HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E99-0028 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT / TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLANRIGHT OF WAY
MANAGEMENT &
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
PLAN
CITY-WIDE
E99-0028
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
SEPA FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TELECOMMUNICATION PLAN
PROPONENT: BOB GIBERSON
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 6200 SOUTHCENTER BL
PARCEL NO: 359700-0282
SEC/TWN/RNG:
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E99-0028
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c).
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
***************************************************************************
This determination is final and signed this 54% day of ,/QJe.v.A.__
199.
Steve Lancaster: Responsible Official
City of Tukwila. (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the
Department of Community Development.
•
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
TO: Steve Lancaster
FROM: Michael Jenki
DATE: October 26, 19
MEMORANDUM
RE: SEPA Review of City of Tukwila Telecommunications and Right-of-way Plan
(E99-0028)
Project Description:
The Telecommunications and Right-of-way. Management Plan provides a basis for regulating the
use of telecommunication facilities within city right-of-way and other public facilities. The Plan
is an attempt to improve the implementation of the Transportation element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to coordination of non city -owned utilities. The objectives of
the plan are:
• Identify corridors where wired telecommunication facilities should locate
• Identify where facilities should be located within the right-of-way
• Identify a process for permitting and fee collection for right-of-way use
• Identify a pavement mitigation system to preserve the City's investment
• Recommend revisions to the permitting process for wireless facilities
Agencies with jurisdiction:
None
Summary of Primary Impacts:
As this is a non -project action, there are no specific impacts that can be addressed under the 16
elements normally reviewed in the SEPA checklist. The result of adopting the plan will allow
the City to continue regulating the placement of telecommunication facilities within right-of-way
or city owned facilities. Adoption of the plan will also result in the adoption of a process for
permitting and fee collection and the creation of a pavement cut mitigation system. Site specific
projects implemented after the adoption of the plan may require SEPA review of related impacts.
Recommendation:
DNS
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
•
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
TO: Bob Giberson
Steve Lancaster
FROM: Michael Je
DATE: October 26, 1999
RE: Changes to TMC 13.08, Underground Utility Installation
MEMORANDUM
TMC 13.08.090(E) requires the Planning Commission to review and approve screening for all
above ground utility cabinet installation. Staff discovered this in relation to improvements
proposed by TCI as part of their upgrades in this area. Accordingly, an application was
presented to the Planning Commission (L99-0022) at their March, 1999 hearing. The Planning
Commission approved the proposal and also recommended that the code be changed to make this
a decision approved by the Director of Community Development. They also recommended that
specific standards concerning type and height of vegetation be included.
As the City is currently developing a new Telecommunication and Right-of-way management
plan, it seems like the ideal time to include these changes as part of the plan. If the proposed
plan is not the appropriate venue to consider these changes, a separate code amendment will be
required. Please let me know if you would like any input or assistance in pursuing this. A copy
of the code section is attached.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Giberson
FROM: Michael Jenkins
DATE: October 26, 1999
RE: Telecommunications and Right -of -Way Plan
As part of the SEPA review (E99-0028) for the Telecommunications and Right -of -Way Plan, there are a
few changes that should be made. These changes will clarify a number of issues as well as improve the
clarity of the plan.
Page 6-1
• Include a map of city -owned property / facilities
• Include examples of current technology
Page 6-3
• Providers that have been building their networks will begin moving from coverage to capacity,
requiring a greater number of sites but with much smaller profiles. These sites are typically located
on telephone poles, light standards and other forms of infrastructure closer to transportation routes
• The third paragraph is inaccurate in that there are no specific requirements for monopoles that are
codified. Rather, the Planning Commission has consistently required specific mounting styles, color
treatment and other solutions to mitigate related impacts of these facilities
Page 6-5
The section `Zones where Facilities are Permitted' should include the term `outright'
Page 6-6
• Conditional Use Permits require mailed notice when a property is within 500 feet of a residential zone
Pages 6-7 to 6-10
• This section includes Goals and possible code language for the city to adopt. While the proposed
language is adequate and consistent with other jurisdictions, the language itself may too broad.
Much of the proposed language is constructed for City-wide applicability and does not provide
enough distinction to reinforce that it covers city -owned land or facilities only.
6300 Southcenter Boulevart, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
CHAPTER 6
WIRELESS FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the City's (Department of Community Develop-
ment) process for granting conditional use permits and applicable zoning
code issues for wireless facilities. It also includes a review of other jurisdic-
tions policies and provides recommendations on guidelines for permitting
the placement of wirelessfacilities on City property.
Currently, there are two types of wireless technologies available in the South
King County area, cellular (or first generation service), and personal com-
munications services (PCS) or second generation service. Third generation
technology is under development, however proposed standards for equip-
ment and signals have not yet been decided.
Cellular communications use the 800MHz band to provide two-way, ana-
log or digital signals to transmit voice over wireless communication units.
PCS allows the use of an all -in -one device that incorporates wireless mo-
bile phones with voice and data transmission, including paging, caller ID,
call waiting, wireless fax and fax -modems. PCS uses digital signals and the
1900MHz band. Within this band several ranges are assigned to different
carriers within each market. PCS, as well as first generation wireless com-
munication is generally limited within each continent.
Third generation communication is an expansion of PCS type service in the
2GHz band. This technology operates within a spectrum of 230MHz. The
standards for operations and services are still in the process of standardiza-
tion. These systems will aim a global communication
Both cellular and PCS technologies require land-based transmission and
signal amplification devices to relay signals between the origin and destina-
tion callers. These signals require line -of -sight between towers, and can be
blocked by dense foliage, large buildings, tunnels, and other structures. PCS
providers that use satellites in their networks are less plagued by these chal-
lenges.
Historically, cellular and PCS providers have competed with each other to
locate facilities at the highest locations in a city, on water towers, tall build -
BACKGROUND
terry MAP
Te.Lott c Lo (sr • e
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faa/ities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management P/an
Page 6-1
August 1999
• •
area. There is no confirmation of which providers this company will sup-
port, or if any carriers are proposing to sell their tower assets.
There are currently seven providers of wireless services in South King
County: Sprint, US West Wireless, GTE, Nextel, Western Wireless
(Voicestream), Airtouch and AT&T Wireless. The City has not been ap-
proached by any of the paging -only or intemet-only network providers at
this time. Each of the existing providers is in various stages of "buildout" of
their networks.
The majority of these providers have built their primary networks and are
looking for what are called infill sites. These sites are used for repeaters as
well as new base stations. Often, infill sites are at lower elevations, and can
be hidden more readily as they are used to improve the line -of -sight. These
situations are ideal for tower -only companies, as they make an initial in-
vestment and recoup the cost (and more), from single or multiple tenants.
The City of Tukwila grants approvals for cellular communications facilities
through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, whether they are on pub-
lic or private property, on monopoles, co -locations on an existing mono-
pole, or communications equipment mounted on another existing structure
such as a rooftop or water tower. CUPs are granted under a Type 4 process,
with an open record public hearing and a decision by the Planning Commis-
sion, with the opportunity for appeal to the City Council.
The City has processed about 30 applications for cellular facilities in the
past three years. Many of these approvals have been virtually uncontested
and been granted after minimal discussion at the hearing. Other projects
have been more contentious and required that applicants significantly modify
the proposed location, design or height of their proposals.
City requirements for monopoles require that they be painted to match the
surrounding area. The mounting arms are required to be of the straight arm
or "flower -top" style. Older designs used an open framed triangular box
which are considered by most members of the public to be unsightly. Other
types of cellular equipment, such as flush -mounted devices, need to be
painted or otherwise colored to blend into the host structure. In situations
where two or more providers locate on the same pole, the style of the mounts
must be the same.
CA.wl c✓7
,K D,rH 4114
CO
CO vc✓ 4 Ac
C toy
PERMITTING
PROCESS
la. µru0- I
CO OA
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 6-3
August 1999
•
In 1997, a group of wireless communications providers worked with a pri-
vate consultant to identify changes to generic city code language that would
meet the needs of a City to regulate design and land use, while streamlining
the process for the providers and meeting the requirements of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996. A review of these recommendations sug-
gested that some of the ideas may be inappropriate for Tukwila. The City of
Tukwila may wish to consider the following changes to it's conditional use
permit as it relates to Wireless Communication Facilities. The following
suggestions are based, in part on recommendations from the 1997 report,
along with recent experiences of wireless communications providers in the
Puget Sound and Portland areas.
• Zones Where Facilities are Permitted — The City may wish to
identify zoning classifications where WCF are allowed up to the maximum
height permitted in the zone. This type of permission is most used in heavy
industrial zones, some light industrial zones, and some commercial zones.
Generally, approvals of WCFs are conditional uses or prohibited outright in
residential zones, especially single family. They are also usually conditional
uses in areas zoned for open space, parks or agriculture and forestry uses.
• Facilities to be Permitted Outright - Wireless communication
facilities should continue to be permitted under a staff -approved develop-
ment permit if the proposed antenna array is collocated on an existing tower.
They should also be permitted on a staff -approved basis when they are pro-
posed for location on an existing building or structure on public property
(including public rights of way with controlling agency approval), and does
not increase the height of the structure by more than 10 feet. This serves to
encourage providers to locate their WCF on existing WCF structures, where
there is already a visual impact or that the impact can be minimized through
hiding flush -mount panels on an existing building.
The provision for locating on public property can serve as an incentive,
although the City may wish to exclude sensitive properties such as parks
from the outright approval and make WCFs on these sites a conditional use.
• Administrative review and permit — Departmental directors may
approve wireless communication facilities proposed on an existing build-
ing or other structure, other.than an existing wireless communication struc-
SUGGESTED
CHANGES FOR
TUKWILA TO
CONSIDER
1 i" dude- 4c7"^
Dom'✓t�y�-i"
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faci/ities
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management P/an
Page 6-5
August 1999
• •
ture that is not City -owned. These approvals shall go to the planning com-
mission if the addition of the antenna array increases the height of the exist-
ing structure over 20 feet.
■ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)— A CUP, including a hearing be-
fore the planning commission, should be required when the facility is pro-
posed in a residential zone or within 150 feet of a residential zone, or when
the height of an existing structure is proposed to increase by more than 20
feet, or sensitive public facilities such as parks.
Analysis
There has been some discussion within City staff as to whether certain
cellular facilities should be approved through a Type 1 (decision by a spe-
cific department) or Type 2 (decision by a specified department director)
process. Because many of the proposals are not contentious and current
trends are moving toward installing low -height, smaller and hidden de-
vices, there are some who believe it would serve the city's interests to make
these Directorial decisions and leave the more challenging or contentious
ones to the Planning Commission.
Within City staff, there may be some support encouraging WCF location
on city property through an administrative process.
Administrative Approvals
- Administrative approvals for well-defined situations can reduce the
burden on City administration to meet the legal requirements for
hearings and planning commission decisions.
+ Administrative approvals can be appealed if the applicant or other
party feels the decision was incorrect.
+ For situations where co -location is proposed on an existing tower
or building, the major decision has already been made and the addi-
tional communications facilities are not likely to have a significant
impact.
+ Speeds up the approvals process for the applicant with a simple
project.
Page 6-6
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
aty of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
• •
+ Administrative approvals for location on City property could serve
as incentive for providers to locate on public property. Such loca-
tion can result in added revenue for the City.
▪ Possibility of arbitrary decisions. Administrative decisions, made
outside of a public process can sometimes reflect the bias of the
decision maker.
▪ Need for specific and detailed criteria for determining when an ad-
ministrative decision is appropriate and how to make that decision.
▪ Hearings process allows public input and can provide insight into
local issues hidden to the City decision maker.
▪ Possibility of increased appeals to the planning commission. There
would still be fewer total planning commission decisions, however
the appeals process would likely extend the length of time between
application and decision beyond the current Type 4.
Location on City Property/Public Right of Way
+ Many existing potential sites (electric poles, traffic signal poles, light
standards)
+ Aesthetic impacts on sites such as substations or existing utility poles
minimal
+ City may be able to generate income from site rental or gain ser-
vices in lieu of rental fee
▪ Some sites are sensitive (e.g. parks) where aesthetic impact may be
too great
▪ Some sites may not be feasible from safety or other standpoints
▪ Public feeling that City is "selling out"
Goal: Allow wireless communication facilities (WCF) in the broadest range
ofzones possible, with the appropriate approval processes and performance
standards.
Wireless communication support towers are allowed in nonresiden-
POSSIBLE CODE
LANGUAGE
Th, R,r2a'.D
' 44d c.D ' PPW ie
c rry eu �
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilites
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-7
August 1999
• •
ing immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential
space.
Attached WCFs are permitted outright in zones other than those
designated as residential and those properties with the primary use
designation as recreation or open space. In these zones, attached
WCFs may be permitted as a conditional use.
Goal: Encourage WCFs to attach to existing buildings, structures, emer-
gency communications antennas, and to share these locations with other
providers. As provided above, create incentives for collocation such as
allowing increased height or expedited processing when collocation is
planned for or demonstrated. Recognize that collocation may not be prac-
tically or technically feasible in certain locations or circumstances. Also
recognize antitrust limitations on requirements that various industry pro-
viders share proprietary information regarding proposed site locations,
coverage areas and scheduling.
An FCC licensed wireless communications provider proposing a
new WCF with a support structure shall demonstrate to the reason-
able satisfaction of the Planning Commission that no existing tower
or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evi-
dence submitted to demonstrate that no suitable existing site is avail-
able may include any of the following:
• No existing towers or structures are located in the geographic
area required to meet the applicant's engineering require-
ments to provide service coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to
meet applicant's engineering requirements to provide ser-
vice coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient struc-
tural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna
and equipment.
• The proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic inter
ference with the antenna on the existing tower or structure
or the existing antenna will cause interference with the
applicant's antenna.
• The fees, costs or provisions required by the owner to share
an existing site are unreasonable. Unreasonable is defined
as a cost that exceeds the cost of developing a new antenna.
• The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting fac-
tors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
Chapter 6 - Wireless facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-9
August 1999
SUMMARY
• •
Goal: Provide streamlined application requirements for WCF on existing
buildings or support structures. Develop application requirements for con-
ditional use WCFs that are performance based
For WCFs that are proposed for collocation on an existing support
structure or tower, or for attachment to an existing building, a build-
ing permit application with notification to the planning department
of such application, and recitation of zoning, height and building
location is required.
For WCFs that are proposed to include a new support tower or struc-
ture, the application for a Conditional Use permit will require site
plans that include site and landscape/screening plans to scale; a de-
scription of the proposed structure with documentation establishing
its structural integrity for the proposed use; a statement describing
excess space and whether it will be leased; proof or ownership or
authorization to use the proposed site; copies of any needed ease-
ments; area map identifying any existing WCF towers and an analysis
of area containing existing topographical contours, buildings and
other factors influencing tower location; proof that no other fea-
sible sites exist; and a description of design treatments to reduce the
aesthetic impact of the proposed site.
Based on general trends in the wireless communication industry, there will
be a continued demand to locate wireless communication antennas, relay
facilities and other devices on individual support structures as well as on
existing buildings and other supporting structures. Traditionally, Tukwila
has required a conditional use permit for all of these types of facilities,
except when a second provider chooses to collocate with an existing pro-
vider on a structure.
Trends in permitting throughout Washington and other areas are showing
that Cities are allowing WCFs on existing towers or on existing buildings
through a building permit process, as long as the building is not in a resi-
dential zone or contain a residential use. In these cases a Conditional Use
Permit is required. CUPs are also usually required for new WCFs that
include support structures. There is also a trend to reduce permitting re-
quirements for WCF proposals that use existing city or other public prop-
erty. The City may also want to consider following these trends.
The City may also want to revise it's code language to facilitate the use of
certain types of City facilities for WCF location under a building permit
Page 6-10
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faalities
Gty of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management P/an
tP
ire
KING
COUNT
SEATTLE
\ t4
.t..Bi 91
SCALE
1.400 0 750 4.400 2.800
1 x400.:.000 FT
[`k
G�J
111:474 _Wen Ng
117
sw_4xm sr
LEGEND
n97
PROJECTS
UTILITIES
TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure 4
Wil 1
I'.A(! 1'!(.
6405 SI NIRB09 AVE.
BEAVERTON, OREGON
97008-7120
TEL (905)525-0455
FAX: (503)528-0770
VIII VRFACBTCCON
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
- 2 1999
• • g_ e=i
Control No.
Epic File No.
PERMIT CENTER
A. BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Right of Way Management and Telecommunications Plan
2. Name of applicant:
City of Tukwila, Public Works Department
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Bob Giberson
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 433-0179
4. Date checklist prepared:
August,1999
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Adoption by the City Council of this plan in the 4th Quarter, 1999.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Do not know.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal:
None.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Do not know.
• •
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of
your proposal and should not be summarized here.
The Telecommunications and Right of Way Management Plan is the first step
for the City to identify: corridors where wired telecommunications
facilities should locate, where within the right of way they should be
allowed, processes for permitting and fee collection, creating a pavement
cut mitigation system, and suggesting revisions to wireless facility
permitting processes.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the
range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
The plan applies to all right of way within the City of Tukwila
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Portions of the City rights of'way are adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas.
2
• •
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (underline one): Flat, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, mountainous, other.
Does not apply.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does not apply.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Does not apply.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling
or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does not apply.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If
so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
Does not apply.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to
the earth, if any:
Does not apply.
3
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal
(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts
to air, if any:
Does not apply.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide
names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
Does not apply.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within
200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and
attach available plans.
Does not apply.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of
fill material.
Does not apply.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if
known.
Does not apply
4
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note
location on the site plan.
Does not apply.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
Does not apply.
b. Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic
sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .;
agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)
are expected to serve.
Does not apply.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
Does not apply.
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method
of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known).
Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?
If so, describe.
Does not apply.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
Does not apply.
5
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
4. Plants
a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree; alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree; fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage,
other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
Does not apply.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
5. Animals
a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Fresh and Marine
Water Fowl (migratory and resident)
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: muskrat and otter
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
Does not apply.
6
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Does not apply.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Does not apply.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will
be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Does not apply.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans
of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Does not apply.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Does not apply.
