The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP 2016-02-08 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Community Affairs & Parks Committee O De'Sean Quinn, Chair O Kathy Hougardy O Thomas McLeod AGENDA Distribution: Recommended Action D. Quinn D. Cline K. Hougardy C. O'Flaherty T. McLeod R. Turpin J. Duffle L. Humphrey D. Robertson N. Gierloff Mayor Ekberg E. Boykan MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 — 5:30 PM HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM (formerly known as CR #3) at east entrance of City Hall Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. An update on the Carbon Reduction Action Agenda a. Information only. Pg.i from Elizabeth Willmott, Climate Solutions' New Energy Cities Team. Nora Gierloff, Deputy Community Development Director b. An ordinance updating wireless communication b. Forward to 3/28 C.O.W. Pg.37 facilities regulations. and 4/4 Regular Mtg. Nora Gierloff, Deputy Community Development Director c. An overview of the Minor Home Repair Program. c. Information only. Pg.53 Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Program Manager 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS 2016 Community Affairs & Parks Committee Information only. Work Plan Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, February 22, 2016 SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 (TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance. New Energy Cities MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ekberg Community Affairs and Parks Committee FROM: Elizabeth Willmott, Climate Solutions' New Energy Cities Team DATE: January 26, 2016 RE: Background on Potential Carbon Reduction Strategies la Introduction This memo provides background for the City of Tukwila on potential near -term carbon reduction strategies, which City staff and Climate Solutions' New Energy Cities program collaboratively identified in fall 2015. This memo accompanies a Powerpoint presentation that summarizes the findings of New Energy Cities' Energy Map and Carbon Wedge analysis, and provides a high -level overview of potential carbon reduction priorities for the City to explore, see Attachment A. The strategies described below are not an exhaustive list of possibilities, nor do they add up to the City's overall carbon reduction goal, but are a sample of near -term carbon - reducing actions that the City can take. Staff identified these strategies based on their alignment with local priorities, as well as state and regional opportunities, such as partnership with the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), see Attachment B. Consistent with the Carbon Wedge analysis and K4C Joint County -City Climate Commitments, the strategies are organized by sector: renewable energy, building energy efficiency, and transportation. Cost information is provided when available. See Appendix for a summary of estimated timelines, costs, and potential agency leads associated with recommended near -term action items. Note that the recommended action items do not include ongoing efforts that relate to these climate reduction goals but instead highlight opportunities for new approaches to meet the City's climate goals. II. Building Energy Efficiency Living Building Challenge Demonstration Ordinance. The Living Building Challenge is currently the most advanced certification program for green buildings available today. It offers three certification pathways relating to use of materials, energy, and water for either retrofits or new construction; the net -zero energy building certification would be most relevant to achieve carbon reduction goals.' The City of Seattle Living Building Pilot enables developers striving to meet the Living Building Challenge to request exemptions from the Seattle Land Use Code through design review. The City of Shoreline is implementing a Living Building Challenge Demonstration Ordinance city -wide and looking at how it may affect different code areas and incentive opportunities. Renton, Kirkland, and ' "Living Building Challenge." International Living Future Institute. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: Climate Solutions ,OJ.tt. / /climatesoludons.or /fro rams /NEC New Energy Cw other K4C cities are interested in adopting ordinances, so King County has formed a workgroup where Shoreline staff will share their experiences in adapting the Seattle ordinance. ■ Green building incentives for private construction. King County Green Tools provides a helpful list of model green building ordinances and policies for both municipal and private buildings.2 The City of Issaquah, for example, offers expedited building permit review for projects that achieve Built Green Five Star (residential) or LEED Gold (commercial).' ■ Internal green building standard and municipal projects. In 2013, King County adopted a revised Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance, which covers all King County -owned capital projects. It requires that all eligible new construction projects strive for LEED Platinum certification and that all other capital projects strive to achieve a Platinum rating using the King County Sustainable Infrastructure Scorecard.4 King County staff have commented that recent state energy code changes mean that LEED Silver is no longer a significant stretch beyond code, and recommended that jurisdictions consider LEED Gold certification at a minimum. In a local example the King County Housing Authority (KCHA) renovated a 36,000 square -foot, 1980s -era strip mall in Tukwila to become the agency's headquarters .5 With Bremerton -based architect Rice Fergus Miller and Seattle -based design firm Ecotope, the KCHA met its aggressive goal of creating an affordable, deeply energy- efficient building with a total cost of $95 /square foot (less than half the cost of new construction) using "careful design and readily available off - the -shelf technology." 6 In the first nine months of use, the project used one -third of the energy of the KCHA's other primary office building across the street and 70 percent less than the national average for office buildings.' This low energy use intensity means that the building is "net zero energy ready " —i.e., it is so deeply efficient that it could generate as much energy as it consumes with on -site renewable energy. The project has been widely recognized as an example of a successful low- impact deep energy retrofit.$ Z "Green Building Ordinances and Policies." King County Green Tools. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: tt h : oureV<un count e ov so�udwaste reenbuu� dun reen buu�dun ordinances o�ucueseas . ............. 3 "City of Issaquah Sustainable Building Incentives." City of Issaquah. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: bit : ussa uahwae ov DocumentCenter `1/Vew 3096. ............. 4 "Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance." King County. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: tt h : oureV<un count e ov so�udwaste reenbuu� dun reen buu�dun ordunanceeas . ........... 5 "King County Housing Authority." Ecotope. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: Ihttta: / /wwweecotoye e com /rolects/ detain /V<un countyr housun authorutyr 2/. ' "NEEC Member Project Spotlight: Ecotope and the King County Housing Authority." Northwest Energy Efficiency Council. July 31, 2013. Online at: Ihtt : wwweneece net mews neec- member -__ aject- srrot�u ht-_P e-and -kun - countyzhousin - authoruty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' "King County Housing Authority." Mitsubishi Electric. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt : wwwemehvaccasestudues e com V<un count housun authorut ' Apfel, Amelia. "Restoring old buildings promotes sustainability, community, and beauty." Seattle Business. May 2014. Online at: h.11 : wwweseatt�ebusunessma ecom artuc�e restorun odd buu�dun s romotes sustaunabu�ut ..... . tYal u . 9rb u .'