobile radio facilities shall be located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values. Facilities shall be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. 2 (D) In all zones, location and design of facilities shall consider the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood and the visual impact within the zone district. In all zones, towers shall be significantly screened by placing them in trees to the extent that it does not result in significant signal degradation. 3 4 5 Order: (A) on appropriate ROWs and existing structures (such as buildings, towers, and water towers in the industrial and commercial zoning districts), (B) in districts zoned Professional Office, Public Open Space and Limited Open Space, © in Residential zoning districts -- Public property -- Residential zones • • • • Port Angeles Redmond University Place Federal Requirements Design Criteria Towers not requiring FAA painting or marking shall have an exterior finish which enhances compatibility with adjacent land uses, as approved by the Planning Commission. • • • • Concealment Technology' Port Angeles Redmond University Place • • Port Angeles Redmond University Place Setbacks at least 25' from each lot line. The Director may grant a waiver of up to 25% of the setback requirement if it is determined that significant trees and other vegetation will be retained by reducing the setback. Towers in excess of 60' in height shall be set back 1 additional foot per each foot of tower height in excess of 60'. Gross floor area Height Noise View corridors • • • • • Port Angeles Redmond University Place Distance between Towers (1) Monopole tower structures shall be separated from other telecommunications towers by a min of 750' (2) Self- supporting lattice or guyed tower structures shall be separated from other telecommunications towers by a min of 1500' Color Lights, signals, and signs Fencing Landscaping Enforcement of Landscape Maintenance • • • • • • Port Angeles Redmond University Place Screening Besides screening requirements outlined in the landscaping section, operators shall consider undergrounding equipment if technically feasible or placing the equipment within an existing structure. Required Parking Antenna Criteria • • • • Rooftop antennas Locating on utility poles Port Angeles Redmond University Place • Non- use /Abandonment Port Angeles Redmond University Place