7
b. Noise:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:
traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
Does not apply.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
8
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Does not apply.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Does not apply.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Does not apply.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Does not apply.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Does not apply.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Does not apply.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
Does not apply.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Does not apply.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
9
• •
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Does not apply.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low income housing.
Does not apply.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)
proposed?
Does not apply.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of
day would it mainly occur?
Does not apply.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
Does not apply.
10
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
Does not apply.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if
any:
Does not apply.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
Does not apply.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant, if any:
Does not apply.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the
site? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
Does not apply.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
11
• •
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if
any.
Does not apply.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does not apply.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
Does not apply.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements
to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
Does not apply.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail,
or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
Does not apply.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any:
Does not apply.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
other)? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
12
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
Does not apply.
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural
gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system,
other.
Does not apply.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on the
site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Does not apply.
13
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• •
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
A4,,,,,,
Bob Giberson, P.E., Senior Engineer
Date Submitted: ‘ti7-'i Z6 41
14
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON -PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a
proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental
Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and
the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
Adopt a Telecommunications and Right of Way Management
Plan that will:
• Identify corridors where wired telecommunications
facilities should locate;
• Identify where within the right of way they should be
allowed;
• Identify a process for permitting and fee collection for
right of way use;
• Identify a pavement cut mitigation system to preserve
the City's investment; and
• Review and recommend revisions to the permitting process
for wireless facilities.,
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
1. Adopt the proposed Telecommunications and Right of Way
Management Plan; or
2. Continue to operate under the status quo without regard
to cumulative impacts to the City's right of ways.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred
course of action:
The preferred alternative is to adopt the proposed Plan
and move towards a managed approach to franchised
telecommunication facilities.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the
Plan?
No.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Prepare Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan amendment along
with the companion Transportation Study (being finalized
now) .
15
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
and RIGHT-OF-WAY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF TUKWILA
Final Working Draft
August 18, 1999
Prepared By:
W&H Pacific, Inc.
8405 S.W. Nimbus Avenue
Beaverton OR 97007
(503) 626-0455
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
SEP - 2 9999
PERMIT CENTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Executive Summary ES -1
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Planning Context 1-1
Legal Context 1-2
Plan Structure 1-2
CHAPTER 2 Corridor Identification
and Criteria
Introduction 2-1
Planning Context 2-1
Analysis of Corridors 2-5
Identification of Additional Corridors 2-15
CHAPTER 3 Future Conditions
Adopted Plans 3-1
Relationships Between Zoning and Utility Infrastructure 3-5
Location in the Right -of -Way 3-8
Summary and Recommendations 3-10
CHAPTER 4 Construction and Restoration
Standards, Compensation and
Mitigation Fees
Introduction 4-1
Construction Standards 4-2
Mitigation 4-6
Revenue Rental Approaches 4-11
Standards and Mitigation for Emergency Repair 4-14
Construction Limitation and Requirements 4-16
Summary 4-19
CHAPTER 5 Administrative Process
and Procedures
Introduction 5-1
Franchise Permit 5-2
Right -of -Way Use Permit 5-5
Construction Permits 5-15
CHAPTER 6 Wireless Facilities
Background 6-1
Permitting Process 6-3
Suggested Changes for Tukwila to Consider 6-5
Possible Code Language 6-7
Summary 6-10
Tab/e of Contents
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page -1
August 1999 \,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Revisions to the governance of the telecommunications industry, along
with pending changes to governance of the electric supply industry has
prompted cities nationwide to review their ordinances and city plans to
prepare for anticipated change.
In general, Federal legislation in 1996 set forth standards requiring local
jurisdictions to allow competitive service by multiple providers in tele-
communications. With continued changes in technology, these require-
ments affect services for cable television, voice communication, data trans-
fer and internet access. The Federal legislation also allowed cities, coun-
ties and states to manage the asset of their rights-of-way.
Tukwila has made a significant investment in its urban street system. The
city has also adopted design standards requiring curbs, gutters and side-
walks on new or reconstructed facilities. The City also hosts two interstate
freeways, I-5 and I-405, as well as a segment of State Highway 99. The
total city and state transportation system, when coupled with Tukwila's
linear shape and location in the Puget Sound area make it an ideal location
for long-distance transmission lines, as well as a market for expanded lo-
cal service.
Tukwila also has a significant amount of its land supply developed in com-
mercial businesses and industrial uses. As the business world approaches
the 21" Century, the demands these users place on the telecommunications
infrastructure is anticipated to increase significantly. With the Boeing
Company's corporate headquarters at the former Longacres site, along with
their Plant 2 facility by Boeing Field, they alone have a significant invest-
ment in voice and data telecommunications technology.
PLANNING
CONTEXT
The City decided to undertake a telecommunications and right of way mas-
ter plan. The plan was envisioned to meet several objectives:
• identify corridors where wired telecommunications facilities should
locate;
• identify where within the right of way they should be allowed;
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page ES -1
August 1999
PLAN
STRUCTURE
INTRODUCTION
• identify a process for permitting and fee collection for right-of-
way use;
• identify a pavement mitigation system to preserve the City's in-
vestment; and,
• review and recommend revisions to the permitting process for wire-
less facilities.
The plan also contains a draft ordinance to meet the intent of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the requirements of state law and
local policy regarding fee collection, permitting and construction.
The Telecommunications and Right of Way Management Plan for Tuk-
wila is arranged in six chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides an introduction and context for the plan;
• Chapter 2 identifies corridors for communication facility loca-
tion;
• Chapter 3 identifies other planned actions in Tukwila that pro-
vide opportunities for utility location;
• Chapter 4 identifies construction and restoration standards, as
well as mitigation fees;
• Chapter 5 provides recommendations for administering the
Right -of -Way Management Plan;
• Chapter 6 defines and identifies possible changes to wireless
communications regulation within the City.
CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION AND CRITERIA
Telecommunication facilities can be categorized as backbone, feeder, dis-
tribution or subscriber systems. Backbone systems are the main, large ca-
pacity links in the system that provide either long-distance transmission or
the major service for a particular area. Feeder systems typically connect
into the backbones and serve large subareas of a city. Distribution systems
usually connect to feeder systems and serve neighborhoods or commercial
concentrations such as office parks. Subscriber systems typically tie into
distribution systems and serve individual businesses, local streets or smaller
business centers.
The City's current Comprehensive Plan and Functional Classification maps
(Figure S-1) were reviewed to determine the recommended corridors for
Page ES -2
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan.
04.3287.0002 REV: 04/13/99 P9 .R001 DWG 1,0_51 KT
LEGEND
KING
COUNT
SCALE
"P° o 13o W..00 zeoo
INCA . 2.600 eT
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
TUWLA CITY LIMITS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure S-1
Wil 1
5\( I FIC
6405 31 ROWS AVE.
OGlVER}ON, OREGON
07000-7120
TEL. (903)624-0153
FAX: (303)326-0716
III.INFACRIC.00R
backbone, feeder and distribution systems and whether additional corri-
dors should be designated. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map were
also reviewed to identify areas designated for future intensive develop-
ment where distribution and subscriber corridors may be desirable.
This chapter of the plan identifies a network of arterial, collector and other
streets that could serve as utility corridors where utility providers may
chose to locate distribution or higher order facilities. Discussion regarding
location of utility lines within the corridors and procedures to designate
additional corridors are also provided within the plan.
The Transportation Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, includ-
ing policies and standards for the city's street classifications, was reviewed
to provide a basis for identifying appropriate streets for telecommunica-
tions and utility corridors. Specific areas designated by the Comprehen-
sive plan were also identified as candidates for more intensive develop-
ment, either as office/commercial centers, industrial areas, or residential/
mixed use areas, The areas include Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center
(TUC), and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). Each area will
likely have unique demands for additional telecommunications and other
utility services.
The Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance for the coordination of
non -city -owned utilities. Specific policies call for the City to:
• Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities;
• Require utilities operating within public right-of-way to obtain a fran-
chise (demonstrating proposed service levels consistent with Compre-
hensive Plan forecasts); and
• Encourage the consolidation of facilities to minimize visual impacts
where possible.
However, the plan does not mention the need for the City and utility pro-
viders to coordinate in long-range community planning, or in the plan-
ning/design of transportation facility improvement projects. Such coordi-
nated efforts could help ensure that: 1) future land uses are not located in
areas difficult or cost prohibitive to serve with utilities; 2) the locations of
utility routes are guided through developing areas; and 3) telecommunica-
tions or other utility facilities are installed during roadway construction,
rather than having to be retrofitted into streets and rights-of-way after the
fact (e.g., having to rip up recently improved streets).
Page ES -4
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an,
Corridor Classification
Street corridors were identified as possible utility corridors based on their
functional classification, their location relative to higher intensity land uses,
and the opportunity to provide either backbone -type service or serve large
local subscriber markets. The following transportation corridors were iden-
tified as potential telecommunication corridors:
Corridor
Backbone
Feeder
Distribution
Subscriber
Martin Luther King
Junior Way
x
x
Interurban Avenue
South
x
x
West Valley
Highway
x
x
East Marginal Way
South (north of
Boeing Access Rd.)
x
x
x
Pacific Highway
x
x
x
Orillia Road
x
Southcenter
Boulevard
x
x
Boeing Access Rd.
x
Airport Way South
East Marginal Way
South (south of
Boeing Access Rd.)
x
x
x
Military Road
x
x
Southcenter
Parkway/57th
Avenue South
x
x
Andover Parkway
East and West
x
x
Tukwila Parkway
x
x
S. 154th Street
x
Strander Boulevard
x
S. 180th Street
x
x
Macadam Road
South/51st Avenue
South
x
x
Beacon Avenue
South
x
x
42nd Avenue South
to 40th Avenue
South
x
S. 144th Street
x
x
S. 160th Street
x
S. 200th Street
x
x
S. 68th Avenue
x
x
Klickitat Drive
x
x
48th Avenue South
x
Grady Way
x
S. 178th Street
x
x
61st Avenue South
x
x
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicatrons Management Plan
Page E5-5
August 1999
IDENTIFICATION
OF ADDITIONAL
CORRIDORS
Other corridors that will likely host telecommunications facilities include
the Sound Transit planned commuter rail and light rail lines, as well as the
existing BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific/Southern Pacific
railroad corridors. These systems will likely include communications links
between the stations and along the tracks for train control, as well as for
elements of remote safety monitoring, emergency communication and other
issues.
The corridors shown in Figure S-2 and described above have been identi-
fied as the desired corridors for installation of telecommunications lines.
There may be occasions when it is desirable to add a new corridor to the
list including proposed development, a change of use, or overall corporate
objectives suggest that a provider may want to develop a different corridor
for uses other than provision of service to individual subscribers. The City
needs a process to develop concurrence where a provider seeks to develop
in a corridor not identified in the plan.
REASONS FOR APPROVING NEW CORRIDORS
1. Road (or utilities within a roadway) is planned for reconstruction, pro-
viding an opportunity for installation of conduit for possible future activa-
tion.
2. Road is a new facility being constructed, providing an opportunity for
installation of conduit for possible future activation.
3. Significant new development is proposed with demands on communi-
cation or other private infrastructure (e.g. new corporate office of a com-
puter company is constructed in Tukwila Urban Center). Depending on
the type of development, there may be a general need or tenant -driven
need for a level of communications infrastructure that was not anticipated
at the time this plan was prepared. The plan should be flexible enough that
if a service provider can demonstrate the case for a location not in the plan,
that is also not in violation of construction moratoria or other restrictions,
then use should be granted.
4. Road is primary access to planned high- or medium -density residential
community.
Page ES -6
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an.
SEATTLE
SCALE
r.r0 B 750 r, 2.800
I
r mCr .2000 Fr
1T�r�;;ni
LEGEND
BACKBONE
FEEDER
DISTRIBUTION
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure S-2
W.43R0 5(
WlH
I:-\lllll
6405 s. ROMS AVE.
BEAVERTON. OREGON
8700!-7180
TV: (503)000-0445
8A1f: (503)520-0770
In ..INPIMC.CON
EXISTING PLANS
5. Subject road is primary access to development defined in items 3 or 4
above in another city, requiring interjurisdictional cooperation.
6. Subject road parallels a designated road that is subject to moratorium.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
There are a variety of other City, County and State plans, as well as re-
gional projects that require coordination with utility providers. These
projects may provide an opportunity for the implementing agency to find a
partner in the development. Such projects also require that there is an inte-
grated look at the resource (right-of-way), the host (the City) and the de-
mand (the providers).
Adopted plans include:
- City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 1999-2004 — This plan in-
cludes about $66 million in projects related to operation and maintenance
of the City, and construction of improvement projects for transportation
facilities, parks, storm and sanitary sewers, and other public facilities.
Within this program, there are numerous transportation improvement
projects. Ten projects included either significant construction or construc-
tion over a significant length were identified as possibly supporting con-
current development of conduit or actual fiber lines. There were also five
projects on the sewer and water improvement list which appear to have
potential for joint development with conduit installation.
- Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Plan (RTA Plan) -
The RTA has identified has three projects in the Tukwila area, a light
rail line (LINK), express bus improvements and a commuter rail line
(SOUNDER).
- State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) — There are 4 projects
on this list that are in the Tukwila area and could have some impact or
opportunity on telecommunications lines.
- City of Tukwila Design Standards - The Infrastructure Design and Con-
struction Standards were adopted in 1996. They provide guidance on gen-
eral design and construction, land alteration, streets, storm and surface
water, flood zone control, potable water systems, and sanitary sewer de -
Page ES -8 Executive Summary
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
sign and construction. These standards specify requirements for bonds and
insurance, permits, fees and charges, design requirements, and inspection
requirements. These standards include requirements for new roadways to
include a public utility easement, where telecommunications and other
utility duct, pipes and conduit are to be located. These standards also
specify preferred construction methods and mitigation for construction in
roadways.
Throughout the country, demand for telecommunication services in urban
areas is increasing at rates greater than the local growth rate. As more and
more businesses are identifying ways to use technology, more individual
lines, as well as T-1 lines, fiber and other systems are becoming more
commonplace for small businesses.
Within Tukwila, the residential areas, especially where single family homes
are occupied by middle -to -higher income families, the demand for mul-
tiple telephone lines will continue to increase. Newly developing residen-
tial communities may choose to construct new structures, either rental or
owner -occupied, with dual phone lines as standard. Even hotels have started
equipping individual rooms or suites with voice and data lines, so that
guests may access the internet.
The employment areas of the city, including the Manufacturing Industrial
Center (MIC) for both light and heavy industry, the Tukwila Urban Center
(TUC), and the commercial/light industrial areas (C/LI) east of the Tuk-
wila Urban Center are likely to see an increasing demand for a full array of
voice and data transmission services.
These increased demands will likely require an update of older technol-
ogy and installation of new capacity within the public rights-of-way.
The City should make a point of publicly advertising capital projects at
the design phase, in addition to the required public notice and public hear-
ings process for the CIP. Such advertisement should occur in the Daily
Journal of Commerce as an advertisement for partners in the development
of a particular improvement, wherein the utility partners would contribute
the true cost of design and construction as an add-on to the already planned
CIP project.
FUTURE DEMAND
FOR SERVICES
COORDINATION
OF UTILITIES
AND PLANNED
CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page ES -9
August 1999
LOCATION IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
As CEP projects, along with other agencies' projects, are designed, exist-
ing utilities may undergo relocation or other adjustment. In any case, vir-
tually any public sector project that has any potential to impact existing
utilities has a process of utility coordination built into the design phase to
ensure that the existing services are impacted to a minimal extent or that
relocation from aerial to underground occurs.
Within the telecommunications industry, one of the current practices is
reselling service. In these situations, a provider leases existing or new ca-
pacity from a provider already in place. The reseller does not have as
much money invested in capital facilities and pays the facility owner for
services and use.
As applicants for telecommunications franchises request to construct their
facilities along specific rights-of-way, the City is faced with two major
questions: "is the facility proposed for a designated corridor?" and "where
within the right-of-way is the facility proposed?" For example, telecom-
munications facilities could parallel an existing road under an adjacent
sidewalk or in a public utility easement. Alternately, the facilities could
be placed under street pavement.
On new streets or on existing facilities that are upgraded to new street
standards, the City has clearly defined the location for utilities. New street
construction requires a minimum 10 -foot public utility easement (PUE)
adjacent to and outside of the public right-of-way. Locating utilities in
these designated corridors minimizes future conflicts between utility pro-
viders and street development and maintenance. In many cases, however,
franchise applicants will seek to construct facilities in corridors with exist-
ing streets. If PUEs exist along these corridors, the City can direct new
construction to the easements.
Where PUEs do not exist, the City can minimize disruption to vehicular
traffic by requiring construction under an existing sidewalk. Sidewalk
construction also reduces the potential safety concern of working in a road-
way to both private construction employees and the public. Unlike pave-
ment cuts, the replacement of sidewalk panels does not generally reduce
the life of the facility.
Finally, franchise applicants may request to construct telecommunications
Page ES -10
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
facilities within the paved width of a street. The City currently allows
trench cuts on an exception basis only and has indicated that it will require
directional boring be used as the construction method.
In order to maintain public safety while minimizing cost and disruption to
transportation and utility service, the City should expand its existing ordi-
nances to
1) Grant approvals not only for specific rights-of-way, but also for loca-
tions within those rights-of-way.
2) Grant approvals in this order of preference: 1) in Public Utility Ease-
ments (if available), 2) under sidewalks and 3) under street pavement.
3) Specify the responsibilities of the Applicant in the case of unforeseen
disruption to existing utilities.
4) Amend the Design and Construction Standards to specify standards
for reconstruction of trench cuts including surface and landscape re-
construction standards for concrete sidewalks, other asphalt areas and
PUEs.
CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION STAN-
DARDS, COMPENSATION AND MITIGATION
FEES
In order to develop a recommendation for Tukwila, an array of informa-
tion regarding construction and restoration standards, compensation and
mitigation was collected from other jurisdictions. Both the positive and
negative aspects were reviewed and recommendations were developed for
construction and restoration standards, as well as compensation issues.