� g�. x. Climate Solutions ..h.. / /c;limatesoludc ns.or� /programs /NEC 2 New Energy Cw In Tukwila's upcoming facilities plan, the City could set a similarly ambitious energy efficiency goal for new and remodeled facilities. Utility energy efficiency programs closely track payback of energy - saving measures, can help accelerate payback through incentives, and would be an excellent resource to the City to vet specific proposed actions. ■ Partnerships to encourage energy efficiency in community projects. Community projects such as retrofits or new construction on city -owned properties may be eligible for support from the Washington State Housing Finance Commission or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. For example, a project could leverage utility energy efficiency incentives, and the Commission may be able to cover other significant costs and help to structure on -bill repayment (i.e., an additional charge on utility bill payments) such that the energy customer has no upfront cost for energy- saving measures. The Commission can also design loans so that monthly loan repayments are less than energy savings, and energy customers experience immediate financial savings. The Commission's Sustainable Energy Trust is available for projects under $1 million that significantly exceed code or existing conditions, and bond financing options are available for projects over $1 million.' However, the Commission may prefer to support municipal projects (i.e., projects on which a city is the lead financial entity) with bond issuance rather than with a Sustainable Energy Trust loan. The criteria for projects are flexible, but the Commission reportedly prefers to offer financing to entities that do not have other options. (For example, the City may want to consider the Sustainable Energy Trust for projects that are directly led by nonprofit entities.) The KCHA's Pacific Court and Riverton Terrace projects in Tukwila are examples of potential collaboration with the Commission. In summer 2015, the Housing Authority applied to the King County Green Community Initiative to support these initiatives, and if successful, forward them on to the Commission for financing with Qualified Energy Conservation Bond authority at reduced borrowing cost." The Commission also provides an approved roster of energy modeling consultants, including engineers, energy consulting firms, and utility consumption analysts to inform organizations seeking qualified advisors. Public building energy benchmarking. In January 2016, the K4C Building Energy Benchmarking Subcommittee made recommendations for building energy benchmarking including: 1) mandatory public building energy benchmarking, and 2) voluntary commercial energy benchmarking with public disclosure of results. Early adopting jurisdictions will be able to receive technical assistance and support from the Washington State Department of Commerce and Smart Buildings Center. Adopting a voluntary program for commercial energy benchmarking and targeting outreach to large building owners could be a valuable way for the City to help the biggest energy users reduce their ' "Sustainable Energy Programs." Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: Ihtt�J wwwewshfceor /ener y . io "Green Community Initiative." King County. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt : wwweV<un count e ov environment stewardshu sustaunab�e buu�dun reen communut unutuatuveeas x. 0... �� ................................ ......g........................ Y.. g................................................................................................................ p/................................................... ............................... g� g................................................................... Y............................ ............................... Climate Solutions ,OJ.tt. / /climatesoludons .orb /fro rams /NEC 3 New Energy Cw consumption. In partnership with utility energy efficiency incentive programs, such a benchmarking program could build goodwill between the City and commercial /industrial building owners. M. Renewable Energy ■ Clean energy transition plan. In 2016, the K4C will analyze what it will take to achieve a countywide goal of 90% renewable electricity, and use that as the basis for a countywide clean energy transition plan. Phasing out fossil fuel in the electricity supply and replacing it with energy efficiency and renewable energy will directly reduce Tukwila's carbon footprint. The plan may offer opportunities for Tukwila to partner on local renewable energy programs and projects. K4C cities may choose to contribute $5,000- $10,000 each to the development of the plan, to supplement King County's allocation of $75,000. Green power options. Seattle City Light's (SCL) voluntary Green Up program enables residential and business customers to purchase green power for a portion of their electricity use and show their support for wind power and other renewable energy projects in Washington.11 Note that SCL's electricity is already virtually carbon - neutral, so the carbon reduction from an SCL green power collaboration would not be significant. Puget Sound Energy's (PSE) Green Power Program offers a similar opportunity for homes and businesses, and a Green Power Challenge for local jurisdictions. 12 In each Challenge cycle, PSE offers a $20,000 to $40,000 grant for a local solar demonstration project to the jurisdiction with the greatest percentage of new participants enrolled. ■ Local solar installation. Bellevue, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Seattle, and Snoqualmie have all pursued local Solarize campaigns to promote residential solar installation, in partnership with the nonprofit Northwest SEED. 13 Northwest SEED support packages for local jurisdictions range from $5,000 to $7,500 (or more, depending on level of customization). 14 Northwest SEED has a strong interest in developing solar options for low- income communities State solar incentives are currently in flux, however, and the 2016 Washington State Legislature is likely to address incentive issues to provide more certainty for potential solar purchasers. In addition to tracking the state solar incentive conversation, the City may want to explore collaboration with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission regarding ways to finance large -scale solar projects on City facilities or other properties. 11 "Green Up!" Seattle City Light. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt : wwweseatt P-- ov r ht Green reenPower reenu eas . 12 "Green Power Challenge." Puget Sound Energy. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: h t has: // seecom /savun2sande p-rgy Pcc_rt a /C_u c r_Pawc /Pales /Gueen Power Clh0enReeasrrx. is "Solarize Northwest." Northwest SEED. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: Ihtttl so�aruzewaeorE /. 14 "Northwest SEED Solarize Support Packages." Northwest SEED. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt0..:/ www..pwse rj.aug/wY . ca. rtc rt /up�.aarjs/ SEEC Sa�aluze SuppaLt. PacV<ag s....pdf. ......... ..... Climate Solutions ,h..tt.p / /climatesoludons.or� /programs /NEC 4 El New Energy Cw ■ Solar -ready roof policy. In November 2015, the Washington State Building Code Council passed a package of building code changes that included optional language for local jurisdictions to apply solar -ready provisions to new residential and non - residential construction.ls The estimated cost to a developer is $100 per residential, multifamily, commercial /retail, industrial, or institutional building (i.e., for material and installation costs), which is less expensive than a roof retrofit would be to accommodate solar in the future. Such a policy would also send an important market signal to promote local solar installation. IV. Transportation ■ Transit- oriented development, transit service, and commute trip reduction. Tukwila is already pursuing a tapestry of strategies to reduce congestion and transportation pollution, including: • Encouraging transit- oriented development in Southcenter and on Tukwila International Boulevard. • Building sidewalks and bike lanes with new street projects, and promoting non - motorized transportation options through the Walk and Roll program. • Working with King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit on increasing transit service. • Partnering with employers and other stakeholders on transportation demand management strategies, supported by a three -year, $500,000 grant to reduce congestion. These strategies are critical to reduce carbon emissions from transportation, and are consistent with the K4C goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled. ■ Promote the use of cleaner vehicles through fleet purchases and charging infrastructure. Opportunities continue to expand for cities to upgrade fleet vehicles to hybrid or electric options and promote electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at municipal facilities. In addition, cities can also promote EV charging in workplaces through the U.S. Department of Energy Workplace Charging Challenge, which the K4C is pursuing in partnership with Western Washington Clean Cities.16 Western Washington Clean Cities is a nonprofit membership organization, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, focused on expanding the use of alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies.17 Staff provide education, technical expertise, networking opportunities, and funding assistance to help members invest in local, clean transportation solutions, including clean vehicle purchase options for government fleets. The annual membership fee for a government entity is $350. is The proposal for optional residential code provisions is online at: Ihtt : tun . u_Ll c!2.M /.h9a4� . The proposal for optional non - residential building code provisions is online at: htt : tun ._u_[caun /hpfzi3. Although the code has not been published as of December 2015, the official state rulemaking document with the relevant language is available at: Ihtt s: fortressewae ov a a s SBCC Fu�eeaslhx? cud -5583. (See Appendix U on page 36.) le "Workplace Charging Challenge." U.S. Department of Energy. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt : ener y.aov/eere/vehuc�P_sLw_o_d p1_2Lcj -cb.au un cha��en e ioun cha��en e. 17 Western Washington Clean Cities information packet. Accessed December 22, 2015. Online at: htt0..:/ wwc�c.a. cu.tu. s:.aug /wp cat t/ulp�aa s /2.01:5 /g6/ WCC information. PacV«t 201.....pdf. Climate Solutions ,h..tt. / /climatesoludons.or� /programs /NEC 5 New Energy Cw V. Conclusion The City of Tukwila has a number of promising opportunities for near -term and no- or low -cost action to reduce community and municipal carbon emissions. The strategies outlined in this document build on existing City activities, reinforce partnership with the K4C, and align with state policies. The next crucial step will be to identify top - priority action items for 2016 to add to Tukwila's existing work plan. New Energy Cities deeply appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Tukwila on strategies to cut carbon emissions. Thank you very much for your leadership and collaboration. Attachments A. Deep Carbon Reduction in Tukwila WA— Power Point B. Joint Letter of Commitment: Climate Change Actions in King County Climate Solutions ..h.. / /c;limatesolutions.or /pro rams /NEC 6 Ne -. VI. Appendix: Estimated Timelines, Costs, and Agency Leads for Recommended Near -Term Action Items (In Order of Timeline Action Item Estimated Timeline Cost Potential Agency Lead Adopt Living Building Challenge Demonstration Ordinance Research, wait for Shoreline's example Staff time. Shoreline staff are adapting the Seattle ordinance for smaller city use. The Riverton Cottages could be a pilot project. Planning /Building Adopt solar -ready roof policy as part of code amendment package Adopt with Building Code Updates in June Staff time. Commerce and WSU staff are developing training resources on the solar -ready roof option and energy code in general, including a webinar in March 2016. Planning /Building Encourage community projects to include energy efficiency Ongoing Staff time. Opportunity to partner with /seek funding from Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Planning Implement public building energy benchmarking 6 mos to begin, 1 year to operationalize Staff time. Costs will be offset by technical assistance from WA Department of Commerce. Planning /Building Adopt internal green building standard for municipal projects 1 year, depending on design /planning horizon Staff time for design /planning. Cost differential depends on nature of project. Public Works /Building Develop green building incentives for private construction Research in 2016, Begin development in 2017 Staff time for ongoing outreach and implementation. Building Partner with utilities to market green power purchasing 1 year Mercer Island staff spent 2 -3 hours a week for a year. However, Mercer Island was the inaugural city partner, and city staff time has declined in subsequent years of the program. TBD Partner with community groups to promote solar installations 1 year Support packages from NW SEED range from $5,000 to 7,500. Staff hours depend on how much support the City gets from an outside partner. TBD Partner with King County on clean energy transition plan 1 year In 2016 K4C cities may opt to contribute $5,000- 10,000 to the funding of a countywide clean energy transition analysis /plan. Planning Purchase additional EV /hybrid vehicles for City fleet Continuous Upfront cost of EV /hybrid vehicles may be higher, with long -term fuel savings. Western Washington Clean Cities membership for government entities costs $350 in annual fees. Public Works Climate Solutions http : / /climatesolutions.org /programs /NEC 7 03 V iuowiioelly ItRII L lukwilz CAP Committee Discuss i in Feoruar 2016 ClirroleF' 1 Agenda kgrou eview of A s Strategies uesti s iscussio ucio ukwia Climate Commitments Res 1549: S a- or 5 CI h ate Preteele i. Agree (20071 by C al issio s of ca bo _lox e a 2020 Res 17L- - - l a s the Ka .g Co � CIS ate ellaberat e 0 O H t Ott: of Co Actio s PC g Co y Ci o CIi � C es o s was _ c_ 10 -its O% King County Carbon deduction Goal 80% below 2007 level by 2050 Avo post _e asta g .acts o c Cag °C /.° R gio al L a s a Colla o atio i Cu' -r ana e eni iann n Count adopt tarye is be o 200/ eve by j0% be o 200, eve by 2030 What will it take to get on the path to deep carbon reduction? Climate and Energy Goals in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan els througl Tra spo a 4 les a .9 a rye .46 rie espo sties 5.... 0 O e _ e Ongoing City Climate Leadership ASS t affic signals Co v to :D Co st Sig t D Co v sio as City ff c cy 20 0 gy a to City Si 6300 a t Pa k Tukwila King County New Energy Cities Partnership le Co Bri r off o CItIes col Tact K4C a ip Co n2//6 What are TukwIla's high - priority carbon reduction strategies? ra KING COUNTY -CI CLIMATE COLLABORATION es O O keaing Do= Barriers to Deep Efficiency :g -C ew Energy Cities Tukwila 2012 Energy and Carbon Footprint Carbon Emissions 339 KT CO2e 75 KT CO2e 109 KT CO2e 155 KT CO2e Source 260 BBTUs Electricity Generation Renewable 55 BBTUs Nuclear 25 489 BBTUs (4% Industrial) End Use Residential 785 BBT 405 BBTUs Natural Gas 143 BBTUs 1515 BBTUs (61% Industrial) 15 KT CO2e 169 KT CO2e 155 KT CO2e Transportation Carbon Emissions 339 KT CO2e Cities 600,000 ai 550,000 ro cr 500,000 0 (� 450,000 N 0 400,000 V E 350,000 N © 300,000 .N QW 250,000 c L 200,000 [0 V 150,000 0x2030 Reduction: What Will It lake? Growth Scenario � GHG Emissions To Avoid 2012 GHG Emissions GHG Emissions To Reduce A 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 New Energy Citie ons CO2 equivalent) u •L Carbon emissions 600,000 Reductions due to Existing Federal and State Laws 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 2012 GHG Emissions Federal Fuel Economy State Clean Energy Standard State Energy Code Remaining Reductions Needed 150,000 100,000 2012 2017 Year 2022 2027 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 New Energy Cities 0 Percent Reduction by 2030: hat Will It Take? We estimated the carbon emissions reduction due to three existing federal & state laws Federal Transportation State State Energy supply Energy consumption Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Washington State Energy Code Analysis assumes 2030 avg. fuel economy of 27.3 miles per gallon At least 15 percent of total fuel mix must come from renewable energy by 2020 New buildings constructed in 2031 must use 70 percent less energy than new buildings constructed in 2006 Solutions in transportation Buildings, and Energy Supply Federal Fuel Economy State Clean Energy Standard State Energy Code 15% Cleaner Vehicles 20% Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction 25% Building Energy Use Reduction 90% Renewable Electricity & No ore Coal Building Energy Efficiency Carbon emissions (metric tons CO2 equivalent) 600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 2012 2017 Year 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 2022 2027 State Energy Code 25% Building Energy Use Reduction Possible City Actions • Pass a Living Building Demonstration Ordinance • Create a Tukwila green building standard, including: Permitting incentives & technical assistance options Recognition of businesses making energy efficient upgrades — Technical assistance, funding, & utility incentives to help high energy users become more efficient • Prioritize energy efficiency in City Facilities Plan (target LEED Silver rating) Carbon emissions (metric tons CO2 equivalent) Renewable Energy 600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 _;........ 2012 2017 Year 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 2022 2027 State Clean Energy Standard 90% Renewable Electricity & No More Coal Possible City Actions • Partner with K4C on Clean Energy Transition Plan • Partner with utilities to promote green power option in Tukwila • Partner with community groups & building owners to promote local solar installation • Adopt solar -ready roof policy per new State regulations Carbon emissions (metric tons CO2 equivalent) ransportation and Land Use 600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 -':- 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 -',- 2012 2017 Year 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 2022 2027 20% Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction City Actions • Continue to encourage transit - oriented development in Southcenter and TIB • Continue to build sidewalks and bike lanes with new street projects • Continue to work with Metro and Sound Transit on transit service Business Outreach • Partner with employers & other stakeholders on transportation demand management strategies — 3 -yr. $500,000 grant to reduce congestion in South King County Cleaner Vehicles Carbon emissions (metric tons CO2 equivalent) 600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 '.. 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 '.;......... 