Other jurisdictional data and Washington State Law (RCWs) were re-
searched regarding the ability to apply a moratorium to limit trench cuts
on new streets.
Per discussions with City staff, and according to the City's adopted De-
sign and Construction Standards, the City has identified boring as its pre-
ferred method of construction. Open cuts are allowed on an exception ba-
sis only: when roadway conditions warrant or in cases of undue hardship.
RECOMMENDA-
TIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page ES -11
August 1999 ,
The Standards are silent on utilities that are parallel to the roadway, al-
though the typical sections show a 10 -foot minimum utility easement.
Boring has a number of benefits to the City in that it is less disruptive to
the operation of a right-of-way and it causes less damage to the surface of
the facility. Boring can be more costly to a provider if a city does not have
stringent mitigation requirements for trenching.
There may be situations where trenching is acceptable. These include:
• during the construction of a new roadway/reconstruction or widen-
ing of existing roadway;
• along a platted but not developed right-of-way;
• streets where resurfacing or reconstruction is planned (on the
CIP)within two years;
• connections on private property from local streets.
Current City policy for restoration, as identified in existing franchise agree-
ments and construction standards, is that disturbed areas need to be re-
stored to pre -disturbance condition. This requirement should continue, as
it appears to be within the allowable requirements of the Federal Telecom-
munications Act of 1996 and State law.
Cities and counties have a maze of regulations to navigate with regard to
managing their right-of-way for telecommunications and other private utility
services. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) has spe-
cific provisions that were included to assist local jurisdictions in manag-
ing rights-of-way. The TCA also has specific requirements that cities and
counties treat providers in "a competitively neutral manner." The TCA
allows jurisdictions to charge "fair compensation" for the use of rights of
way.
However, long established telecommunications providers have success-
fully argued in court that they, as companies evolved from the original
telegraph services, have contractual agreements dating back over a cen-
tury that grant them use of rights-of-way for no fee. This puts cities in a
quandary because the established companies can hide behind these anti-
quated agreements, and new companies need to be treated in a competi-
tively neutral manner. Thus, in many locales, the new companies cannot
be charged fees for right-of-way use.
Added into the complexities of the Federal law and antiquated operating
agreements are the limitations placed by State law on how cities and coun-
ties treat private utility providers. In Washington, regulation of franchise
fees on utilities is relegated to Chapter 35 of the Revised Code of Wash -
Page ES -12
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
ington (RCW), Miscellaneous Provisions. As discussed in the following
section, the RCW guidance is in conflict with two key sections of the TCA,
as it prohibits jurisdictions from charging for right-of-way use, and it re-
quires that cities treat other public utility providers differently than private
utility providers.
Key issues facing Tukwila include the ability to impose a right-of-way
use fee, ability to treat other public utility providers neutrally, ability to
impose pavement mitigation fees, and the ability to impose a morato-
rium on utility cuts in new pavement.
Under Washington law (RCW 35.21.860) a city is prohibited from impos-
ing a franchise fee "or any other fee or charge of whatever nature or de-
scription" on gas, electric and telephone businesses. A city may, however,
charge private electric, gas and telephone businesses a utility tax of up to
6% under RCW 35.21.865. The restriction on "other fee or charge" may
impair a city's ability to require additional conduit or dark fiber when un-
derground telecommunications installations are made. It may also impair
a city's ability to charge a pavement mitigation fee or a right-of-way use
fee. Cities are allowed to charge a telecommunications or other private
utility provider for recovery of administrative expenses.
There does not appear to be any legislative guidance in the RCW under
sections governing utilities or roadways regarding the implementation of a
moratorium on cuts into new pavement. The requirement to pay a pave-
ment mitigation fee may be of greater issue, as it could be construed to be
"any other fee or charge..." This appears to be in conflict with the provi-
sions in the TCA that allow cities and counties to manage their rights of
way.
The above discussion relates to the planned installation of new facilities or
upgrades to existing ones. Unfortunately, there are occasions where emer-
gencies arise. Weather conditions, construction of other facilities, or other
unexpected situations may occur that constitute an emergency for a utility
provider. The following discussion summarizes a review of other ordi-
nances that define "emergency" and provides a recommendation for Tuk-
wila.
WASHINGTON
STATE LAW
RESTRICTIONS
STANDARDS AND
MITIGATION FOR
EMERGENCY REPAIR
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicadons Management Plan
Page ES -13
August 1999
PERMITTING
PROCESS
In general, the City would be protecting it's interests best if it provided a
definition of "Emergency" in the Code and provided for emergency re-
pairs to utility systems as needed at the discretion of the provider, with
notice to the City. It is recommended that Tukwila adopt a definition of
"Emergency" and include a section in its ordinance allowing for a provider's
designee to commence repair or emergency work as reasonably required
under the circumstances, provided the provider notifies the public works
director as soon as possible, if advance notice is not practical.
In some cases, emergency repairs to underground utilities require pave-
ment cuts, sidewalk excavation or other disturbances to surfaces in the
right-of-way. None of the sample ordinances reviewed contained special
provisions for restoration of emergency repairs. Requirements for war-
ranty of repairs is also not specifically stated for temporary or emergency
restoration. Many of the codes reviewed contain special provisions allow-
ing for temporary restoration. In discussions with telecommunication pro-
viders and their construction contractors, these types of provisions are per-
ceived as necessary.
In some emergency occurrences, especially where bad weather is involved,
the repair to the utility line may be easily completed. However, conditions
may not be ideal for restoration of landscaping, sidewalk or pavement ar-
eas.
It is recommended that Tukwila include language in its ordinance that al-
lows for temporary restoration of right-of-way in emergency situations.
Such language should include requirements to notify the public works di-
rector before undertaking permanent restoration, to use an approved traffic
control plan (if needed) during construction of permanent restoration, and
to use temporary warning signs (e.g. "bump" or "steel plate" signs) while
interim repairs are in place.
Tukwila's current system requires separate approvals for franchise, right-
of-way and construction permits. Commentary from providers is that they
would like to see some type of "one-stop shopping" where they could get
all of the permits under one application.
Notification
It is important to define two categories of notification in a utilities ordi-
nance. The first is notification to the City when the provider is going to
Page ES -14 Executive Summary
August 1999 City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
begin activity in public right-of-way. The second is to provide notice to
the affected public of the activity.
Typically, conditions specified on permits require that the City receive
written notification of the planned beginning of activity within a set num-
ber of days before activity starts.
Notification of the affected public is less defined. The affected public can
vary with projects.
The recommendation for Tukwila, to ensure that the city's interests are
protected and that the residents and business community get the best infor-
mation possible, is threefold:
1. Notice of Construction - Construction permits for activity in the public
right-of-way should include a standard condition that the permittee or its
contractor provide the City written notice, to be received by the City no
less than seven days before construction is scheduled to begin.
2. Adjacent Property Notice - At the time of permit application, the per-
mittee shall provide the City with a certified list of properties adjacent to
the right-of-way. The permittee will mail a letter to the mailing list notify-
ing them of the construction at the same time as the notice to the City, and
prepare an affidavit certifying that letters were mailed.
3. Street User Notice — For projects that will require actual detours of traf-
fic lasting in excess of five working days, other than single lane closures
with flaggers, the road shall be posted not fewer than seven days before
construction begins.
Construction Procedures
City Design and Construction Standards, sections G4.0, R4.0, R4.2, D4.0
and S4.0 all provide a basis for construction procedures and requirements.
It is recommended that the City define a standard set of construction re-
quirements that can be used as a preface for each of these subareas of the
design and construction standards. There are areas where the construction
of the various facilities overlap and it is not clearly stated, for example,
that construction of a roadway trench for sewer installation requires traffic
protection per MUTCD.
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page ES -15
August 1999
INTRODUCTION
For example, each subsection would start out:
X4.0 Construction
All work performed in the construction of public or private infra-
structure, roads, water, sewer or storm water systems, including
construction within City rights of way and easements, shall be per
approved plans only. The contractor is required to maintain a set of
approved plans and permits on the job site, whenever work is be-
ing accomplished. Record drawings (see definitions) will be re-
quired at the completion of the project and prior to final accep-
tance. All work is to be performed in accordance with all appli-
cable Federal, State and local safety laws. Any construction affect-
ing operation of a roadway will require an approved traffic control
plan, including devices per the MUTCD.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND PROCE-
DURES
This chapter of the plan identifies, evaluates and recommends procedures
to insure the Right -of --Way Management Plan will be adhered to. The rec-
ommended process resembles the City's current permitting process, with
specific requirements and criteria for new construction, routine repair/main-
tenance activities, and emergency repair. The focus is on three types of
permits and approvals:
Franchise
.es Right-of-way
Construction
Franchise approvals grant the authority to provide a specific service or
services. The right-of-way permit provides approval for a specific loca-
tion and the construction permit specifies the conditions for the actual in-
stallation of the facility.
The City currently requires cable television carriers and providers to ob-
tain franchises for service. They have dealt with fiber optic and other
telecommunication providers on a case-by-case basis. One purpose of
developing a Right -of -Way Management Plan and Ordinance is to meet
the requirements of Federal law to provide nondiscriminatory, competi-
tive access for telecommunications carriers and providers.
Under State law it is legal for the City to recover the cost of administering
Page E5-16
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%rommunicadons Management Plan
the permit process. It is also legal for the City to charge up to 6% of the
carrier or provider's gross revenue as a tax.
The draft franchise ordinance in the Appendix includes some additional
language to strengthen the purpose of the chapter, and to provide defini-
tions that are specific to telecommunications and public right-of-way is-
sues. One proposed section allows the City to determine a fair and reason-
able compensation, provided nothing shall prohibit the applicant and City
from agreeing on such compensation. This section allows the City to charge
a fee, if RCW 35.21.860 is ever changed. The fees section is specific to
relate to application fees and recovery of all administrative costs, as well
as maintenance incurred by the City related to use of the right-of-way.
In most jurisdictions, the granting of a franchise does not guarantee the
granting of a right-of-way use permit. In most cases, the franchise process
gives the City the opportunity to review the applicant and it's ability to
serve the community. The right-of-way permit process gives the City a
chance to review the physical proposal.
Currently, the City grants permits for work in the right-of-way to franchise
utilities through an over-the-counter franchise utility permit. Non -fran-
chise utilities are subject to the City's site plan review process. In some
cases, a non -franchise utility leasing capacity or facilities from a franchise
utility can take advantage of the franchise utility's ability to avoid a more
detailed permit process.
Most of the ordinances reviewed are specific in separating the franchise
from the right-of-way permit. In general, the franchise allows the service
to occur, while the right-of-way permit allows the physical facilities to be
located in the right-of-way. The third component of permitting is the con-
struction permit. This permit allows the actual construction and prescribes
the construction techniques and mitigation required for the development
of facilities in the public right-of-way or on private property.
One risk in establishing new code provisions is that there may be some
area of the city code or an existing agreement that is in conflict. The rec-
ommended code language provides a section granting existing franchises,
city property leases and permits to remain under their current requirements
until such time as they expire or are extended at the sole option of the
permit holder. At that time the new requirements will be enforced.
Based on the requirements of state and Federal law, including the Tele-
communications Act of 1996, there is a need to ensure that the terms and
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page ES -17
August 1999
conditions of a franchise granted to one provider or carrier are not substan-
tially different from the terms and conditions granted to another carrier.
State and federal laws allow different types of services to be charged dif-
ferent rates. For example, single family residences and commercial lines
may be charged differently. Many of the ordinances reviewed included
sections prohibiting discrimination in providing service, including terms,
conditions, rates and charges, if customers are situated similarly. Many of
these ordinances also require the provider to offer its services to the city at
its most favored rate for similar users. Many cities also reserve the right to
negotiate more favorable rates or free service in lieu of other obligations
placed on the franchise.
The second part of the sample ordinance includes provisions specifically
related to right-of-way use by utilities and telecommunications facilities.
This part includes notification requirements, right-of-way and construc-
tion permit requirements, safety and protection requirements, provision
for emergency repair, insurance, indemnification and performance bond-
ing. This section also includes construction standards for design and in-
stallation of facilities in the public right-of-way.
In general, the application for right-of-way use by a utility should not raise
concerns of the public and should be a Type 2 administrative decision. The
notice of application should be published and allow for public comment,
as with all administrative land use -type decisions. The City may want to
consider allowance for a written request for a hearing on the application.
It may be in both the City's and the applicant's best interest to allow for a
combined hearing on the ordinance granting the franchise and the permit
for right-of-way use, if a hearing is requested.
The City has expressed an interest in directing the location of utilities in
the right-of-way. The ordinance should clearly define the preferred loca-
tion to be existing underground duct where capacity permits. If new ca-
pacity is being created, the preferred location is the public utility easement
behind the sidewalk. If such easement is not available, then the preferred
location is under the sidewalk. The least preferred location is under the
traveled roadway.
The City should allow for continuation of above ground location where
there are no short- to midterm plans for undergrounding facilities. In situ-
ations where a utility provider has existing facilities underground, any ad-
ditional facilities or services should be required to be underground also.
Page ES -18
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS
The City currently requires a construction permit for any construction in
the right-of-way. Issues addressed in this section include insurance, in-
demnification, and process for getting a permit. This section includes re-
quirements for safety, traffic protection and detours, and restoration. It
also includes provisions for emergency repairs and temporary restoration
of emergency repairs.
In identifying construction standards, the ordinance should cover general
provisions, and be specific regarding responsibility. Because of the nature
of utility construction projects, the construction specifics of a particular
project will likely need to be determined on a case by case basis, based on
type of utility and service level, existing and planned facilities in the right-
of-way, and other factors. The construction standards should begin with a
general statement regarding the applicability of the standards and the need
for compliance with federal, state and local codes rules and regulations as
defined for the specific type of facility.
The City has identified the preferred construction method as directional
bore. The least desired method has been identified as trenching. There are
some cases, especially emergency situations, where trenching may be the
only option. The City should consider allowing trenching in cases where
it is the expeditious means to address an emergency situation or will have
minimal negative impact on the right-of-way.
Construction permits shall be granted through an application process, ex-
cept as exempted by other laws. The application process should request
information similar to that required in the application for franchise and
right-of-way use permits:
The City may want to allow the provider to pay for a contracted inspector
rather than pay for the City's inspector to be on-site. This will remove
some of the burden on the City.
As with other types of construction projects, the permittee should be re-
quired to have a copy of the construction permit and conditions, as well as
the approved plans at the construction site. These documents should be
available for inspection by representatives of the City at all times when
construction work is occurring.
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan
Page ES -19
August 1999
Page ES -20
Au1
BACKGROUND
WIRELESS FACILITIES
Currently, there are two types of wireless technologies available in the
South King County area, cellular (or first generation service), and per-
sonal communications services (PCS) or second generation service. Third
generation technology is under development, however proposed standards
for equipment and signals have not yet been decided.
Cellular communications use the 800MHz band to provide two-way, ana-
log or digital signals to transmit voice over wireless communication units.
PCS allows the use of an all -in -one device that incorporates wireless mo-
bile phones with voice and data transmission, including paging, caller ID,
call waiting, wireless fax and fax -modems. PCS uses digital signals and
the 1900MHz band. Within this band several ranges are assigned to differ-
ent carriers within each market. PCS, as well as first generation wireless
communication is generally limited within each continent.
Third generation communication is an expansion of PCS type service in
the 2GHz band. This technology operates within a spectrum of 230MHz.
The standards for operations and services are still in the process of stan-
dardization. These systems will aim a global communication
Both cellular and PCS technologies require land-based transmission and
signal amplification devices to relay signals between the origin and desti-
nation callers. These signals require line -of -sight between towers, and can
be blocked by dense foliage, large buildings, tunnels, and other structures.
PCS providers that use satellites in their networks are less plagued by these
challenges.
gust 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions
placing an outright moratorium on cell facilities, and requires that any limi-
tations not serve as a disincentive to enter into a particular market. Most
cities have been able to amend their development codes and design stan-
dards to meet their needs, as well.
There are currently seven providers of wireless services in South King
County: Sprint, US West Wireless, GTE, Nextel, Western Wireless
(Voicestream), Airtouch and AT&T Wireless. The City has not been ap-
proached by any of the paging -only or internet-only network providers at
this time. Each of the existing providers is in various stages of "buildout"
of their networks.
The majority of these providers have built their primary networks and are
looking for what are called infill sites. These sites are used for repeaters as
well as new base stations. Often, infill sites are at lower elevations, and
can be hidden more readily as they are used to improve the line -of -sight.
These situations are ideal for tower -only companies, as they make an ini-
tial investment and recoup the cost (and more), from single or multiple
tenants.
The City of Tukwila grants approvals for cellular communications facili-
ties through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, whether they are on
public or private property, on monopoles, co -locations on an existing mono-
pole, or communications equipment mounted on another existing struc-
ture such as a rooftop or water tower. CUPs are granted under a Type 4
process, with an open record public hearing and a decision by the Planning
Commission, with the opportunity for appeal to the City Council.
The City has processed about 30 applications for cellular facilities in the
past three years. Many of these approvals have been virtually uncontested
and been granted after minimal discussion at the hearing. Other projects
have been more contentious and required that applicants significantly
modify the proposed location, design or height of their proposals.
Other Examples
The permitting process of a variety of communities in Washington and
Oregon were reviewed to identify the similarities and differences in their
wireless communication facility (WCF) permitting requirements.
• Development Permit — Everyjurisdiction reviewed had some form
PERMITTING
PROCESS
Executive Summary
C/ty of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management P/an
Page ES -21
August 1999,
SUGGESTED
CHANGES FOR
TUKWILA TO
CONSIDER
of administrative process for granting development permits. In cities where
conditional use permits or other special approvals are needed, these are in
addition to a basic development permit and are often granted through a
planning commission or design review process.
■ Conditional Use Permits — Many larger cities have listed WCFs
as allowable uses in under a building or general development permit par-
ticular zones, primarily commercial and industrial areas. In other cases
WCFs, are expressly prohibited (e.g. single family zones) and are allowed
as a conditional use in others.
■ Level of review — In most cases, conditional use permits follow
the Type 4 process identified in Tukwila, with approval granted by a plan-
ning commission or design review board. Where only a development per-
mits is required, it is usually granted under an administrative decision pro-
cess at the staff or department director level.
• Exemptions from CUP, where Required — Some jurisdictions
have allowed exemptions from conditional use permits where communi-
cation facilities are to be located on an existing structure with communica-
tions uses. Examples where location on city property or existing city struc-
tures was justification for exemption from CUP have been adopted in few
locations, however they are still subject to strict design or visual impact
criteria.
• Proof of Need — Virtually every larger city has a requirement to
show, in the case of a new WCF that is not being located on an existing
pole or other structure, that there are no viable options for co -location.
• Design standards — Most major cities and urban counties had
requirements that monopoles be colored to match the surroundings and
that equipment stations be screened with vegetation and/or fencing. Many
had requirements for flush -mounted arrays to be painted to match the host
structure.
In 1997, a group of wireless communications providers worked with a
private consultant to identify changes to generic city code language that
would meet the needs of a City to regulate design and land use, while
streamlining the process for the providers and meeting the requirements of
the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. A review of these recom-
mendations suggested that some of the ideas may be inappropriate for
Page ES -22
August 1999
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te/communications Management Plan,
Tukwila. The City of Tukwila may wish to consider the following changes
to it's conditional use permit as it relates to Wireless Communication Fa-
cilities. The following suggestions are based, in part on recommendations
from the 1997 report, along with recent experiences of wireless communi-
cations providers in the Puget Sound and Portland areas.
• Zones Where Facilities are Permitted — The City may wish to
identify zoning classifications where WCF are allowed up to the maxi-
mum height permitted in the zone. This type of permission is most used in
heavy industrial zones, some light industrial zones, and some commercial
zones. Generally, approvals of WCFs are conditional uses or prohibited
outright in residential zones, especially single family. They are also usu-
ally conditional uses in areas zoned for open space, parks or agriculture
and forestry uses.
• Facilities to be Permitted Outright - Wireless communication
facilities should continue to be permitted under a staff -approved develop-
ment permit if the proposed antenna array is collocated on an existing
tower. They should also be permitted on a staff -approved basis when they
are proposed for location on an existing building or structure on public
property (including public rights of way with controlling agency approval),
and does not increase the height of the structure by more than 10 feet. This
serves to encourage providers to locate their WCF on existing WCF struc-
tures, where there is already a visual impact or that the impact can be mini-
mized through hiding flush -mount panels on an existing building.
The provision for locating on public property can serve as an incentive,
although the City may wish to exclude sensitive properties such as parks
from the outright approval and make WCFs on these sites a conditional
use.
• Administrative review and permit — Departmental directors may
approve wireless communication facilities proposed on an existing build-
ing or other structure, other than an existing wireless communication struc-
ture that is not City -owned. These approvals shall go to the planning com-
mission if the addition of the antenna array increases the height of the
existing structure over 20 feet.
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP)— A CUP, including a hearing be-
fore the planning commission, should be required when the facility is pro-
posed in a residential zone or within 150 feet of a residential zone, or when
the height of an existing structure is proposed to increase by more than 20
feet, or sensitive public facilities such as parks.
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page ES -23
August 1999,
Administrative Approvals
There has been some discussion within City staff as to whether certain
cellular facilities should be approved through a Type 1 (decision by a spe-
cific department) or Type 2 (decision by a specified department director)
process. Because many of the proposals are not contentious and current
trends are moving toward installing low -height, smaller and hidden de-
vices, there are some who believe it would serve the city's interests to
make these Directorial decisions and leave the more challenging or con-
tentious ones to the Planning Commission.
Within City staff, there may be some support encouraging WCF location
on city property through an administrative process.
+ Administrative approvals for well-defined situations can reduce the
burden on City administration to meet the legal requirements for
hearings and planning commission decisions.
+ Administrative approvals can be appealed if the applicant or other
party feels the decision was incorrect.
+ For situations where co -location is proposed on an existing tower
or building, the major decision has already been made and the ad-
ditional communications facilities are not likely to have a signifi-
cant impact.
+ Speeds up the approvals process for the applicant with a simple
project.
+ Administrative approvals for location on City property could serve
as incentive for providers to locate on public property, resulting in
added revenue for the City.
▪ Possibility of arbitrary decisions. Administrative decisions, made
outside of a public process can sometimes reflect the bias of the
decision maker.
- Need for specific and detailed criteria for determining when an ad-
ministrative decision is appropriate and how to make that decision.
- Hearings process allows public input and can provide insight into
local issues hidden to the City decision maker.
Page ES -24
August 1999
Executive Summary.
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
Possibility of increased appeals to the planning commission. There
would still be fewer total planning commission decisions, however
the appeals process would likely extend the length of time between
application and decision beyond the current Type 4.
POSSIBLE CODE
LANGUAGE
The Plan includes a list of possible goals and code language for inclusion
into the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, as they relate to
wireless communication
SUMMARY
Based on general trends in the wireless communication industry, there will
be a continued demand to locate wireless communication antennas, relay
facilities and other devices on individual support structures as well as on
existing buildings and other supporting structures. Traditionally, Tukwila
has required a conditional use permit for all of these types of facilities,
except when a second provider chooses to collocate with an existing pro-
vider on a structure.
Trends in permitting throughout Washington and other areas are showing
that Cities are allowing WCFs on existing towers or on existing buildings
through a building permit process, as long as the building is not in a resi-
dential zone or contain a residential use. In these cases a Conditional Use
Permit is required. CUPS are also usually required for new WCFs that
include support structures. There is also a trend to reduce permitting re-
quirements for WCF proposals that use existing city or other public prop-
erty. The City may also want to consider following these trends.
The City may also want to revise it's code language to facilitate the use of
certain types of City facilities for WCF location under a building permit
rather than a CUP. Use of city property could provide a small amount of
income for the city.
These changes will not likely have an adverse impact on the city. Most of
the applications for WCFs are not contentious, and while requiring a plan-
ning commission approval, they likely could be processed administratively.
Under the proposed system, new towers/monopoles and other facilities
that could likely be contentious, would still undergo planning commission
review. The proposed changes could reduce administrative burden on staff
to prepare for planning commission hearings, and allow the commission
to focus on more important issues and decisions.
Executive Summary
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page ES -25
August 1999
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Revisions to the governance of the telecommunications industry, along with
pending changes to governance of the electric supply industry has prompted
cities nationwide to review their ordinances and city plans to prepare for
anticipated change.
In general, Federal legislation in 1996 set forth standards requiring local
jurisdictions to allow competitive service by multiple providers in telecom-
munications. With continued changes in technology, these requirements af-
fect services for cable television, voice communication, data transfer and
interne access.
The Federal legislation also allowed cities, counties and states to manage the
asset of their rights-of-way.
Tukwila has made a significant investment in its urban street system. The
city has also adopted design standards requiring curbs, gutters and sidewalks
on new or reconstructed facilities. The City also hosts two interstate free-
ways, I-5 and I-405, as well as a segment of State Highway 99. The total city
and state transportation system, when coupled with Tukwila's linear shape
and location in the Puget Sound area make it an ideal location for long-
distance transmission lines, as well as a market for expanded local service.
Tukwila also has a significant amount of its land supply developed in com-
mercial businesses and industrial uses. As the business world approaches
the 21m Century, the demands these users place on the telecommunications
infrastructure is anticipated to increase significantly. With the Boeing
Company's corporate headquarters at the former Longacres site, along with
their Plant 2 facility by Boeing Field, they alone have a significant invest-
ment in voice and data telecommunications technology.
PLANNING
CONTEXT
The City decided to undertake a telecommunications and right of way mas-
ter plan. The plan was envisioned to meet several objectives:
• identify corridors where wired telecommunications facilities should
locate;
Chapter 1 - Introduction
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 1-1
August 1999
LEGAL
CONTEXT
PLAN
STRUCTURE
■ identify where within the right of way they should be allowed;
• identify a process for permitting and fee collection for right of way
use;
• identify a pavement mitigation system to preserve the City's invest-
ment; and,
• review and recommend revisions to the permitting process for wire-
less facilities.
The plan also contains a draft ordinance to meet the intent of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the requirements of state law and local
policy regarding fee collection, permitting and construction.
The Revised Code of Washington, through it's provisions on public utilities
and transportation, allows Cities to manage rights of way, protect public
safety and public interests, and collect taxes or fees based on the telecommu-
nications provider's receipts.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows cities to manage their
rights-of-way and other public properties in the public interest and to re-
cover fees from telecommunications providers to offset the cost of use.
The Telecommunications and Right of Way Management Plan for Tukwila
is arranged in six chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides an introduction and context for the plan;
• Chapter 2 identifies corridors for communication facility location;
• Chapter 3 identifies other planned actions in Tukwila that provide
opportunities for utility location;
• Chapter 4 identifies construction and restoration standards, as well
as mitigation fees;
• Chapter 5 provides recommendations for administering the Right -
of -Way Management Plan;
• Chapter 6 defines and identifies possible changes to wireless com-
munications regulation within the City.
Page 1-2
August 1999
Chapter 1- Introduction
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
CHAPTER 2
CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION AND CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
Telecommunication facilities can be categorized as backbone, feeder, dis-
tribution or subscriber systems. Backbone systems are the main, large ca-
pacity links in the system that provide either long-distance transmission or
the major service for a particular area. Feeder systems typically connect
into the backbones and serve large subareas of a city. Distribution systems
usually connect to feeder systems and serve neighborhoods or commercial
concentrations such as office parks. Subscriber systems typically tie into
distribution systems and serve individual businesses, local streets or smaller
business centers.
The City's current Comprehensive Plan and Functional Classification map
were reviewed to determine the recommended corridors for backbone,
feeder and distribution systems and whether additional corridors should
be designated. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map were also re-
viewed to identify areas designated for future intensive development where
distribution and subscriber corridors may be desirable.
This chapter identifies a network of arterial, collector and other streets that
could serve as utility corridors where utility providers may chose to locate
distribution or higher order facilities. Discussion regarding location of utility
lines within the corridors and procedures to designate additional corridors
are also provided.
PLANNING
CONTEXT
The Goals and Policies of the Transportation Element of the Tukwila Com-
prehensive Plan give priority first to safety, then to efficiency. The Plan
promotes the development of a hierarchy of street designs and the break-
ing -up of superblocks into smaller, more "pedestrian -friendly", blocks.
All new streets, street improvements, property developments and improve-
ments, with the exception of residential short plats and smaller single-
family projects, must provide sidewalks and direct pedestrian access from
sidewalks to buildings. Street improvements must meet the City's Func-
tional Street System Standards. The following table provides these stan-
dards for the four classes of streets in the City of Tukwila, as provided in
the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (page 148)
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
Gty of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 2-1
August 1999
Functional Street System Standards
(Standards below are typical; see current city codes for actual standards)
Classification Right of way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit
Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph
Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 48 ft. 30 mph
Minor Arterials 60 to 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft. 30 to 35 mph
Principal Arterials 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph
The Comprehensive Plan also designates several specific areas of the city
as candidates for more intensive development, either as office/commercial
centers, industrial areas, or residential/mixed use areas, The areas include
Tukwila South, Tukwila Urban Center (TUC), and the Manufacturing/In-
dustrial Center (MIC). Each area will likely have unique demands for
additional telecommunications and other utility services.
Section 12.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for the coordi-
nation of non -city -owned utilities. Specific policies call for the City to:
• Actively coordinate project implementation with individual utilities;
• Require utilities operating within public right-of-way to obtain a fran-
chise (demonstrating proposed service levels consistent with Compre-
hensive Plan forecasts); and
• Encourage the consolidation of facilities to minimize visual impacts
where possible.
However, the plan does not mention the need for the City and utility pro-
viders to coordinate in long-range community planning, or in the plan-
ning/design of transportation facility improvement projects. Such coordi-
nated efforts could help ensure that: 1) future land uses are not located in
areas difficult or cost prohibitive to serve with utilities; 2) the locations of
utility routes are guided through developing areas; and 3) telecommunica-
tions or other utility facilities are installed during roadway construction,
rather than having to be retrofitted into streets and rights-of-way after the
fact (e.g., having to rip up recently improved streets).
Functional Classification
The following table summarizes which streets are designated as arterials
and collectors on the Tukwila Street System — Functional Classification
Map (Comprehensive Plan, Figure 40). See Figure 1. Streets marked with
an asterisk (*) were identified by the City's Public Works Department as
potential telecommunication corridors.
Page 2-2
August 1999
Chapter 2 - Corridor Identification and Critena
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
SEATTLE
1
SCALE
00 0 730 1.400 2.800
1 WUI + 2.800 Ir
MIN]
SW.JJRD ST
LEGEND
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
TUWILA CIT'r LIMITS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure 1
WPI
PACIFIC
8405 SI MOUS AVE
BEAVERTON. OREGON
07008-7130
TEL. (3031830_003
FAX: (3031338-0770
881.87{PACBTC.COR
Table 1
Functional Classification
Prinapal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collectors
Undesignated
1. Martin Luther King Jr.
9. Airport Wy. S.
20. Macadam Rd. S*
27. Kaidatat Dr.*
2. Interurban Ave.*
10. East Marginal Wy. S.*
21.51' Ave. S. *
28. 48d' Ave. S.
(S. of Boeing Access Rd.)
3. West Valley Hwy.*
11. Mlitary Rd*
22. Beacon Ave S.
29.61 Ave. S.
4. East Marginal Wy. S.*
12. Southcenter Pkwy.*
23.42i1 Ave. S.
30. Grady Wy.*
(N. of Boeing Access Rd)
5. Pacific Hwy. S. *
13.57`" Ave. S.*
24. S. 140 St.
31. S. 178th St.*
6. Orillia Rd.
14. Andover Pkwy. E
25. S. 1606 St
7. Southcenter Blvd*
15. Andover Pkwy. W.
26. S. 200'h St.
8. Boeing Access Rd
16. Tukwila Pkwy.
17. S. 154th St.*
18. Strander Blvd
19. S. 18011 St.*
Assessment of Special Areas in the Context of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan calls out three transportation corridors and three
land areas for special consideration in the Plan. The three corridors pro-
vide strategic regional connections and are of importance to the region as
well as the City of Tukwila. These transportation corridors include Pacific
Highway, Interurban Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard.
The attention given these corridors in the Comprehensive Plan suggests
that they will be the focus of future development and improvements. As
such, they become likely candidates for telecommunications and other utility
backbone and feeder facilities. The Comprehensive Plan addresses the fol-
lowing issues in the context of each of these transportation corridors:
• Creating areas of focus;
• Improving private development;
• Enhancing and improving transportation choices and facilities;
• Developing partnerships and strategic plans.
The general goal for transportation corridors is "that they are functional,
attractive and diverse along their lengths both for the people who live along
them, traveling through them and those traveling to visit these areas." (Com-
prehensive Plan, page 91) The policies supporting this goal concentrate
on mixed-use zoning, pedestrian amenities and connectivity, developing
parking standards, incorporating landscaped interior areas, creating focal
points along the corridors, implementing high-quality design guidelines,
Page 2-4 Chapter 2 - Corridor Identification and Criteria
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
requiring roof lines to be prominent and other measures that will create
more attractive designs along the corridors. There is a desire to improve
the pedestrian environment by providing curbs, sidewalks, or trails, and
regularly spaced trees. The following sections provide highlights of the
manner in which each corridor will be developed.
The plan identifies three subareas, Tukwila South, the Tukwila Urban Center
(TUC) and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC). Other arterials,
collectors and local streets are discussed within the Comprehensive Plan
as part of these special subareas. These areas are identified as having a
unique mix of uses and character, and will likely create demand for en-
hanced telecommunication services as they develop or redevelop.
Martin Luther King Junior Way
This roadway is located in the northeastern section of Tukwila, which is
predominantly residential. As the corridor extends into Seattle, there will
need to be coordination with the City of Seattle. The corridor will likely
see demand as a distribution or subscriber corridor.
Interurban Avenue South Corridor*
This corridor has three identifiable subsections, a northern commercial
and industrial area, a central residential and commercial area, and a south-
ern commercial and industrial section. Significant improvements and de-
velopment projects will occur along the Interurban Corridor to reach the
goal of "a high -amenity, multi -modal, transportation corridor with a mix
of office, commercial, recreational, high-density residential and light in-
dustrial uses." (Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, page 97) This corridor is
primarily used by through traffic. The plan provides for continued focus in
the north section for regional commercial or light industrial uses. A mix of
residential and commercial (or to a lesser extent light industrial) uses con-
tinue along the middle and south sections. Specific plan recommendations
that have relevance to utilities:
• Encourage mixed-use zoning by allowing second -story (and above)
residential in all Regional Commercial Mixed Use zoned areas; and,
• Develop public transportation station sites and rail alignment through
the corridor.
ANALYSIS OF
CORRIDORS
(Starred Corridors
were recommended
by the City)
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 2-5
August 1999
This corridor, because of its location and adjacent land uses, will likely see
demand as a backbone or feeder corridor for telecommunication provid-
ers. It also is likely to see demand as a feeder or distribution corridor due to
the likely demands of higher -density commercial and industrial areas in
the north and south ends.
West Valley Highway*
The northern segment of West Valley Highway is on the eastern edge of
the Tukwila Urban Center. This area is anticipated to develop over the
next 20-30 years to a level of 15 households per gross acre, or 50 employ-
ees per gross acre. The plan envisions the area to grow as a shopping,
office, and light industrial area.
Because of its location in the region, this corridor will likely see demand
as a backbone corridor for telecommunication providers. It may also serve
as a distribution corridor to the Tukwila Urban Center, where individual
business connections will be required.
East Marginal Way South (north of Boeing Access Road)
This area is in the subarea known as the Manufacturing/Industrial Center
(MIC). This area is currently economically healthy, but there are actions
that can be taken to improve its competitive position. Boeing occupies a
significant amount of the property in the MIC, and is planning to convert
the area to an aerospace research and development campus. Currently, in-
frastructure is perceived to be adequate.