2012 2017 Year Possible City Actions • Upgrade to hybrid /electric City vehicles as possible • Future EV charging stations at City facilities • Encourage EV charging facilities in new residential buildings 50% Carbon Reduction by 2030 2022 2027 Federal Fuel Economy 15% Cleaner Vehicles Business Outreach • Promote electric vehicle workplace charging (e.g., BECU) 2016 Work flan on vocacy f r nt a bans- - Plan da to advocate proved service Wak Roll Plan d ate -ing Bu ing :e onst Ion Ordinance incorporate green elements Into ne City - 1_ -_ E les Explore Creep B Li E ding Program P u is and Frusta Energy Bench= larking Rene a le ner ay Solar demonst n project ecyci p am articipati n Ev cacy ner y efficient nefo PY Summary of findings x e v s a- d esse old ct. _____ to eet to eet 20 a Achieving 50x2030 and 80x2050 requires holder action and planning with a carbon reduction fens Teir\■SNWE elizabeth@climateso utions.org ICI r IateSol' ATTACHMENT B KING COUNTY- Cities CLIMATE COLLABORATION tl Climate change is a paramount challenge of this generation and has far - reaching and fundamental consequences for our economy, environment, public health, and safety. Across King County and its cities, we are already experiencing the impacts of climate change: warming temperatures, acidifying marine waters, rising seas, decreasing mountain snowpack, and less water in streams during the summer. WARMING TFWTEMPERA'TURES r RISING INDI SEA LEVELS q DECREASING MTN. SUMMER SNuWPACK fit ^ay These changes have the potential for significant impacts to public and private property, resource based economies like agriculture and forestry, and to residents' health and quality of life. The decisions we make locally and regionally, such as where our communities will grow and how they will be served by transportation, will set the stage for success or failure in reducing carbon pollution, making sound long -term investments, and ensuring our communities are livable and resilient to climate change impacts. Current science indicates that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions sharply. The King County Growth Management Planning Council - a formal body of elected officials from across King County - voted unanimously on July 23, 2014 to adopt a shared target to reduce countywide sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25% by 2020, 50% by 2030, and 80% by 2050. Based on our shared assessment of emissions in King County, and review of potential strategies to reduce emissions, we believe that these targets are ambitious but achievable. Building on the work of the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) - a partnership between the County and cities to coordinate and enhance local government climate and sustainability efforts - more than a dozen cities and the County came together in the first half of 2014 to chart opportunities for joint actions to reduce GHG emissions and accelerate progress towards a clean and sustainable future. The attached Principles for Collaboration and Joint County -City Climate Commitments are focused on practical, near -term, collaborative opportunities between cities and King County. These shared commitments build on the significant work that many of our cities and County are already taking. By signing this letter, we pledge our support for the shared vision that these principles and actions represent. Our cities commit to actively pursue those strategies and catalytic actions where our jurisdictions can make the most impact given our size, location, and development patterns. Through focused, coordinated action, we will maximize the impact of our individual and shared efforts. Aa 29 KING COUNTY- Cities CLIMATE COLLABORATION Bruce Bassett Mayor, City of Mercer Island Shari E. Winstead Mayor, City of Shoreline 0�� e� Edward B. Murray Mayor, City of Seattle Amy Walen Mayor, City of Kirkland Fred Butler Mayor, City of Issaquah 30 Matthew Larson Mayor, City of Snoqualmie Jim Haggerton Mayor, City of Tukwila A, 4, t � 24, ',� Denis Law Mayor, City of Renton �V a�.e John Marchione Mayor, City of Redmond Ot tla Balducci, Mayor, City of Bellevue 3 KING COUNTY- Cities CLIMATE COLLABORATION Climate change is the paramount challenge of our generation, and has fundamental and far - reaching consequences for our economy, environment, and public health and safety. Strong action to reduce GHG emissions is needed, and the time is now. Local governments can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through many decisions related to transportation and land use, energy and green building, forests and farms, and consumption and materials management. Many cities in King County have set individual climate goals and are taking steps to reduce local GHG emissions, and we need to build on this leadership. Local solutions need to be implemented in ways that build a cleaner, stronger and more resilient regional economy. Progress will require deeper engagement with communities of color and low income, immigrant, and youth populations. These communities can be more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change -from increasing flood risks to rising costs of fossil fuels - and historically less likely to be included in community -scale solutions or as leaders. We are committed to work in ways that are fair, equitable, empowering, and inclusive and that also ensure that low income residents do not bear unfair costs of solutions. Federal and state policies and laws can help us achieve our goals, but countywide and local policy, programs and partnerships are needed to fill the existing gap to achieve local GHG targets. Progress will require deep partnerships between the County, cities, utilities, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other public sector agencies. King County and nine cities have formed the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C), and we will work to build on this initial pledge, both in increased action and increased participation from additional cities. o We can accomplish more with a shared vision and coordinated action; collaboration will increase the efficiency of our efforts and magnify the impact of our strategies beyond what each of us could achieve on our own. Our cities support the shared vision that the Joint County -City Climate Commitments represent, but it is not the intention that each city will pursue every catalytic action. Cities and King County will actively pursue strategies where they have the most impact and influence. We will reconvene at least annually to share progress. We also dedicate a staff point person from our cities and from the County to help coordinate implementation of the following Joint County -City Climate Commitments, and to serve as a point person to the K4C. 31 3 KING COUNTY- Cities CLIMATE COLLABORATION Joint County-City Climate Commitments 0 0C.. ) I. Shared Goals Pathway: Adopt science -based countywide GHG reduction targets that help ensure the region is doing its part to confront climate change. oM II. Climate Policy Pathway: Support strong federal, regional, state, countywide and local climate policy. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Advocate for comprehensive federal, regional and state science -based limits and a market -based price on carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A portion of revenue from these policies should support local GHG reduction efforts that align with these Joint County -City Climate Commitments, such as funding for transit service, energy efficiency projects, and forest protection and restoration initiatives. III. Transportation and Land Use Pathway: For passenger vehicles and light trucks, reduce vehicle miles traveled by 20% below 2012 levels by 2030 and GHG emissions intensity of fuels by 15% below 2012 levels by 2030. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner to secure state authority for funding to sustain and grow transit service in King County. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Reduce climate pollution, build our renewable energy economy, and lessen our dependence on imported fossil fuels, by supporting the adoption of a statewide low carbon fuel standard that gradually lowers pollution from transportation fuels. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Focus new development in vibrant centers that locate jobs, affordable housing, and services close to transit, bike and pedestrian options so more people have faster, convenient and low GHG emissions ways to travel. Catalytic Project or Program: As practical, for King County and cities developing transit oriented communities around high capacity light rail and transit projects, adopt the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growing Transit Communities Compact. For smaller cities, participate in programs promoting proven alternative technology solutions such as vehicle electrification, as well as joint carpool and vanpool promotional campaigns. 32 KING COUNTY-0fies CLIMATE COLLABORATION Joint County-City Climate Commitments o c) o IV. Energy Supply Pathway: Increase countywide renewable electricity use 20% beyond 2012 levels by 2030; phase out coal -fired electricity sources by 2025; limit construction of new natural gas based electricity power plants; support development of increasing amounts of renewable energy sources. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Build on existing state renewable energy commitments including the Washington State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to partner with local utilities, state regulators and other stakeholders on a countywide commitment to renewable energy resources, including meeting energy demand through energy efficiency improvements and phasing out fossil fuels. Catalytic Project or Program: In partnership with utilities, develop a package of county and city commitments that support increasingly renewable energy sources, in areas such as community solar, green power community challenges, streamlined local renewable energy installation permitting, district energy, and renewable energy incentives. V. Green Building and Energy Efficiency Pathway: Reduce energy use in all existing buildings 25% below 2012 levels by 2030; achieve net -zero GHG emissions in new buildings by 2030. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Join the Regional Code Collaboration and work to adopt code pathways that build on the Washington State Energy Code, leading the way to "net -zero carbon" buildings through innovation in local codes, ordinances, and related partnerships. Catalytic Project or Program: Develop a multi -city partnership to help build a regional energy efficiency retrofit economy, including tactics such as: collaborating with energy efficiency and green building businesses, partnering with utilities, expanding on existing retrofit programs, adopting local building energy benchmarking and disclosure ordinances, and encouraging voluntary reporting and collaborative initiatives such as the 2030 District framework. 33 3 KING COUNTY -0fies CLIMATE COLLABORATION Joint County-City Climate Commitments c)(Doo VI. Consumption and Materials Management: Pathway: By 2020, achieve a 70% recycling rate countywide; by 2030, achieve zero waste of resources that have economic value for reuse, resale and recycling. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner through the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee on policy, projects and programs focused on (1) waste prevention and reuse, (2) product stewardship, recycling, and composting, and (3) beneficial use. Catalytic Project or Program: Develop a regional strategy through the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan process to reach 70% recycling through a combination of education, incentives and regulatory tools aimed at single - family, multi - family residents, businesses, and construction projects in King County. VII. Forests and Farming Pathway: Reduce sprawl and associated transportation related GHG emissions and sequester biological carbon by focusing growth in urban centers and protecting and restoring forests and farms. Catalytic Policy Commitment: Partner on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) initiatives to focus development within the Urban Growth Area, reduce development pressure on rural lands, and protect our most valuable and important resource lands. Catalytic Project or Program: Protect and restore the health of urban and community trees and forests, for example through public - private- community efforts such as Forterra's Green Cities Partnerships. Catalytic Project or Program: Partner on collaborative efforts to expand forest and farm stewardship and protection, for example through King Conservation District's farm management planning, landowner incentive, and grant programs. Catalytic Project or Program: Expand our local food economy, for example by supporting urban and community farming, buying locally produced food, and participating in the Farm City Roundtable forum. 34 3 KING COUNTY- Cities CLIMATE COLLABORATION Joint ® Cc)( VIII. Government Operations Pathway: Reduce GHG emissions from government operations in support of countywide goals. Policy Commitment: Develop and adopt near and long -term government operational GHG reduction targets that support countywide goals, and implement actions that reduce each local government's GHG footprint. Catalytic Project or Program: In support of the Section V. Green Building and Energy Efficiency pathway targets to reduce energy use in existing buildings 25% below 2012 levels by 2030 and achieve net -zero GHG emissions in new buildings by 2030: execute energy efficiency projects and initiatives at existing facilities, measure existing building performance through EPA's Energy Star or equivalent program, implement high- efficiency street and traffic light replacement projects, and construct new buildings to LEED or Living Building Challenge standards and infrastructure to equivalent sustainability standards. „'04 ke IX. Collaboration Policy Commitment: Participate in or join the King County- Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) - focused on efforts to coordinate and enhance city and County climate and sustainability efforts - to share case studies, subject matter experts, resources, tools, and to collaborate on grant and funding opportunities. Catalytic Project or Program: Engage and lead government- business collaborative action through efforts such as the Eastside Sustainable Business Alliance. 35 36 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor TO: Mayor Ekberg Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director DATE: February 1, 2016 SUBJECT: Wireless Communication Facilities Updates ISSUE Updates to TMC 18.58, the Wireless Communication Facilities regulations, are needed to come into compliance with new Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules. BACKGROUND New regulations regarding wireless communication facilities were included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act).' In that legislation Section 6409(a) provides, in part, that "a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station." 2 The intention was to streamline approval of technology updates by wireless carriers. The FCC elaborated this mandate into new rules that require cities to approve qualified applications within 60 days, allow limited expansion at these sites and clarify that these rules cannot be used to defeat any "stealthing" conditions that applied to the original approval of the site. DISCUSSION These rule changes can be accommodated by minor edits to Tukwila's existing zoning regulations for wireless communication facilities. The primary effect is to require that we issue permit decisions for affected proposals within 60 days, rather than the current 120 day clock. As our review is generally faster than that it should have little impact. Staff has made the draft ordinance available to wireless industry representatives for their comments. The issue of height exemptions for Bird Safety /Exclusionary devices was raised by the Port of Seattle, who requested that carriers install bird exclusionary devices on existing towers within 5 miles of SeaTac Airport to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes on airplanes and prevent injury to the birds. • 90% of cell tower nests are Ospreys • 5% of cell tower nests are Bald Eagles • 2.5% of cell tower nests are Red - tailed Hawks • 2.5% of cell tower nests are Great Horned Owls ' See Spectrum Act § 6409(a). Section 6409(a) has since been codified in the CommUnicatlons Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). ' Spectrum Act § 6409(a)(1). 37 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 AT &T also requested that we exempt single purpose cell towers from the Zoning building height limits. Staff does not support this change as there are other options including co- location on existing utility poles, building mounted installations and an existing height waiver process at 18.58.170 in the case of particular hardship. In addition to these changes we are proposing some housekeeping edits including: • Clarifying when updating antenna technology is exempt from wireless permit review • Replacing references to the Planning Commission with the Hearing Examiner per TMC 18.104.010 • Reflecting case law since 2006 when the chapter was rewritten FINANCIAL IMPACT These changes will not create a financial impact on the City as they do not affect the type or cost of our wireless facility permitting. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to forward this ordinance to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. It could then return to Committee on March 14, and then move to the March 28 Committee of the Whole meeting for a hearing and subsequent April Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance Amending TMC 18.58 DCouncil Agenda Items\ DCD \Wireless_InfoMemoCAP2 -8.doc i AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 2251 §68, §69 AND §70, AND 2135 §1 (PART) AND §2 (PART), AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 18.06.773, 18.58.030, 18.58.040, 18.58.050, 18.58.060, 18.58.070, 18.58.120, 18.58.130 AND 18.58.150, RELATING TO COLLOCATION, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF WIRELESS FACILITIES; ESTABLISHING NEW STANDARDS FOR ELIGIBLE FACILITIES MODIFICATIONS AND NEW REGULATIONS ON EXPIRATION OF WIRELESS FACILITY PERMITS, TO BE CODIFIED AS TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 18.58.200 AND 18.58.210 RESPECTIVELY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 1934 Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934, creating the Federal Communications Commission and granting it authority over common carriers engaged in the provision of interstate or foreign communications services; and WHEREAS, in 1996 Congress enacted Pub. L. No. 104 -104, 110 Stat. 70 (the "1996 Act "), amending the Communications Act of 1934 and implementing regulations applicable to both wireless and wireline communications facilities for the purpose of removal of barriers to entry into the telecommunications market, while preserving local government zoning authority except where specifically limited under the 1996 Act; and WHEREAS, in the 1996 Act, Congress imposed substantive and procedural limitations on the traditional authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modification of wireless facilities and incorporated those limitations into the Communications Act of 1934; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted regulations that have been codified as Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.58, "Wireless Communications Facilities," establishing local requirements for the location, construction, and modification of wireless facilities; and W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 1 of 14 +G WHEREAS, in 2012, Congress passed the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012" (the "Spectrum Act ") (PL- 112 -96; codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)); and WHEREAS, Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (hereafter "Section 6409 ") implements additional substantive and procedural limitations upon state and local government authority to regulate modification of existing wireless antenna support structures and base stations; and WHEREAS, Congress, through its enactment of Section 6409, has mandated that local governments approve, and cannot deny, an application requesting modification of an existing tower or base station if such modification does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Act empowers the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC ") to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of the 1996 Act, and subsequently added portions of the 1996 Act such as Section 6409; and WHEREAS, the FCC, pursuant to its rule- making authority, adopted and released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in September of 2013 (In re Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket Nos. 13 -238, 13 -32; WC Docket No. 11 -59; FCC 13 -122), which focused in part upon whether or not the FCC should adopt rules regarding implementation of Section 6409; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, the FCC issued its report and order, WT Docket Nos. 13 -238, 13 -32; WC Docket No. 11 -59; FCC 14 -153, in the above described proceeding (the "Report and Order" or "Order ") clarifying and implementing statutory requirements related to state and local government review of infrastructure siting, including Section 6409, with the intent of facilitating and expediting the deployment of equipment and infrastructure to meet the demand for wireless capacity; and WHEREAS, the rules adopted by the FCC in its Report and Order implementing Section 6409 are intended by the FCC to spur wireless broadband deployment, in part, by facilitating the sharing of infrastructure that supports wireless communications through incentives to collocate on structures that already support wireless facilities; and WHEREAS, the Report and Order also adopts measures that update the FCC's review processes under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( "NEPA ") and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( "NHPA "), with a particular emphasis on accommodating new wireless technologies that use smaller antennas and compact radio equipment to provide mobile voice and broadband service; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2015, the FCC released an Erratum to the Report and Order making certain amendments to the provisions of the Report and Order related to NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA; and W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 2 of 14 Ex WHEREAS, that part of the Report and Order related to implementation of Section 6409 amends 47 C.F.R. Part 1 (PART 1 — PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) by adding new Subpart CC § 1.40001 and establishing both substantive and procedural limitations upon local government application and development requirements applicable to proposals for modification to an existing antenna support structure or an existing base station ( "Eligible Facility Request Rules "); and WHEREAS, the Order, among other things, defines key terms utilized in Section 6409, establishes application requirements limiting the information that can be required from an applicant, implements a 60 -day shot clock and tolling provisions, establishes a deemed approved remedy for applications not timely responded to, requires cities to approve a project permit application requesting modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, and establishes development standards that govern such proposed modifications, and WHEREAS, the Report and Order provides that the Eligible Facility Request Rules will be effective 90 days following publication in the Federal Register, and WHEREAS, the Order was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, January 8, 2015, Federal Register; Vol. 80; No. 5, resulting in the Eligible Facility Request Rules becoming effective on April 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Order is subject to appeal; however, even if an appeal is filed, the appeal will not automatically result in delay of implementation of the Eligible Facility Request Rules; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is required under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act and the Eligible Facility Request Rules established in the Order to adopt and implement local development and zoning regulations that are consistent with Section 6409 and the Order; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and WAC 365- 196 -630, a notice of intent to adopt the proposed new development regulations was sent to the State of Washington Department of Commerce and to other state agencies to allow for a 60 -day review and comment period, which comment period ended prior to adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, on the 25th day of February, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting related to the proposed zoning regulations set forth in the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed zoning regulations on the 28th day of March, 2016; and W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 3 of 14 41 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning regulations are reasonable and necessary in order to bring the City's development regulations into compliance with the mandate imposed upon the City by Congress pursuant to Section 6409 and the regulations imposed upon the City by the FCC pursuant to its Report and Order, and are therefore in the public interest, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TMC Section 18.06.773 Amended. Ordinance No. 2135 §2 (part), as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.06.773, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Significant Gap in Service, Wireless Communications" means a large geggr_area gap in coverage, capacity, frequency, or technology such that I^fi+";^ ° gonnGe area(s) of the— appliGa^+ on whiGh a— large — a substantial number of applicant's remote user subscribers are unable to establish senneGt or maintain a enneGtO^^ tereliable wireless service from the Rational telephone Re pork through applicant's wireless +.teloG.,M,,-,U RiGatmenc network. A "dead spot" (defined as small less than significant 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. Section 2. TMC Section 18.58.030, "Exemptions," Amended. Ordinance No. 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.030, subparagraph 1, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Wireless communication facilities permits are not required for subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e of this section; however, a building permit may be required for work on buildings: a. Routine maintenance and repair of wireless communication facilities. This shall not include, eXGludiRg StFUGtUral WeFk or _changes in height or dimensions of antennas, 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. b. Changing of antennas on wireless communication facilities is permittedexempt from wireless facilities permits, provided the total area of the new antennas and support structure is not increased more than 10% of the previous area or the area is reducedhave- the - same ea or less of these removed. The total Rumbe; of aRteT r'rnas must remain the same. c. Changing antennas within a concealed building- mounted installation is exempt provided there is no visible change from the outside. d. Bird exclusionary devices may be added to towers and are not subject to heiaht limitations. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 4 of 14 42 e. Additional ground equipment may be placed within an approved equipment enclosure, provided the height of the equipment does not extend above the screening fence. Section 3. TMC Section 18.58.040, "Permits Required," Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §68 and 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.040 subparagraph I, is hereby amended to read as follows: I. Any decision by the DCD Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner P a A4_gag Csmrna_-sien 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. Section 4. TMC Section 18.58.050 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §69 and 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.050, are hereby amended to read as follows: 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. In the event of uncertainty on the type of wireless facility, the DCD Director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into Table A.: TABLE A Type of Permit Required, Based on Type of Wireless Communication Facility Zoning(l) Type of Facility Residential Commercial Industrial TraRSMrOScirOR tower GO I0Gatl0r T Adding antennas to an existing tower or utility pole Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Eligible facilities modification Type 1 Type 1 Type 1 Utility pole replacement for 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 tower or waiver request Type 31 Type 3 T pe 3 Zoning for any private /public property or right -of -way: Residential — LDR, MDR, or HDR. Commercial — O, MUO, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI or TVS. Industrial — LI, HI, MIC /L, or MIC /H. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 5 of 14 43 (2) Provided the height of the tower or utility pole 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 18.58.1-540. 041n thiz izviznt ef unr_ertai ty on the type of a wireless f2G"ity, the DGID DireGtGr shall have the 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: 1. Place antennas on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers, or electrical transmission towers. 2. Place wireless communication facilities in non - residentially -zoned districts and non - residential 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 applicable sections of the Tukwila 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. Applicants shall submit all of the information required pursuant to TMC Section 18.104.060 and the following: 1. Type 1 — Applicant shall submit: a. A completed application form provided by the Department of Community Development. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 6 of 14 ii 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 and whether the proposal qualifies for review under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act. d. Information sufficient to determine whether a proposed facilities modification per TMC Section 18.58.200 would be a substantial change to an existing eligible support structure. ,de. Sensitive Area studies and proposed mitigation (if required). ef. If an outdoor generator is proposed, a report prepared by an acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with TMC Chapter 8.22, "Noise." and fg. SEPA Application (if required). 2. Type 2 – Applicant shall submit all information required for a Type 1 application, plus the following: 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. LandSEa,Rg —plaR. If landscaping is proposed, four sets of a landscaping plan prepared by a Washington State - licensed architect. 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. aad W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 7 of 14 45 3. Type 3 — 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 18.58.060. b. The radio frequency engineer report shall include a discussion of the information required under TMC Section 18.58.89060. The report shall also explain why a tower must be used instead of any of the other location options outlined in Table 4 A. 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. f. 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. i. 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. Section 5. TMC Section 18.58.060, "New Towers," Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2251 §70 and 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.060, subparagraphs A.2, B.7 and B.8, are hereby amended to read as follows: A. 2. Alternates — No existing tower or structure, or other feasible site or -ether alterRatiye teGhRGlGgies not requiring a new tower in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 8 of 14 M. ree-TM - XTMM 2 2 bit Wr B. 87. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures or other sites er alternative technelegies unsuitable. All engineering and technclegical evidence must be provided and certified by a registered and qualified professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. Section 6. TMC Section 18.58.070, "General Requirements," Amended. Ordinance No. 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.070, subparagraphs 2 and 10, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Business license requirement – Any person, corporation or other business entity that operates a wireless communication facility or owns a tower within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. The business license shall list all facility locations owned or operated by that entity within the City. Any peFSOR, GOrperatiOR or etheF bmisiness entity whiGh owns a tower also is required to ehtain a b iciness license OR an annual basis 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 or eligible facilities modifications. Section 7. Title Change to Section 18.58.120. Ordinance No. 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.120, is hereby amended to change the title of TMC Section 18.58.120 to read as follows: 18.58.120 Utility Pole Replacement for Co- location Section 8. TMC Section 18.58.130, "Towers— Specific Development Standards," Amended. Ordinance No. 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.130, subparagraphs 1 and 3, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Height – Any proposed tower with antennas shall meet the height standards of the zoning district where the tower will be located. Bird exclusionary devices are not subject to height limitations. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 9 of 14 47 3. Setbacks — The proposed wireless communication facilities must meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If an exception is granted under TMC Section 18.58.480170 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. Section 9. TMC Section 18.58.150, "Landscaping /Screening," Amended. Ordinance No. 2135 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 18.58.150 subparagraph A, is hereby amended to read as follows: 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 Hearing Examiner , 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. Section 10. Regulations Established. TMC Section 18.58.200, "Standards for Eligible Facilities Modifications," is hereby established to read as follows: 18.58.200 Standards for Eligible Facilities Modifications A. This section implements 6409 of the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012" (the "Spectrum Act ") (PL- 112 -96; codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)), which requires the City to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. The intent is to exempt eligible facilities requests from zoning and development regulations that are inconsistent with or preempted by Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, while preserving the City's right to continue to enforce and condition approvals under this chapter on compliance with generally applicable building structural electrical, and safety codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 10 of 14 Ml B. Definitions. 1. "Base station" shall mean and refer to the structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables wireless communications licensed or authorized by the FCC, between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in this chapter or any equipment associated with a tower. a. The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services. as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. b. The term includes but is not limited to radio transceivers antennas coaxial or fiber -optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems and small -cell networks). c. The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time an eligible facilities modification application is filed with the City under this chapter, supports or houses equipment described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of TMC Section 18.58.200.13, and that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State, county or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. d. The term does not include any structure that, at the time a completed eligible facilities modification application is filed with the City under this section, does not support or house equipment described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of TMC Section 18.58.200. B. 2. "Eligible facilities modification" shall mean and refer to any proposed facilities modification that has been determined pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to be subject to this chapter and that does not result in a substantial change in the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure. 3. "Eligible support structure" shall mean and refer to any existing tower or base station as defined in this chapter, provided it is in existence at the time the eligible facilities modification application is filed with the City under this chapter. 4. "Existinq" shall mean and refer to a constructed tower or base station that was reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process and lawfully constructed. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 11 of 14 i • 5. "Proposed facilities modification" shall mean and refer to a proposal submitted by an applicant to modify an eligible support structure the applicant asserts is subject to review under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, and involving_ a. collocation of new transmission equipment; b. removal of transmission equipment; or c. replacement of transmission equipment. "Site" shall mean and refer to the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding a tower (other than a tower in the public rights -of -way) and any access or utility easements currently related to the site and, for other eligible support structures, shall mean and be further restricted to, that area in proximitV to structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 7. "Substantial Change ". A proposed facilities modification will substantially change the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: For towers not in the aublic riahts- of -way. it increases the heiaht of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more than 10 feet, whichever is req ater. Changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act. b. For towers not in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than 6 feet. c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed 4 cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights -of -way and base stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre- existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10% larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 12 of 14 50 d. For any eligible support structure: (1) it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; (2) it would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or (3) it does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non - compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in this section. 8. "Tower" shall mean and refer to any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any antennas and their associated facilities, licensed or authorized by the FCC, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul and the associated site. 9. "Transmission Eauipment" shall mean and refer to equipment that facilitates transmission for any wireless communication service licensed or authorized by the FCC including but not limited to radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber - optic cable and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast and public safety services as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. C. Proposed facilities modification applications are not subject to the application requirements set forth in TMC Section 18.104.060. D. City decisions on eligible facilities modifications shall be issued within 60 days from the date the application is received by the City, subtracting any time between the City's notice of incomplete application or request for additional information and the applicant's resubmittal. Following a supplemental submission the City will respond to the applicant within 10 days stating whether the additional information is sufficient to complete review of the application. This timinq supersedes TMC Section 18.104.130. E. If the City fails to approve or deny an eligible facilities modification within the time frame for review, the applicant may notifV the City in writing that the review period has expired and that the application has therefore been deemed granted. F. Applicants and the City may bring claims related to Section 6409 (a) to any court of competent jurisdiction. W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs Page 13 of 14 51 Section 11. Regulations Established. TMC Section 18.58.210, "Expiration of Wireless Facility Permits," is hereby established to read as follows: 18.58.210 Expiration of Wireless Facility Permits A wireless facility permit shall automatically expire one year after a Notice of Decision approving the permit is issued unless a building permit conforming to plans for which the wireless facility permit was granted is obtained within that period of time. If a building permit is not required for the proposed work, such as changing antennas on an existing tower, then the substantial construction of the proposed work shall be completed within one year after a Notice of Decision approving the permit is issued. The Director of Community Development may authorize a longer period for completion of work if the applicant can demonstrate why additional time is required and submits a written request for extension prior to expiration of the wireless facilities permit. Section 12. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section /subsection numbering. Section 13. 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 14. 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 , 2016. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Allan Ekberg, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk :_ Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W: Word Processing \Ordinances \Wireless facilities - collocation update strike -thru 1 -29 -16 NG:bjs 52 Page 14 of 14 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ekberg Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst DATE: February 3, 2016 SUBJECT: Overview of Minor Home Repair Program ISSUE At the January 25, 2016 Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, members asked Human Services Staff to return to provide additional information about the Minor Home Repair Program. Questions from the January 25 Committee meeting, along with written responses, are listed below and were also distributed to the full Council on January 29, 2016. DISCUSSION Responses from Human Services to Questions asked at the January 25, 2016 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting re: Minor Home Repair Program 1. How are funds allocated among the cities? Is there a formula? No formula - funding is based on previous years usage, pending jobs, personnel costs, ER /Lead Paint Reviews. If, towards the end of a funding cycle, a particular city has unspent funds, the other cities can continue accepting projects to expend the unspent, overall program balance that partner cities did not use. If we take the cost of Environmental /Lead Based Paint review off the top ($4,000) and Personnel costs (City of Des Moines, $2,000), that leaves $124,000 or $31,000 per partner city, per contract year. 2. Does the allocation include compensation for Tukwila's administration of the program? No. What Tukwila, Covington and SeaTac staff provide is in -kind. 3. Has the late invoicing /reimbursement always gone smoothly? Yes. We have a great cooperative relationship with our partner cities as well as with King County. 4. Is there data to show how many requests are turned down? We do not collect turn -away data. However, if a project is too large for our program (less than $2000 per incident up to $6K in a lifetime), we refer residents to KC's Home Repair Program. 5. What is the average turn - around time for project completion? It depends on the availability of the contractor and homeowner, urgency of situation and complexity of the problem. After a referral is made from our office (usually within a day) to a contractor, jobs are scheduled and completed very quickly (usually within a week or two, much quicker if it is a heating /plumbing, security emergency) 6. Does the table of HUD income guidelines (page 21) include or exclude tax exempt sources of income? It includes all income sources. 53 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 7. Does Human Services have discretionary ability to prioritize need? Yes, we can prioritize based on urgency /type of repair needed. 8. Based upon previous years, what is the estimated need in Tukwila (dollar amount and number of applications)? Amount in Tukwila is $30,000 (actually $30K for all cities) and the estimated need, based on last year's data is: 20 Tukwila households were served with 37 individual repair jobs. RECOMMENDATION Discussion Only 54 Z:1Council Agenda Itemsl Council\minorhomerepairmemo.docx Community Affairs and Parks Committee - 2016 Work Plan Description Qtr Dept Action (A) or Briefing (B) Status Teens for Tukwila — Updates P &R B North Wind Weir property Transfer (from King County) P &R A City Support for Veterans (Incl. parks discounts per 2014 Council request, Veterans Day event at TCQ P &R, Other Community Wellness Programs (I -CANN, PICH, etc.) — Update 1 -3 P &R B Duwamish Hill Preserve Grant Acceptance 1 -2 P &R A REACH Agreement (beyond July 2016) 2 -3 P &R A Foster Golf Links Pond Liner — Purchase Approval or Design /Bid 2 -3 P &R A Starfire Sports Agreement (will knew in the next couple weeks) 1 -2 P &R A Golf Fees 1 P &R A 1% Art Policy 1 P &R B Recreation Registration Software — Update 1 P &R B Foster Golf Links GoIfT Carts — Annual Purchase Approval 1 P &R A Foster Golf Links — Greens Fees 1 P &R A Proactive Code Enforcement Update 1 DCD B Wireless Communication Regulations Update 1 DCD A Riverton Cottages Project Briefing 1 DCD B Duwamish Hill Preserve Construction — Contract Closeout 2 P &R A Foster Golf Links Restaurant Concessionaire Agreement 2 P &R A Park sign inventory 2 P &R B Park Security Contract Award 2 P &R A Housekeeping Code Amendments 2 DCD A SEPA Ordinance 2 DCD A Tree Ordinance Update 2 DCD A Residential Infill Standards 2 DCD Building Codes 2 DCD A Review sidewalk requirements in Subdivision Code 2 DCD /PW A Ailey Camp (Update ?) 3 P &R B Parcels /Properties Official Naming 3 P &R A Green Tukwila — 20 -year plan 3 P &R A Orilla Road Annexation — Examination 3 DCD B TIB Comp Plan Implementation 3 DCD A Update on vehicle parking ordinance implementation 4 DCD B DCD Fee Resolution 4 DCD A Trakit Briefing 2, 3, 4 DCD B Standard Reports /Briefings Frequency Dept. Events Calendar (included in agenda, no staff required) Annual Parks Parks Department Report Annual Parks MENCity of Tukwila Updated 2/1/16 55 W