This area has a significant existing telecommunications infrastructure in-
vestment made by the Boeing Company, and will continue to grow its
demand. Because of this, East Marginal Way could see demand as a distri-
bution, feeder or backbone line, either by Boeing or a commercial pro-
vider.
Pacific Highway Corridor *
This area is generally run down and attracts activity of a low quality. The
area has a high crime rate and a significant number of pedestrian fatalities.
The Comprehensive Plan places a strong emphasis on promoting the use
of modes other than the single -occupancy vehicle to support regional travel
along this corridor. Pedestrian and transit travel are encouraged with the
addition of proposed pedestrian amenities and transit facilities, while ad -
Page 2-6
August 1999
Chapter 2 - Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
ditional vehicle lanes are discouraged. Wider sidewalk standards, with on -
street parking, planted medians and designated left -turn pockets at inter-
sections will be implemented. A potential rail station in the vicinity of SR
518/Pacific Highway is mentioned as a part of a multi -modal transfer area
for buses, automobiles, pedestrians and rail. There is a reference made to
utilities in policy 8.2.6, as follows: "Underground existing and future over-
head distribution lines, including transit operation utilities, in accordance
with rates and tariffs applicable to the serving utility." (Comprehensive
Plan, page 94). There are locations along Pacific Highway identified for
improvements and development of a particular character is encouraged.
These plan provisions include the following:
• Design improvements for the section of Pacific Highway north of S.
137th Street (if extended) with minimal improvements and amenities to
reflect topographic constraints.;
• Develop an east—west transportation corridor north of South 144th Street
intersecting with Pacific Highway 99;
• Improve South 144th Street (including right-of-way acquisition where
necessary) between Military Road South and 42nd Avenue South to
serve as a significant pedestrian corridor;
• Develop standard and design guidelines that recognize the physical
difference between the valley wall and the plateau and that retain the
hillside's character, including significant vegetation, change of grade,
and a sloping trait. (Comprehensive Plan, page 94) This will be imple-
mented by limiting retaining wall height, building size and paved ar-
eas.
• Maintain the predominately residential use and character between South
128th Street and South 137th Street (if extended), with appropriate zon-
ing ... allow a limited amount of neighborhood -oriented retail activity
in residential projects that front on Highway 99.
• Allow diverse uses along corridor including residential, retail, service,
light manufacturing, office, and recreation/community facilities.
• Create a pedestrian -oriented Neighborhood Commercial Center along
Pacific Highway South.
Neighborhood/Residential Commercial Centers offer small
commercial concentrations in existing residential neighbor-
hoods to improve the area and provide products and ser-
vices to local residents. Medium density residential units
are encouraged in commercial structures located in these
centers. These centers are compact and pedestrian oriented,
achieved by combining parking placement and buildings
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan
Page 2-7
August 1999.
designed to specific standards. Mixed-use zones will be
designated, allowing a combination of commercial, office
and residential activity. New construction is encouraged
instead of the conversion of existing residential structures.
■ Create a Regional Commercial area south of the Neighborhood Com-
mercial Center. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide a detailed
definition for regional commercial areas. However, the focus of these
mixed use areas would likely be on office and retail, with retail uses
oriented more toward regional shopping needs, rather than the day-to-
day needs of a neighborhood.
• Opportunities for either commercial or industrial uses exist at the north
end of the corridor.
Because of its location, the corridor may see demand as a backbone, feeder
or distribution corridor. The Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan was
prepared by the City and the Pacific Highway community in 1998. One
recommendation of that plan is that when Pacific Highway is reconstructed
to solicit a private provider to install a high-grade fiber optic line or con-
duit for future fiber optic use.
Orillia Road
Orillia Road connects to I-5 near South 192"d Street and runs through South
Tukwila. This area of the City is located along the valley wall, with both
steep and moderate slopes and a valley floor along the Green River. The
area is predominantly low-density single family detached residential. There
are several wetlands and watercourses south of 196th Street, and a King
County Farmland Preservation District south of 200th Street. Landslide
potential is moderate to high. There is a levee providing flood protection
south of I-405 and north of South 196th Street. While development south
of 196th Street is possible, the property owners will either be faced with
higher flood insurance costs or must participate in further extension of the
levee system. Comprehensive Plan Goal 9.2.3 allows residential as a part
of mixed-use office development along the east side of Orillia Road, north
of 200th Street. This corridor is likely to see demand for subscriber ser-
vices north of 200th Street.
Southcenter Boulevard Corridor*
Southcenter Boulevard is one of the few east -west corridors in the city.
The Comprehensive Plan goal for this corridor is for it to evolve into "a
Page 1-8 Chapter 2 - Corridorldentrricaton and Criteria
August 1999 City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%nmmunications Management Plant
corridor of low-rise offices, residences, with localized commercial uses at
major intersections, all of which act as a buffer to the low-density residen-
tial neighborhoods to the north." (Comprehensive Plan, page 99) Thein
tent of the plan is more focused on preserving a particular character along
the corridor than on major improvements. There is an emphasis on maxi-
mizing views, mimicking the contours of the land in the architecture with
sloped roof lines, and providing landscaping to retain the hillside charac-
ter. Policies having a possible relationship to utilities are as follows:
• Allow second -story (and above) residential use in all Regional
Commercial Mixed Use zoned areas east of 51" Avenue South;
• Encourage additional pedestrian connections to the areas north of the
Southcenter Boulevard;
• Redesignate South 154th Street as Southcenter Boulevard.
Because Southcenter Boulevard is one of few east -west corridors, it is likely
to see demand as a backbone or feeder corridor. The densities proposed
along this corridor might also create demand for subscriber connections.
Boeing Access Road
This roadway crosses I-5 and provides a connection between Martin Luther
King Jr. Way and Interurban Avenue (where a backbone currently exists).
Because it provides one of the few crossings of I-5, it will likely see de-
mand as a feeder corridor.
Airport Way South
The area along Airport Way South is in the MIC/Heavy Industrial area and
currently has minimal development. It serves airport support users and
businesses on the airport. It also provides existing access to rail and truck-
ing intermodal facilities. It is not likely to see a significant increase in
density. Airport Way South is likely to see demand as a backbone or feeder
transmission line.
East Marginal Way South* (south of Boeing Access Road)
This segment of East Marginal Way is in the Manufacturing/Industrial
Center (MIC). This area is currently economically healthy, but actions have
been identified in the comprehensive plan that can improve its competitive
position. Boeing occupies a significant amount of the property in the MIC,
and is planning to convert the area to an aerospace research and develop-
ment campus. Currently, infrastructure is perceived to be adequate.
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Cr/tena
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 2-9
August 1999\
This area likely has a significant existing telecommunications infrastruc-
ture investment made by the Boeing Company, and will continue to grow
its demand. East Marginal Way could see demand as a distribution, feeder
or backbone line.
Military Road*
Military Road is on the western border of the city. It generally serves resi-
dential areas with some regional commercial and office use. Because of its
location and topography, it is not likely to see demand as a major transmis-
sion corridor, but will likely see demand as a distribution corridor. The
south segment of Military Road, between Pacific Highway South and South
178th Street/South 180th Street, could serve as a key transmission connec-
tor. Therefore it may be designated as a backbone or feeder line.
Southcenter Parkway* and 571' Avenue South*
Southcenter Parkway and 57th Avenue South make up the western edge of
the Tukwila Urban Center. Southcenter Parkway transitions into 57th Av-
enue South and the Comprehensive Plan suggests renaming it Southcenter
Parkway. This area is identified to grow to a density of up to 50 employees
per gross acre in the next 20-30 years. The focus for the area is shopping,
office and light industrial uses. Currently, this corridor is primarily retail,
with some offices and hotels. Because of its location adjacent to the Tuk-
wila Urban Center, it is likely to see demand as a distribution and sub-
scriber corridor.
Andover Parkway East and West
These roadways cut down the middle of the Tukwila Urban Center, con-
necting Tukwila Parkway and South 180th Street. They will likely see
demand as distribution and subscriber corridors for the Tukwila Urban
center, because of their proximity to a large concentration of potential busi-
ness users.
EAST -WEST MINOR ARTERIALS;
Tukwi/a Parkway
Tukwila Parkway provides a route along the north end of the Tukwila
Urban Center and a link across I-405 from Interurban. This right-of-way
will road likely host feeder or distribution networks, because of its
Page 2-10 Chapter 2 - Corridor Identification and Criteria
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan 1
proximity to the existing backbone along Interurban and the opportunity
to provide a loop around the TUC.
5. 154'' Street*
This roadway is the extension of Southcenter Boulevard to the west of I-5,
providing western continuation of the east -west corridor. The corridor
mostly serves residential uses and, as such, it will likely see demand for
subscriber networks.
Strander Boulevard
Strander Boulevard crosses the northern section of the Tukwila Urban Cen-
ter and connects Southcenter Parkway, near Klickitat Drive, to West Val-
ley Highway. It also crosses the Green River. This corridor may be used
as a feeder line serving the Tukwila Urban Center.
5. 180' Street*
South 180th Street forms the border between Kent and Tukwila. It also
transitions into SW 43rd Street in Renton and, farther east, into Carr/SE
176t'/Petrovitsky Road, one of the few roads onto the plateau and into
Maple Valley.
Within Tukwila, this roadway is the northern boundary of the Tukwila
South area. The area south of 180th is a heavy industrial area, designated
for continuation and minimization of nonindustrial intrusion.
This corridor is likely to see demand as a backbone or feeder network
because of its location in the valley and ability to provide a long, uninter-
rupted east -west link.
NORTH -SOUTH COLLECTORS
Macadam Road South*/515t Avenue South *
Macadam Road serves as a link between the Foster area, west of I-5 and
the Tukwila Hill area east of I-5, where it ties in with Southcenter Boule-
vard. Macadam, west of I-5, also ties into 515t Avenue South, providing a
parallel facility to I-5 connecting with Klickitat Drive.
The area served by these roads is residential, or commercial in support of
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page 2-11
August 1999\
residential, accordingly, the corridor will likely see demand as a distribu-
tion or subscriber network.
Beacon Avenue South
This roadway is located in the northeastern section of Tukwila, which is
predominantly residential. It will likely see demand as a distribution or
subscriber corridor. Any construction will likely be an extension of facili-
ties within the City of Seattle and will require cooperation between the two
cities.
42id Avenue South to 401' Avenue South
42nd Avenue South serves primarily as a residential collector, as much of
the surrounding land area is designated for low density residential. This
corridor will likely see demand as a subscriber corridor.
EAST -WEST COLLECTORS
S. 144' Street
South 144th Street serves primarily as a residential collector, as much of
the surrounding land area is designated for low density residential. This
corridor will likely see demand for distribution and subscriber facilities.
S. 160ri Street
This roadway is linked to Military Road on the boundary of SeaTac and
Tukwila. It serves a low density residential area and may be used for a
subscriber corridor.
S. 200th Street
South 200th Street is an east -west, two-lane road located in the subarea
designated as Tukwila South. The roadway currently ends at the west side
of the Green River; however, King County and the City of Kent have pro-
posed to improve the street and expand it to cross the river on a new struc-
ture, connecting with the East and West Valley Highways. These improve-
ments would likely require a slight realignment of 57`h Avenue South (pro-
posed to be renamed Southcenter Parkway).
Page 2-12
August 1999
Chapter - Corridorldentification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan
The impacts of these improvements on the wetlands of the area are a con-
cern and will be considered in the street design. Currently sewer lines do
not extend into the area south of S. 180' Street. The extension of sewer
service is a factor to consider when choosing corridors for line transmis-
sion, as it helps set the stage for future growth.
Comprehensive Plan Policy 9.4.4 identifies the desire for an interchange
from I-5 to South 200th Street to provide additional access to the Tukwila
Urban Center. Once completed this roadway will serve as a significant
cross -valley connector and will likely see demand as a feeder or distribu-
tion network.
S. 6867 Avenue
South 68th Avenue provides a connection across I-405, between Southcenter
Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway. It would likely serve as a feeder or
distribution line.
POTENTIAL NORTH -SOUTH TELECOMMUNICATION
CORRIDORS NOT DESIGNATED ON STREET SYSTEM MAP:
Klickitat Drive*
Klickitat Drive provides a link between 51S` and Southcenter Parkway/
Strander Boulevard across I-5., and some difficult topography. The area
served by these roads is a mix of residential, or commercial in support of
residential. The road will likely see demand as a distribution or subscriber
corridor.
POTENTIAL EAST -WEST TELECOMMUNICATION CORRI-
DORS NOT DESIGNATED ON STREET SYSTEM MAP:
4.' Avenue South*
This road provides a short connection into the Gateway Area from Interur-
ban Avenue. The road is outside of the MIC, but is designated for com-
mercial/light industrial. This road will likely see demand for a subscriber
network
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 2-13
August 1999
Grady Way*
Grady- Way provides a connection to the other corridors of Southcenter
Boulevard and Interurban Avenue. Grady provides a link from the back-
bone of Interurban to key roads in Renton (including Highway 515 and
Main) and would likely see demand as corridor for a feeder network.
S. 176'' Street*
South 178t Street branches off Military Road and ties to Southcenter Park-
way and 180t. This road connects the residential area on the west hill with
the Tukwila Urban Center. South 178t Street may see demand for feeder
or distribution service.
61st Avenue South
This road provides a connection between Southcenter Boulevard and Tuk-
wila Parkway across the barrier of I-405. Use of the bridge for communi-
cations facilities would require WSDOT approval. This road would likely
host feeder or distribution networks.
OTHER CORRIDORS
Public Tansportation
Corridors that have been identified for Commuter Rail or Light Rail are
also likely candidates for serving as communication corridors. Communi-
cation systems will likely be established between the stations and along
the tracks for train control, as well as for elements of remote safety moni-
toring, emergency communication and other issues.
The current Sound Transit Plan includes commuter rail service on the
Burlington Northern tracks through Tukwila. At the Board meeting of Feb-
ruary 25, 1999, Sound Transit approved a route for light rail service in-
cluding service to Seattle's Rainier Valley at street level on Martin Luther
King Jr. Way South. and elevated service across I-5 to Boeing Access
Road with a station at this location. Service would continue on Pacific
Highway South. (SR99/Intemational Boulevard) with stations at South.
144th Street and South 154th Street
Page 2-14
August 1999
Chapter 2 - Corridorldentificadon and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicadons Management Plan`
Non -motorized Transportation
Within Tukwila, paths and other non -motorized transportation links gen-
erally do not provide good corridors for utilities, other than for subscriber
networks. Facilities located along these types of transportation routes are
generally difficult to access for any repairs or service. The one exception
is the Interurban Trail throughout the valley, much of which is in an over-
head power transmission right-of-way. Vehicular accesses are frequently
gated along the majority of the Interurban Trail corridor, making it pos-
sible to use for a backbone, feeder or distribution network. The corridor is
adjacent to a large number of businesses in the Tukwila and Green River
Valley area.
IDENTIFICATION
OF ADDITIONAL
CORRIDORS
CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS
Figure 2 Shows the streets identified by the City as likely north -south and
east -west utility corridors. After reviewing the topography, geographic
relationships of Tukwila to other communities in South King County, and
the opportunities afforded by the regional system of arterials and collec-
tors, additional streets have been identified as corridors for possible use by
backbone, feeder and distribution level networks. These streets generally
match the city's arterial and collector system, especially where they con-
tinue into other jurisdictions as high -order transportation facilities, such as
an arterial or collector.
Once the general network of utility corridors was laid out, it was apparent
that minor connections across natural and man-made barriers were lim-
ited. For example, connections across I-405 or the Green River were miss-
ing. Several minor connections were identified in these areas as a means to
guide the City in allowing providers to install service.
It is in the City's best interest to have an overall telecommunications facil-
ity network plan, so that the expectations of the City are clearly laid out for
the providers of expanded or future service. There may be situations where
existing or proposed development, a change of use, or overall corporate
objectives suggest that a provider may want to develop a different corridor
for uses other than provision of service to individual subscribers. The City
needs a process to develop concurrence where a provider seeks to develop
in a corridor not identified in the plan.
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 2-15
August 1999
SEATTLE
SCALE
Oro o 0s0 '.10.
2.800
1 via - 2.800 pr
a
SWANRD St
LEGEND
r f,
BACKBONE
FEEDER
4111 DISTRIBUTION
TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
rc
8
0
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
ti
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure 2
WPI
win('
8405 SW NIMBUS An
004ve0tOx, 00¢005
07008-7120
TEL (505)626-0455
FAX. (505)528-0775
m.nfpAOBlc.coM
For the purposes of providing service to individual houses or businesses,
virtually every local street, private street or other corridor may become a
candidate for installation of utility facilities. The City has policies that
include requirements for franchises, construction techniques and mitiga-
tion requirements. The City should allow construction of local service drops
in any right-of-way, subject to the same conditions placed on higher levels
of service provision.
REASONS FOR WANTING TO DESIGNATE NEW CORRIDORS
There may be situations where a provider desires to locate facilities out-
side of the designated corridors. These include provision of local services
to individual residences or businesses along a street or neighborhood and
installation of distribution or higher level service on a street not identified
on the map. This could also result from land use changes or changes in
technology, such that demand in a particular location increases signifi-
cantly, beyond what was anticipated.
Much of the information used by service providers to determine which
corridors to serve at what level of service is based on proprietary informa-
tion. As such, the information provided bythe companies currently serv-
ing Tukwila may not be as specific as information that would be provided
during the preparation of a utility plan for a noncompetitive utility pro-
vider (e.g. water or sewer service). With the rapid growth of the telecom-
munications industry, there also is an opportunity for new providers to
enter the market.
The recommendations identified later in this plan will likely include de-
fined moratoria on new utility lines in a particular facility, once construc-
tion is completed. Plan recommendations will also include requirements
for advertising for development partners and co -location in facilities that
are proposed for construction, in order to minimize the likelihood that a
provider will seek to locate in a roadway within the moratorium time frame.
A provider may seek to locate in an undesignated roadway if the desired
roadway is subject to a construction moratorium.
REASONS FOR APPROVING NEW CORRIDORS
1. Road (or utilities within a roadway) is planned for reconstruction, pro-
viding an opportunity for installation of conduit for possible future activa-
tion.
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 2-17
August 1999\
In cases where the City, County or State are planning a resurfacing or
reconstruction project, or another utility company has plans for installa-
tion of new or upgrade of existing lines (e.g. water, sewer, natural gas), the
City should require the announcement and solicitation of any additional
utility partners wishing to locate in the roadway alignment.
2. Road is a new facility being constructed, providing an opportunity for
installation of conduit for possible future activation
Again, this is a situation where the City should announce and solicit utility
partners in the construction process, with the understanding that there will
be a moratorium on cutting into the roadway for other than resolution of
emergencies for five years after construction is complete.
3. Significant new development is proposed with demands on communi-
cation or other private infrastructure (e.g. new corporate office of a com-
puter company is constructed in Tukwila Urban Center)
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of areas within the
City for new development or redevelopment at a higher level of intensity
than currently experienced. As developers and tenants identify Tukwila as
a desirable place, there may be specific tenant -driven needs for utility ser-
vices, including telecommunication, that will become apparent.
Depending on the type of development, there may be a general need or
tenant -driven need for a level of communications infrastructure that was
not anticipated atthe time this plan was prepared. The plan should be
flexible enough that if a service provider can demonstrate the case for a
location not in the plan, that is also not in violation of construction mora-
toria or other restrictions, then use should be granted.
4. Road is primary access to planned high- or medium density residential
community.
As the Comprehensive Plan is implemented, there are opportunities for
additional residential areas. As technology continues to change and de-
mand continues to grow, service providers may desire to serve residential
areas with a higher level of service than initially estimated. The plan should
allow flexibility for technological changes and allow for the development
of top-quality service for new and redeveloping residential areas.
Page 2-18 Chapter 2 - Corridor Identification and Criteria
August 1999 City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
5. Subject road is primary access to development defined in items 3 or 4
above in another city, requiring interjurisdictional cooperation.
Tukwila has a unique geographical position, as a nearly linear city, bounded
by significant residential, commercial and industrial areas. The arterial street
network that passes through Tukwila also provides high order transporta-
tion service to Seattle, Renton, Kent, SeaTac, and unincorporated King
County. As these jurisdictionsimplement their respective comprehensive
plans, the same issues identified in item #4 above will arise. Through
interjurisdictional agreements, Tukwila should be ready to entertain re-
quests for transmission through the city to new development centers in
other jurisdictions.
6. Subject road parallels a designated road that is subject to moratorium.
The City has expressed a desire to institute a road -cut moratorium. In this
instance, a road that has been newly constructed, repaved, reconstructed,
or trenched for another utility provider will have a moratorium on addi-
tional pavement for a given amount of time, for example five years. If
there is no reasonable means to construct entirely through boring, or the
existing utility easement is filled, the City may choose to grant a provider
approval to locate in a non -designated right-of-way. The burden of proof,
that a location is the designated corridor, shall be on the requesting utility
provider and not on the City.
Chapter 2- Corridor Identification and Criteria
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 2-19
August 1999
CHAPTER 3
FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter is a compilation of the information assessing the City's future
plans, the providers' views of the future, and a discussion of future demand
in the city. The future plans for public works projects from the City, County,
and State, as well as regional projects provide a basis for an integrated look
at the resource (right-of-way), the host (the City) and the demand (the pro-
viders).
ADOPTED PLANS
City Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The City of Tukwila has adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
the 1999-2004 time frame. This CIP includes about $66 million in projects
related to operation and maintenance of the City, and construction of im-
provement projects for transportation facilities, parks, storm and sanitary
sewers, and other public facilities such as the Foster Golf Course.
The CIP includes a set of policies, including:
• Policy #4: For city -scheduled residential streets, undergrounding
costs within the right-of-way will be paid for by the City including
the conduit and wire costs. Property owners are responsible for the
costs from the right-of-way to their house.
• Policy #5: Franchise agreements for cable and electric services should
be utilized to discourage excessive wiring throughout the City.
Within this program, there are numerous transportation improvement
projects. Projects which include either significant construction or construc-
tion over a significant length were identified as possibly supporting concur-
rent development of conduit or actual fiber lines. These projects are sum-
marized as follows, and are identified on Figure 3:
• 40th - 42"d Ave South — from S. 160th Street to S. 131st Place: street
improvements, drainage, undergrounding, and driveway improve-
ments;
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
Gty of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 3-1
August 1999
,1
■ Pacific Highway Bridge Replacement: replace bridge across
Duwamish with five -lane structure, sidewalks, bikeway crossing,
channelization, and signalization;
■ 180th Street Railroad Grade Separation: Preliminary design of sepa-
ration of railroad and interurban trail crossing;
■ Boeing Access Road/Burlington Northern -Santa Fe Railroad
(BNSF) overcrossing replacement: replace existing structure with
one 110 feet, curb -to -curb, and sidewalks;
■ Pacific Highway from S. 116th Way to S. 152nd Street: Preparation
of design report and plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for
Phase 1. Concepts include channelization, pedestrian and vehicle
safety improvements, access control and parking;
■ Andover Park West from Tukwila Parkway to Strander: Complete
widening for left turn lane;
■ East Marginal Way from Boeing Access Road to S. 112th Street:
Design and construction of curb/gutter/sidewalk, lighting, turn lanes
and traffic control;
• 57th Avenue South from S. 180th to South City Limits: PS&E for
extension of five -lane section including curb/gutter/sidewalk, drain-
age and possible combination with water and sewer projects;
• Interurban Avenue from S. 139th Street to Fort Dent Way: Design
and construction of sidewalks, pavement restoration, drainage and
lighting;
■ Pacific Highway from Boeing Access Road to S. 116th Way: Widen
to match channelization on each end, install sidewalks and lighting.
There are several projects on the sewer and water improvement list, also
shown on Figure 3, which appear to have potential for joint development
with conduit installation:
• Andover Park West from Tukwila Parkway to Strander: Design and
construct a 10 -inch pipe just east of the mall;
• Central Business District (CBD) Trunk Sewer Replacements: De-
sign and construct about 2600 feet of 18 -inch gravity sewer in
Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street;
Page 3-2 Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
August 1999 City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%nmmunications Management Plan
■ South City Limits Sewer Extension: Design and construct sewer line
from S. 180th Street to south city limits along 57th Avenue South;
■ Andover Park West from Minkler to Strander: design and construct
a new force main;
■ Southcenter Boulevard Upgrade from Macadam to the I-405
undercrossing on Southcenter Boulevard: Upgrade at least 2500 lin-
ear feet to 12 -inch pipe.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The RTP includes the CIP components of each of the member cities and
counties in the PSRC area. There are additional policy actions relevant to
managing the transportation system and related transportation improvements
in the region.
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Plan
(RTA Plan)
The Regional Transit Authority has three projects in the Tukwila area, a
light rail line (LINK), express bus improvements and a commuter rail line
(SOUNDER). A vote by the RTA in February, 1999, supported the location
of the light rail line running in the median of Martin Luther King Jr. Way to
an elevated structure crossing I-5 and East Marginal Way, as well as the
UPRR and BNSF tracks. The alignment will continue on an elevated struc-
ture along SR-99/International Boulevard over the Duwamish River and
SR -599 interchanges. The line will come to street level in the median of
International Boulevard and continue to the SeaTac city limits. There is
some dissent on the part of the City of Tukwila regarding this alignment
and an appeal process is underway.
Express bus improvements include a new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
ramp to Southcenter and additional service between south King County and
transit centers in Seattle and Bellevue.
The Sounder Commuter Rail alignment is fixed, based on the plan to use
the existing Burlington Northern tracks. Tukwila -area stations are proposed
at Boeing Access Road and in the vicinity of the former Longacres site.
This system is planned to begin operation in late 1999.
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 3-3
August 1999
State Transportation Improvement P/an (STIP)
The State Transportation Improvement Plan lists projects to be funded by
the State over the next six years. The projects are generally State facilities,
but could also be local facilities that are costly to improve, or serve signifi-
cant functions (such as bridges). The current STIP shows four projects in
the Tukwila area, shown on Figure 3.
■ Burlington Northern -Santa Fe Intermodal Rail Yard Access Bridge
at 48th Avenue South. This project includes the design and con-
struction of a new access into the BNSF intermodal rail yard by
building a new bridge over the Duwamish River. The project will
include roadway widening, a new bridge, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
drainage, illumination, et cetera. This project is scheduled for pre-
liminary engineering in 1999.
■ Interurban Avenue HOV Bypass. This project will provide HOV,
transitlSCDI improvements to Interurban Avenue and tie in with
planned Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
HOV ramp improvements on I-405. This project is scheduled for
preliminary engineering in 1999.
■ Pacific Highway South Redevelopment Project. This improvement
includes new overlay and widening to provide two through -lanes in
each direction, left and right turn lanes at intersections, a center
two-way turn lane, and parking with bus pull-outs or a potential
HOV/transit lane in each direction. This project is scheduled for
construction in 1999. The City has prepared a land use plan specifi-
cally for the corridor, aimed at improving the quality of develop-
ment and aesthetics of the area.
■ S. 180th Street Grade Separation. This project includes design and
construction to separate S. 180th Street from the UP & BNSF rail
lines, increasing capacity and safety. The design report will address
construction of the roadway over or under the rail lines. This project
is scheduled for preliminary engineering in 1999.
City of Tukwila Design Standards
The City of Tukwila adopted a set of Infrastructure Design and Construc-
tion Standards in 1996. These standards include sections on general design
Page 3-4 Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan \
SEATTLE
G
SI
SCALE
1.00 0 750 ,.400 E000
1 MCN - 2.800 FT
W 3320 ST
LEGEND
•
6 -YEAR CIP PROJECTS (ROADS)
6 -YEAR CIP PROJECTS (SEWER/WATER)
Q'-'7"••••••••••, SOUND TRANSIT CORRIDORS
STIP
---- -- TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure 3
WPI
MCI FI(
8405 SW NIMBUS AVE.
BEAVERTON. OREGON
97008-7120
TEL (803)828-0185
FAX (803)828-0778
NNN.5NPACUTC.COM
RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN ZONING
AND UTILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
and construction, land alteration, streets, storm and surface water, flood zone
control, potable water systems, and sanitary sewer design and construction.
These standards specify requirements for bonds and insurance, permits, fees
and charges, design requirements, and inspection requirements. These stan-
dards include requirements for new roadways to include a public utility
easement, where telecommunications and other utility duct, pipes and con-
duit are to be located. These standards also specify preferred construction
methods and mitigation for construction in roadways. The subject of con-
struction in the right-of-way and associated mitigation is covered in detail
in Chapter 4.
Telecommunication ordinances for a variety of cities and counties in Wash-
ington, as well as Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, were reviewed to
identify any ties between infrastructure and zoning. Zoning or land devel-
opment ordinances were also reviewed for many of these cities. Other than
requirements for all utilities to be placed underground and requirements for
provision of adequate public utility service, there were few, if any, refer-
ences to utilities and their presence relative to zoning.
Based on a review of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, along with as-
pects of Washington law, any provision in development codes that links
expansion of private utilities to growth may not pass the judicial test of
allowing non-discriminatory competitive market access to providers. On
the other hand encouragement of utility expansion, especially that which
allows for increased market entry by telecommunication utilities, would be
looked at favorably. That type of ordinance, such as that defining the Tuk-
wila Urban Center and the Manufacturing/Industrial Center, and associated
Comprehensive Plan policies, could be strengthened to provide added in-
centives to create a "state of the art" business environment from a commu-
nications perspective.
There have been several recent federal district court decisions regarding
local telecommunication franchise ordinances and their consistency with
the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. In general, these decisions
have favored the providers in cases where application processes are lengthy
and possibly discretionary, where fees and taxes are not directly related to
the cost of allowing providers to use rights-of-way and where any regula-
tion can be construed as creating a barrier for a new provider to enter the
market.
Page 3-6
August 1999
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
As the electricity market begins to undergo deregulation and competitive
markets evolve, the same issues are likely to be raised.
FUTURE DEMAND
FOR SERVICES
Throughout the country, demand for telecommunication services in urban
areas is increasing at rates greater than the local growth rate. As more and
more businesses are identifying ways to use technology, more individual
lines, as well as T-1 lines, fiber and other systems are becoming more com-
monplace for small businesses.
Within Tukwila, the residential areas, especially where single family homes
are occupied by middle -to -higher income families, the demand for mul-
tiple telephone lines will continue to increase. Newly developing residen-
tial communities may choose to construct new structures, either rental or
owner -occupied, with dual phone lines as standard. Even hotels have started
equipping individual rooms or suites with voice and data lines, so that guests
may access the interne.
The employment areas of the city, including the Manufacturing Industrial
Center (MIC) for both light and heavy industry, the Tukwila Urban Center
(TUC), and the commercial/light industrial areas (C/LI) east of the Tuk-
wila Urban Center are likely to see an increasing demand for a full array of
voice and data transmission services.
These increased demands will likely require an update of older technology
and installation of new capacity within the public rights-of-way.
As competition increases for electric providers, both sectors will see in-
creased competition, but likely not a significant increase in demand, out-
side of that created by the overall growth of the community.
Land Use/Businesses
Currently, much of the MIC area is dedicated to Boeing, businesses that
support Boeing, and other businesses dedicated to shipping and distribu-
tion. Boeing currently has a major line linking Plant 2 buildings (across
East Marginal Way from Boeing Field), in the vicinity of the Boeing Credit
Union offices, the Longacres office complex, and facilities along West Val-
ley Highway. The company plans to transition the Plant 2 complex away
from manufacturing and into a research and development facility. At this
time, the company plans to make an investment in the buildings and on-site
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 3-7
August 1999
growth, but does not foresee an increase in the infrastructure to support the
buildings.
In the near term, within the TUC area, the variety of retail, distribution and
• light industrial users will likely continue to place increasing demands for
more capacity on telecommunications providers as use of the interne for
retail sales increases.
The new light rail transit line will likely include a system -wide communica-
tions system using either fiber or traditional wire to provide train control,
station monitoring, and an array of other communications functions. The
actual design and location of such a system has not been committed to by
Sound Transit, however it will likely be imbedded underneath the rail right-
of-way.
Cellular Telephone/Personal Communication Services
Cellular telephone (Cell) and "personal communications services" (PCS)
providers have established basic coverage networks in the King County area
and will likely continue to seek cell locations on an infill basis as demand
increases and capacity decreases. There are currently seven providers, who
have asked to remain anonymous, who have entered into the South King
County market through development of their own new systems in combina-
tion with the purchase of surplus capacity from existing providers. The Cell/
PCS issue is discussed further in Chapter 6.
Coordination of Utilities and Planned Corridor Improvements
Figure 4 presents a diagram of the identified utility corridors as compared
to the identified projects on state, regional and city capital improvement
plans. The diagram identifies that there is a significant opportunity for cross -
coordination between transportation projects and possible utility enhance-
ments over the next six years.
WSDOT projects, such as the 180t Grade Separation and other bridge cross-
ings should be treated as an opportunity to provide crossings on a planned
structure rather than needing to bore under major facilities. The City should
work with WSDOT during project design to solicit interest from utility com-
panies to locate on the bridge structures or for conduit capacity to be pro-
vided for future use.
Page 3-8 Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
August 1999 City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicadons Management P/an
•
. .
•
•
•
KING
COUNT
SEATTLE
Sr
ST
SCALE
1.400 0 750 1.400 2100
1 2004 2800 it
LEGEND
dae=:O PROJECTS
UTILITIES
TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAP
Tukwila Right of Way
Telecommunications Master Plan
Figure 4
IL43R0 ST
W1-1
pAciric
8405 51 NW= AVL
anvrmtay. OREGON
07008-7120
TEL (53)013-0455
LAL 003)526-o005
1111LEHPALIFIC.004I
LOCATION IN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
The City should make a point of publicly advertising capital projects at the
design phase, in addition to the required public notice and public hearings
process for the CIP. Such advertisement should occur in the Daily Journal
of Commerce as an advertisement for partners in the development of a par-
ticular improvement, wherein the utility partners would contribute the true
cost of design and construction as an add-on to the already planned CIP
proj ect.
As CIP projects, along with other agencies' projects, are designed, existing
utilities may undergo relocation or other adjustment. In any case, virtually
any public sector project that has any potential to impact existing utilities
has a process of utility coordination built into the design phase to ensure
that the existing services are impacted to a minimal extent or that reloca-
tion from aerial to underground occurs.
Within the telecommunications industry, one of the current practices is re-
selling service. In these situations, a provider leases existing or new capac-
ity from a provider already in place. The reseller does not have as much
money invested in capital facilities and pays the facility owner for services
and use.
It is through such agreements that new long-distance providers have been
able to purchase large quantities of service capacity from existing provid-
ers and re -sell to consumers at a discounted price. In these situations, the
City may or may not have recordsof these tenant providers for coordina-
tion during construction projects.
The ordinance presented in Chapter 5 requires that the tenant providers
hold franchises from the City. However, this practice has been identified
as anti -competition by the Federal court system.
In any case, the City needs to work with the owners of utility facilities to
identify all providers using the system, in order to effectively communicate
design issues related to road or other public works construction projects.
As applicants for telecommunications franchises request to construct their
facilities along specific rights-of-way, the City is faced with two major
questions: "is the facility proposed for a designated corridor?" and "where
within the right-of-way is the facility proposed?" Chapter 2 identifies the
designated corridors.
Page 3-10
August 1999
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
The City needs to prioritize available locations within the designated corri-
dors or within corridors approved through variances in order to address the
second question. For example, telecommunications facilities could parallel
an existing road under an adjacent sidewalk or in a public utility easement.
Alternately, the facilities could be placed under street pavement.
Each location within the right-of-way will uniquely impact the City, appli-
cant and public. In determining a process for locating utilities within the
right-of-way, the City must consider short- and long-term consequences.
These consequences may include construction and maintenance costs, pub-
lic safety, disruption to existing facilities and limitations to capacity for
utility expansion.
Potential Impacts to the City
On new streets or on existing facilities that are upgraded to new street stan-
dards, the City has clearly defined the location for utilities. New street
construction requires a minimum 10 -foot public utility easement (PUE)
adjacent to and outside of the public right-of-way. Locating utilities in these
designated corridors minimizes future conflicts between utility providers
and street development and maintenance. In this situation, impacts to the
City will occur if the City later purchases additional right-of-way and re-
quires the utilities to relocate their facilities. PUEs occur on private prop-
erty, so construction, installation or maintenance of utilities may involve
conflicts with landscaping or other private land uses. Impacts to private
land caused by construction or repair activity in a PUE may create per-
ceived negative public opinion. The discussion of construction restoration
in Chapter 5 will explore requirements for returning disturbed public and
private property to existing conditions.
In many cases, however, franchise applicants will seek to construct facili-
ties in corridors with existing streets. If PUEs exist along these corridors,
the City can direct new construction to the easements. Potential impacts
would be as described above.
Where PUEs do not exist, the City can minimize disruption to vehicular
traffic by requiring construction under an existing sidewalk. Sidewalk con-
struction also reduces the potential safety concern of working in a roadway
to both private construction employees and the public.
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 3-11
August 1999
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Future impacts to the City would be minimal in the case of sidewalk loca-
tion. Sidewalk reconstruction typically involves the replacement of entire
concrete panels, as opposed to cutting the slabs and replacing only part.
Unlike pavement cuts, the replacement of sidewalk panels does not gener-
ally reduce the life of the facility.
Finally, franchise applicants may request to construct telecommunications
facilities within the paved width of a street. The City currently allows
trench cuts on an exception basis only and has indicated that it will require
directional boring be used as the construction method. Directional boring,
in conjunction with the City's ability to require controlled density backfill
or equivalent for trench cuts, could potentially minimize impacts to the life
of the pavement.
One drawback to directional boring is the requirement to have good infor-
mation regarding what lies in the path of the bore. For example, unless the
precise location and depth of nearby utilities are known, the bore could cut
through existing lines, including water, storm, sanitary sewer, gas and power.
There have been several serious accidents where boring for telecommuni-
cation facilities has severed steam or natural gas lines, causing explosions
and serious injury.
Impact to any of these lines would require trench cuts to access and replace
the damaged pipes. Trench cuts reduce pavement life. If the trench cut
fails after the liability period defined in City code, the City becomes re-
sponsible for any settling or drainage problems. Emergency pipeline re-
pairs would likely disrupt traffic. The damaged pipe may leak sewage, gas
or water prior to repair. Such a leak could impact public safety, increase
the contractor's liability and lead to vocal, negative public opinion.
In summary, construction of telecommunications facilities in designated
PUEs will result in the lowest level of public impact and liability to the
City. Construction under sidewalks would cause slightly more disruption
to pedestrian traffic, but would also result in minimal liability to the City.
Construction under street pavement would have greater potential to impact
the City and public, both in cost and disruption of traffic and public ser-
vices.
Currently, the City addresses telecommunication facility construction pri-
marily through three documents.
Page 3-12
August 1999
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Tukwila Municipal Code 13.08 calls for underground utility construction.
All new facilities, extensions, duplications or rebuilds are affected. The City
may want to consider a "fee in lieu of' provision to allow infill develop-
ment to occur in an area with existing above -ground utilities to pay a fee in
lieu of undergrounding a small portion of the utility line. The fee would be
held until such time as the entire corridor was undergrounded.
Master Cable Ordinance No. 1687 governs franchise grants in general. The
master cable ordinance requires a public hearing where applicants must prove
their ability to finance and construct a new facility. This ordinance also
requires discussion regarding the present and future use of a cable system,
the capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate the system and potential
disruption to existing right-of-way users.
Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards, R4.0 Construction, de-
tails acceptable construction methods for work in roadways. Section R4.1 -
Roadway Cuts calls for jacking, tunneling or boring for all roadway cross-
ings where possible. This section also prohibits open cutting on newly con-
structed roads or recently overlaid streets for five years.
In order to maintain public safety while minimizing cost and disruption to
transportation and utility service, the City sshould expand its existing ordi-
nances. Recommended changes are detailed in Chapter 4. In addition, the
City should develop a mitigation cost structure, similar to that adopted as in
an interim measure with Pacific Fiber Link. The following recommenda-
tions are intended as a basis for ordinance modification.
1) The City should grant approvals not only for specific rights-of-way, but
also for locations within those rights-of-way. For example, the City
might grant an approval to construct a telecommunications facility within
a PUE or under a sidewalk.
2) Utility locations should be granted in this order of preference: 1) in Pub-
lic Utility Easements (if available or as part of a new road facility), 2)
under sidewalks and 3) under street pavement. Applicants wishing to
move from a recommended location within the right-of-way to a less
desirable (according to the City) location must apply for a variance.
The Applicant must demonstrate undo hardship, minimal disruption and
minimal impact to public safety. Such variance should be granted through
an administrative process within the Community Development and Public
Works departments.
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan
Page 3-13
August 1999
3) The City should specify the responsibilities of the Applicant in the case
of unforeseen disruption to existing utilities. For example, if a location
bore damages an existing water line, the Applicant is responsible for
ensuring prompt repair to the line and for whatever costs are associated
with any necessary roadway cuts. The City might consider a financial
penalty for unforeseen disruption as an enticement to the Applicant to
conduct complete utility location identification.
4) The City's Design and Construction Standards specify standards for
reconstruction of trench cuts. The Standards should also specify sur-
face and landscape reconstruction standards for concrete sidewalks, other
asphalt areas and PUEs.
5) The City should actively advertise to utility providers any street over-
lays or new street construction identified in the Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP). Although the CIP is a public document, proactive commu-
nication with utility providers and the business community may help
avoid later conflict and public expense.
Page 3-14
August 1999
Chapter 3 - Future Conditions
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan ,
CHAPTER 4
CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION
STANDARDS, COMPENSATION AND
MITIGATION FEES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a compilation of the information gathered regarding
construction and restoration statndards, compensatioin and mitigation. It
summarizes findings from other jurisdictions, both the positive and nega-
tive aspects, and provides recommendations for construction and restora-
tion standards, as well as compensation issues.
This review included identification, evaluation and recommendations of
construction standards to be followed throughout the city of Tukwila. These
included the identification of a preferred construction method and a mini-
mum allowable construction method.
Restoration requirements for the traveled portion of the right-of-way, un-
improved portions of the right-of-way, and improved portion of the right-
of-way (i.e. curbs & sidewalks) were reviewed. Finally, precedents for
imposing requirements for joint venturing with others and criteria to allow
this were reviewed.
Research also included a review of compensation methods used in several
Washington cities, Oregon and other jurisdictions, and a discussion of the
positive and negative aspects of each type. It also included a review of the
Revised Code of Washington as it relates to the collection of fees from
telecommunication providers and other issues related to right-of-way man-
agement.
Several ordinances from communities in Washington and Oregon, (as well
as the cities' construction standards) were reviewed to serve as a basis for
developing standards to be followed for the maintenance of existing un-
derground utilities. Such standards include definitions for "emergency"
repair, notification procedures and permitting, traffic control and safety,
and limitation of work hours.
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 4-1
August 1999 ,
CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS
This memorandum also evaluates and identifies standards to be followed
in the restoration of rights of way affected by "emergency" repairs de-
scribed above with regard to the following:
a. Warranty of work;
b. Restoration of improvements (i.e. curbs and sidewalks);
c. Restoration of the traveled portion of the right-of-way.
Other jurisdictional data and Washington State Law (RCWs) were
researched regarding the ability to apply a moratorium to limit trench
cuts on new streets.
Finally, a matrix was prepared of street functional classification (i.e. arte-
rial, collector, local access) and utility functional classification (i.e. trans-
mission, feeder, local service) on the length of time before cuts can be
made or how necessary cuts will be mitigated.
Identification, Evaluation and Recommendations for
Construction Standards
Per discussions with City staff, and according to the City's adopted De-
sign and Construction Standards, the City has identified boring as its pre-
ferred method of construction. These Standards state that roadway cross-
ings for utilities shall be accomplished by jacking, tunneling or boring,
with windows or shafts not less than 20 feet apart.
Open cuts are allowed on an exception basis only: when roadway condi-
tions warrant or in cases of undue hardship. The Standards are silent on
utilities that are parallel to the roadway, although the typical sections show
a 10 -foot minimum utility easement.
In general, the construction choices permitted by the City's standards in-
clude boring and trenching. Boring has a number of benefits to the City in
that it is less disruptive to the operation of a right-of-way and it causes less
damage to the surface of the facility. Boring can be more costly to a pro-
vider if a city does not have stringent mitigation requirements for trench-
ing.
However, in some jurisdictions, the provider is required to replace the en -
Page 4-2
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Midgaton Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management ,
Street Functional Classification
Classification
Backbone
Feeder
Distribution
Subscriber
Access Streets
Approved on
case by case
basis, as few
backbone lines
locate on access
streets.
Approved on
case by case
basis, as few
feeder lines
locate on access
streets.
'-years after
construction or
ion
reconstrvctof road or 2
ears before
p
As needed,
most trenches
are likely to
occur on
private
property•
cePtion
allowed in
emergency.
Collector Arterials
our
case by casereconstruction
basis, as few
bacltbone lines
locate on
collector streets.
5 -years after
construction or
of
road or 2 years
before planned
construction/reco
nstructionExcept
ion allowed in
emergency
5 -years after
construction or
reconstructionApproved
of road or 2
years before
planned
construction/re
constructionEx
ception
allowed in
orgy
As
most trenches
are yl to
occur on
Private
pr° y.
Minor Arterials
5 -years after
construction or
reconstruction of
road or 2 years
before planned
construction/reco
nstructionExcept
ion allowed in
emergency
5 -years after
construction or
reconstruction of
road or 2 years
before planned
construction/reco
nstructionExcept
ion allowed in
emergency
O -years atter
construction or
reconstruction
of road or 2
years before
planned
construction/re
constructionFx
ception
allowed in
emergency
needed,
most trenches
are hkely to
occur on
private
ProltY.
Principal Arterials
5 -years after
construction or
reconstruction of
road or 2 years
before planned
construction/reco
nstructionExcept
ion allowed in
emergency
5 -years after
construction or
reconstruction of
road or 2 years
before planned
construction/reco
nstructionExcept
ion allowed in
emergency
o -years atter
construction or
reconstruction
of road or 2
years before
planned
construction/re
construction&x
ception
allowed in
emergency
needed,
most trenches
are likely to
occur on
Private
ProPerh'•
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 4-3
August 1999\
tire half -street for the length of the trench to ensure that the pavement
quality matches in the trenched and non -trenched areas. Boring also re-
quires solid knowledge of where other utility lines are located and where
they cross, so that they are not cut. There have been several notable acci-
dents involving gas or steam pipes being cut during boring for telecommu-
nications lines.
Several companies specialize in low impact location testing in support of
utility location projects. These services should be required as part of the
utility location verification process before construction begins.
There may be situations where trenching is acceptable. These include:
• during the construction of a new roadway/reconstruction or widen-
ing of existing roadway;
• along a platted but not developed right-of-way;
• streets where resurfacing or reconstruction is planned (on the CIP)
within two years;
• connections on private property from local streets.
In these situations, the impact to an existing road surface would be mini-
mal or nonexistent and the cost of boring may not be warranted. In the
case of new road construction, it is likely that other utilities, such as water,
sewer and storm water will be trenched, so it makes sense that they are all
co -located in the public utility easement (PUE), as identified in the City's
street design standards.
Current City policy for restoration, as identified in existing franchise agree-
ments and construction standards, is that disturbed areas need to be re-
stored to pre -disturbance condition. This requirement should continue, as
it appears to be within the allowable requirements of the Federal Telecom-
munications Act of 1996 and State law.
• For the traveled portion of the right-of-way, the restoration require
ment includes restoring pavement to its original condition. Open
ings such as manholes must be flush with the roadway surface.
The City may consider requirements for resurfacing the entire lane
for the length of a cut, in the case of a trench cut. Contractors should
also be required to replace striping, buttons or other pavement mark-
ings that are lost or damaged during construction. Materials used
in pavement and backfill should meet or exceed established City
specifications. If no city specifications exist, materials meeting
WSDOT specification should be required.
Page 4-4
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management
• The City may consider requiring any cuts into concrete roadway
surfaces to be mitigated with full -panel replacement as cuts into
these surfaces often result in near-term failure of the entire panel.
•■ Restoring undeveloped portions of the roadway, including public
utility easements, to pre -construction condition should be required.
This includes returning the surface to match the existing grade,
and replacement of damaged landscaping, irrigation systems or other
private elements that are on the surface of the easement. Signifi-
cant trees (those over six inches in diameter, 4.5 feet offthe ground)
shall be avoided, and replaced with trees of equal stature if dam-
ages occur.
• Improved portions of the right-of-way, including curb and side-
walk should be restored to pre -construction condition. This includes
restoration of concrete panels in sidewalks and lengths of curb.
Planter strips adjacent to sidewalks should be restored to pre -con-
struction condition, including new plant materials if damaged or
removed.
Throughout Washington, city and county public works departments are
required to prepare capital improvement programs (CIP) for various im-
provement projects to the public infrastructure system (roads, sewers, wa-
ter systems, storm drainage, et cetera). Because these projects are in the
public realm, the information on schedules, budget and design are all pub-
lic information.
Traditionally, a public agency will solicit interest from utility providers if
the provider approaches the agency prior to construction. For example,
when Clark County was designing an extension of NE 117th Street, the
Public Utility District (PUD), a separate agency, approached the County
about designing a new water main into the roadway and combining the
construction into one project. The PUD is currently incorporating the wa-
ter line into the design and the project will be jointly funded for construc-
tion.
Because CIP projects are public information, there does not appear to be
anything in State law preventing the City from advertising for private or
other public utility partners in the construction or reconstruction of road-
way projects. As the City schedules the hearings on the annual adoption
of the CIP, the required advertisements should include a statement that
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicadons Management Plan
Page 4-5'
August 1999,
MITIGATION
"The city of Tukwila is interested in cooperating with public and private
utility providers in the design and development of projects in the capital
improvement program. Please contact (city official) for more information."
The City may want to consider an ad in the Daily Journal of Commerce
and utility industry publications that highlight the City's interest in early
coordination with utility providers on planned City projects. For projects
where the City chooses to solicit proposals for design from consultants,
the public advertisements should include a similar message.
Utility providers, thus, would be kept "in the loop" as to the City's plans
for new streets, reconstruction (where trenching may be an option), sewer
and water projects where co -location may be an option.
Cities and counties have a maze of regulations to navigate with regard to
managing their right-of-way for telecommunications and other private utility
services. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) has spe-
cific provisions that were included to assist local jurisdictions in manag-
ing rights-of-way. The TCA also has specific requirements that cities and
counties treat providers in "a competitively neutral manner." The TCA
allows jurisdictions to charge "fair compensation" for the use of rights of
way.
However, long established telecommunications providers have success-
fully argued in court that they, as companies evolved from the original
telegraph services, have contractual agreements dating back over a cen-
tury that grant them use of rights-of-way for no fee. This puts cities in a
quandary because the established companies can hide behind these anti-
quated agreements, and new companies need to be treated in a competi-
tively neutral manner. Thus, in many locales, the new companies cannot
be charged fees for right-of-way use.
Added into the complexities of the Federal law and antiquated operating
agreements are the limitations placed by State law on how cities and coun-
ties treat private utility providers. In Washington, regulation of franchise
fees on utilities is relegated to Chapter 35 of the Revised Code of Wash-
ington (RCW), Miscellaneous Provisions. As discussed in the following
section, the RCW guidance is in conflict with two key sections of the TCA,
as it prohibits jurisdictions from charging for right-of-way use, and it re -
Page 4-6
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management
quires that cities treat other public utility providers differently than private
utility providers.
Key issues facing Tukwila include the ability to impose a right-of-way
use fee, ability to treat other public utility providers neutrally, ability to
impose pavement mitigation fees, and the ability to impose a morato-
rium on utility cuts in new pavement.
Washington State Law Restrictions
Under Washington law (RCW 35.21.860) a city is prohibited from impos-
ing a franchise fee "or any other fee or charge of whatever nature or de-
scription" on gas, electric and telephone businesses. A city may, however,
charge private electric, gas and telephone businesses a utility tax of up to
6% under RCW 35.21.865. The restriction on "other fee or charge" may
impair a city's ability to require additional conduit or dark fiber when un-
derground telecommunications installations are made. It may also impair
a city's ability to charge a pavement mitigation fee or a right-of-way use
fee.
Cities are allowed to charge a telecommunications or other private utility
provider for recovery of administrative expenses related to receiving and
approving a permit, license or franchise, plan and construction inspection,
and preparation of environmental documents.
In several jurisdictions, new telecommunications providers have argued
that new providers in a market who must pay franchise fees and comply
with right-of-way ordinances are being treated unfairly if US West, as a
local service provider, is exempted. US West has argued that its franchise
to provide service predates statehood. They have also claimed that US
West has a right to locate in new underground facilities, but that
undergrounding costs required as a part of an improvement project must
be paid by the city and not US West.
Many cities have agreed that if they accede to these demands, it becomes
difficult to enforce franchise and relocation requirements against other pri-
vate telecommunication providers. This issue has recently been resolved
in court, with the decision in favor of the cities.
There is also no direct Washington statutory authority for a city to charge
a utility tax on telecommunications services provided by another city's
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 4-7`
August 1999,
municipal utility. These state imposed limits conflict with a city's obliga-
tion to act in a competitively neutral manner under the Telecommunica-
tions Act of 1996 (TCA).
In the Tacoma area, Tacoma Public Utilities (TPU), a department of the
city of Tacoma, wants to provide telecommunication lines throughout its
service area. These would compete with a private cable company in some
locations. Under the TCA, a receiving city must treat the TPU the same as
the private company, in terms of the utility tax it collects. Under Washing-
ton law, there is little support for one city taxing another, especially in the
area of utilities. There are several urban areas in the State where this could
be an issue. Within the northern part of Tukwila, Seattle City Light pro-
vides electric services and could potentially add various telecommunica-
tion services to its existing lines.
There is some support through the Association of Washington Cities to
work to legislatively change the utility tax and franchise provisions of the
RCW, as it applies to telecommunications providers. There is growing
interest among cities and counties to be able to charge providers based on
the relative impact of a particular provider on the city, rather than a flat tax
as currently allowed. This would allow a receiving city to tax another city
as if it were a private provider as well.
At the Federal level, there is some sentiment that fee structures based on
flat rate taxation of receipts is anticompetitive, as it penalizes smaller start-
up companies that may not be able to easily afford the same taxation rate
as an established company. There is also some evidence that, nationwide,
Cities are spending more on utility -related right-of-way management than
they are able to recoup through existing fee structures on all utilities com-
bined.
There does not appear to be any legislative guidance in the RCW under
sections governing utilities or roadways regarding the implementation of a
moratorium on cuts into new pavement. The requirement to pay a pave-
ment mitigation fee may be of greater issue, as it could be construed to be
"any other fee or charge..." This appears to be in conflict with the provi-
sions in the TCA that allow cities and counties to manage their rights of
way.
Following is a summary of a range of telecommunications ordinances found
in Washington State, as well as a few that are cited in various telecommu-
Page 4-8
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management
nications publications as being of interest or unique. The majority of the
ordinances in Washington appear to follow a master telecommunications
ordinance. The Austin, Texas ordinance is summarized as an example of
a more complex ordinance that allows for fees that are currently not al-
lowed under Washington Law.
Kirkland Washington
The city of Kirkland grants a license to occupy the right-of-way with fa-
cilities for the purpose of providing telecommunications services within
or outside of the city. The. City can gain fair and reasonable compensation
for use of public property (Kirkland Ordinance 3636, Section 26.12.100).
A franchise is also required to actually provide service within the city.
Construction must comply with City standards. The ordinance prohibits
cuts in roadway surfaces less than five years old unless the permittee over-
lays the roadway. Underground facilities must be located in existing duct
or conduit where excess capacity exists. Installation on overhead poles
may occur only if capacity exists, and the utility is required to pay the cost
of undergrounding when other above -ground utilities are undergrounded.
Franchisees of one service that is underground must also locate telecom-
munication facilities underground (e.g. if a cable TV provider is under-
ground and it adds additional telecommunication services, those facilities
must also go underground). The City may require a permittee to construct
added capacity at the City's expense for the purpose of allowing future
competitive service. A permittee may lease excess capacity back to the
City for management or manage the facility itself.
Bellingham, Washington
This ordinance allows franchises to be granted and fees to be collected, as
long as they are "fair and reasonable." Fees for franchise permits, registra-
tion and application can be established from time to time by the public
works department, while franchise fees for operation other than cable TV
are subject to negotiation. Such fees are required to cover City costs for
right-of-way maintenance and administration. Bellingham's ordinance re-
quires installation of utilities in existing underground duct or conduit if
capacity exists. If a provider exhausts existing capacity, they are required
to provide additional duct, conduit or other facilities to provide for nondis-
criminatory access by future carriers.
Gig Harbor, Washington
The City requires a telecommunications right-of-way use permit to con-
struct/install/operate/maintain or locate facilities for providing transmis-
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management P/an
Page 4-9
August 1999
sion to users outside of the city. Each franchise is required to do the above
to provide service in the city. A facilities lease is required to locate any
telecommunications facility on City -owned property. If an applicant pro-
poses to use new duct or conduit in public right-of-way, the application
needs to show the proposed location and demonstrate that excess capacity
will occur. The ordinance defines specific criteria for approval or denial of
application. The City and applicant can agree on the fee to be paid for
facility occupation. Restoration to preexisting conditions is required. There
is a requirement that the applicant must prove that capacity for their use
exists. New facilities that exhaust capacity may be required to overbuild in
order to provide nondiscriminatory access for future providers.
Pierce County, Washington
Pierce County's ordinance requires telecommunications providers to ob-
tain a franchise and pay fees. The ordinance specifically states that exist-
ing franchise ordinances or agreements are not affected by the current or-
dinance until the existing franchise agreement expires or both parties reach
agreement on updating an existing agreement. The ordinance provides for
the county to annually fix a fair and reasonable compensation for use of
property. The County may require that additional capacity be constructed
at the County's expense.
Austin, Texas
Austin is often held up as an example of a comprehensive telecommunica-
tions ordinance. The ordinance is written in three parts. The first part es-
tablishes the need for the ordinance and provides definitions. It also pro-
vides a requirement for municipal consent (similar to licenses or permits
in other jurisdictions). The second section discusses compensation to the
city, which is composed of a municipal consent fee (a monthly fee) based
on the number of lines a provider serves.
The ordinance provides a base municipal consent fee which is adjusted for
an upcoming year based on the ratio of the current years taxable receipts
divided by the previous years taxable receipts for all providers. The City
may also require nonmonetary consideration including network capacity
or conduit at the provider's direct cost, at a credit to the annual municipal
consent fee. The second section of the ordinance also defines construction
obligations, and allows for the City to charge for construction permits and
fees. The third part of the ordinance defines the conditions of right-of-way
occupancy, insurance and indemnification requirements.
Page 4-10
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management
REVENUE RENTAL
APPROACHES
Washington law does not currently allow rental revenue to be collected
from telecommunication providers. The Association of Washington Cities
has expressed some interest in changing this. In the event that these legis-
lative changes occur, the city of Tukwila may want to consider the follow-
ing options. Currently, the first option is allowable under the RCW, up to
a 6% level, when it is charged as a tax, and not a fee.
Maximum percentage of fees from gross revenue — This requires in-
spection of the account records of each provider, and may include revenue
for service outside of a local jurisdiction. It requires monitoring of all pro-
viders of similar services and equal charges for equal services. For ex-
ample, if a cable operator initiates telecommunication services over cable
facilities, they will pay telecommunications revenue fees as well as cable
fees. This method is contentious among providers, as it makes their rev-
enues and volumes public information.
Charge per linear foot based on adjacent land valuation — This results
in variable charges for right-of-way in higher density areas, commercial
areas, and along major roads. For Tukwila, this would seem appropriate,
as the service providers would likely be generating more revenue from
facilities in these areas, as compared to single family residential areas.
This method allows providers to keep their records proprietary, but pro-
vides some equality for charges through potential demand.
Flat rate rental (set fee per linear foot of particular sized conduit) —
This method works best in areas that are densely developed and are served
by multiple competitive providers. The rental fee can include variances
for above and below ground lines, and can generally be increased each
year based on the consumer price index. There are no added charges for
manholes, access points or other facilities. These fees usually take the place
of charges for occupancy permits. The cost to construct any required mu-
nicipal conduit is deducted from the rental fee. This system is easy to audit
and allows development of empty conduit for future municipal or other
use.
Cost recovery — In a growing community with many newly developed
areas, cost recovery might include permit application and processing fees,
field inspection costs at the City's hourly charge, an annual maintenance
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 4-11
August 1999
occupancy fee based on previous years street maintenance cost, and pave-
ment cut fees. Annual maintenance fees for roads are the average cost per
linear foot by street classification, with a percentage of the roadway allo-
cated to telecommunications (typically 2.5% per provider). For example,
a city spends $2 million on arterial maintenance (equating to $5.00 per
linear foot) and $1.5 million (equating to $3.00 per linear foot) on collec-
tor maintenance. If a provider has 20,000 feet of conduit in arterials and
15,000 feet of conduit in collectors. This would result in an annual fee of
$3,625.00 [($5 x .025 x 20,000) + ($3 x .025 x 15,000 = $3,625].
A second model is the "Degradation/User/Disruption Fee." This calcula-
tion is based on three components: the incremental cost for intrusion and
depreciation of the right-of-way, the value of land relative to the space
used, and the inconvenience to the public of the interruption for construc-
tion and system maintenance. The intrusion/depreciation fee is calculated
based on cost for square yard of street, overlay and sealcoat multiplied by
a depreciation factor and the area of the street patch.
The user fee is based on the average value of land multiplied by the cost of
easement acquisition, the exclusivity of use of the easement and the area
of use. Exclusivity is based on the fraction of the easement used by each
service provider. If there is only one provider, the factor would be 100%.
The disruption fee is based on average daily traffic multiplied by the num-
ber of days the right-of-way is unavailable, the distance of detour (in miles)
and the current IRS approved mileage rate. This method was developed
by the League of Minnesota Cities.
Fixed fees — (price per Length or per street crossing, flat fee per access
line in the city). There are several models of this system in practice. There
is generally a small annual occupancy fee and a fee per excavation.
A community in Ohio charges $1,000 if the permittee has less than 30
miles of right-of-way use, $3,000 if over 30 miles is used. Limited use
permittees are charged $.10 per linear foot, and residential permits are not
charged. There is a work permit fee for street openings, as well as the
requirement for a performance bond. The community believes that this
system is a way to govern a utility's use of public rights-of-way, without
becoming a revenue generator for the city.
Another type of fixed fee is the access line charge. These fees are based on
the number of subscriber lines a provider has. It is favored by incumbent
providers who are paying a gross receipt percentage, as well as by new
Page 4-12 Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management
competitors building a customer base in a competitive market. These types
of fees are prevalent in Texas where they have been instituted under pres-
sure from the providers.
Existing payments under a percentage model are used to establish a base
for the city. Each provider reports the number of different types of lines
provided (residential, commercial, special lines such as T-1 or DS -3). The
base revenue divided by 12 months divided by the total number of lines
equals the charge per line. This system requires a careful definition of
"access line" to protect against future technology developments that would
cause discreet lines to be counted as a single line. These fees generally
change with the consumer price index so that revenue growth matches
municipal operating cost growth. Some providers have advocated this
method in lieu of other fees and permit costs.
In-kind services — (dark or light fiber, extra conduit, office or insti-
tution/government-net, water/utility/emergency/traffic signal links).
Some cities, for example New Orleans, has required the grantee to
provide free conduit or duct space and dark fiber on backbone and feeder
lines to public buildings. The City must provide the entry link for such
lines. In most cases, the City cannot sublet these facilities, but may hire
a different company to manage them in the City's interest. The City
gains important facilities, especially when dedicated for use for emer-
gency communication or traffic signal links, while minimizing the
disruption of right-of-way for multiple installations.
While none of these, other than a tax on revenue, is currently legal in Wash-
ington, the city of Tukwila may want to incorporate one of the above
measures into its telecommunications ordinance. Upon the adoption of the
ordinance the base fee could be set at zero, with the provision to allow for
annual updates of the fee. That way, if and when the legislature changes
the current ban on fees, the City can amend it's ordinance to update the
fee.
Recommendation
Recent legal decisions, which have been appealed, have generally ruled
against fees that could be construed as revenue generators for the city, or
as detrimental to the provision of a competitive market. Fees based on
gross receipts and requirements for provision of in-kind services have not
fared well when tested against the Federal Telecommunications Act of
1996.
Chapter 4 - Construction and Resto, tion Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 4-13
August 1999
STANDARDS AND
MITIGATION FOR
EMERGENCY
REPAIR
Because the City is requiring that new construction use a directional bore,
there are some provisions of the above features that may not make sense.
The -Cost recovery model that is based on city costs to maintain roadways
by classification may be the most appropriate for Tukwila. This method is
least likely to face legal challenges, as it is derived from actual mainte-
nance costs and occupancy of the right-of-way. It can be weighted toward
providers who have more facilities under a particular section of right-of-
way, and it does not require providers to divulge information that may be
considered proprietary.
The above discussion relates to the planned installation of new facilities or
upgrades to existing ones. Unfortunately, there are occasions where emer-
gencies arise. Weather conditions or actions related to weather, construc-
tion of other facilities, or other unexpected situations may occur that con-
stitute an emergency for a utility provider. The following discussion sum-
marizes a review of other ordinances that define "emergency" and pro-
vides a recommendation for Tukwila.
Tumwater defines "Emergency" as a condition of imminent danger to the
health, safety and welfare of property or persons located within the city,
including, without limitation, damage to persons or property from natural
consequences such as storms, earthquakes, riots or wars. In the event of an
unexpected repair or emergency, a grantee, franchisee or lessee may com-
mence such work as required under the circumstances, provided the grantee,
franchisee or lessee shall notify the City as promptly as possible, before
such repair or emergency work commences or as soon thereafter as pos-
sible if advance notice is not practical.
Gig Harbor defines "Emergency" using the same language at Tumwater.
Their ordinance does not make any provisions for emergency repair.
Kirkland does not define emergency but provides for the grantee to com-
mence repair or emergency work as required under the circumstance, pro-
vided the grantee notifies the public works director as soon as possible if
advance notice is not practical.
Bellingham does not define emergency but provides that in the event of an
unexpected repair or emergency, a person may commence repair or emer-
Page 4-14
August 1999
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management
gency work as reasonably required under the circumstances, provided no-
tice is given to the City and affected property owners as completely and
promptly as possible.
In general, the City would be protecting it's interests best if it provided a
definition of "Emergency" in the Code and provided for emergency re-
pairs to utility systems as needed at the discretion of the provider, with
notice to the City. Some utility -related emergencies can result in a loss of
service due to impacts of weather, for example, a conduit dislocated by a
landslide.
Other emergencies can be related to accidents arising from construction of
other systems, for example a pavement cut through an existing conduit. In
such cases, service disruption could result in additional complications for
dealing with other emergencies, such as a loss of critical conununication
links for City and public safety agencies. It makes sense for the provider to
allow its work crews sufficient discretion on emergency repairs; this would
benefit the provider as well as the community, without penalty.
It is recommended that Tukwila adopt a definition of "Emergency" as "a
condition of imminent danger to the health, safety and welfare of property
or persons located within the city, including, without limitation, damage
to persons or property from natural consequences such as storms, earth-
quakes, riots or wars." Further, the City should include a section in its
ordinance allowing for a provider's designee to commence repair or emer-
gency work as reasonably required under the circumstances, provided the
provider notifies the public works director as soon as possible, if advance
notice is not practical.
Emergency Repair Restoration
In some cases, emergency repairs to underground utilities require pave-
ment cuts, sidewalk excavation or other disturbances to surfaces in the
right-of-way. The above ordinances do not contain special provisions for
restoration of emergency repairs; instead cover all restoration under the
same section of code.
Requirements for warranty of repairs is also not specifically stated for tem-
porary or emergency restoration. Many of the codes reviewed contain spe-
cial provisions allowing for temporary restoration. In discussions with
telecommunication providers and their construction contractors, these types
of provisions are perceived as necessary.
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
aty of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page 4-15
August 1999
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITATION AND
REQUIREMENTS
In some emergency occurrences, especially where bad weather is involved,
the repair to the utility line may be easily completed. However, conditions
may not be ideal for restoration of landscaping, sidewalk or pavement ar-
eas.
Temporary restoration provisions allow the right-of-way surface to be re-
turned to its typical use, and allow the weather conditions to improve be-
fore permanent restoration is undertaken. In other emergency occurrences,
a repair may be made to the utility line which is itself temporary, in order
to allow service to resume, with a more permanent repair to be made when
conditions permit. Such situations are also conducive to temporary resto-
ration of right-of-way.
It is recommended that Tukwila include language in its ordinance that al-
lows for temporary restoration of right-of-way in emergency situations.
Such language should include requirements to notify the public works di-
rector before undertaking permanent restoration, to use an approved traffic
control plan (if needed) during construction of permanent restoration, and
to use temporary warning signs (e.g. "bump" or "steel plate" signs) while
interim repairs are in place.
For the City's benefit, as well as liability concerns, construction and main-
tenance of underground utilities need to be regulated in terms of permits,
safety and impact on the surrounding area. The following is a discussion
and set of recommendations for the permitting process, notification and
construction procedures.
Permitting Process
A review of other Washington and Oregon ordinances shows that, in al-
most every case, telecommunications and other private utilities undergo a
multiple -step permitting process. Providers are required to obtain a fran-
chise (or similar approval), as well as right-of-way use permits and finally,
construction permits. Commentary from providers is that they would like
to see some type of "one-stop shopping" where they could get all of the
permits under one application.
Tukwila's current system requires separate approvals for franchise, right-
of-way and construction permits.
Page 4-16 Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management
Notification
It is important to define two categories of notification in a utilities ordi-
nance. The first is notification to the City when the provider is going to
begin activity in public right-of-way. The second is to provide notice to
the affected public of the activity.
Typically, conditions specified on permits require that the City receive
written notification of the plannedbeginning of activity within a set num-
ber of days before activity starts.
Notification of the affected public is less defined. The affected public can
vary with projects. For example, a project that is limited to construction in
a public utility easement may only affect the adjacent property owners and
users of those facilities. In cases where construction will impact a road or
sidewalk, the general travelling public would also be affected. In cases
where significant detours may be required over several days, some juris-
dictions require posting of the roadway well in advance of the construction
dates.
The recommendation for Tukwila, to ensure that the city's interests are
protected and that the residents and business community get the best infor-
mation possible, is threefold:
1. Notice of Construction - Construction permits for activity in the public
right-of-way should include a standard condition that the permittee or its
contractor provide the City written notice, to be received by the City no
less than seven days before construction is scheduled to begin. Such notice
shall include names and phone numbers for a contact person of the pro-
vider and for the construction organization.
2. Adjacent Property Notice - At the time of permit application, the per-
mittee shall provide the City with a certified list of properties adjacent to
the right-of-way. The permittee shall prepare mailing labels for street ad-
dresses of all developed properties, and property owners of vacant proper-
ties. The permittee shall also provide a generic notification letter describ-
ing the project, the limits of construction and pledge to restore all surfaces
to existing conditions. The permittee will mail the letter to the mailing list
at the same time as the notice to the City, and prepare an affidavit certify-
ing that letters were mailed.
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management P/an
Page 4-17
August 1999
3. Street User Notice — For projects that will require actual detours of traf-
fic lasting in excess of five working days, other than single lane closures
with flaggers, the road shall be posted not fewer than seven days before
construction begins. Sign should be a minimum of 36" by 36", orange
diamond sign stating in minimum 3" lettering the road to be detoured, the
approximate endpoints of the detour and the anticipated closure dates. For
example, a project that would require a week long construction closure of
eastbound S. 144th Street between S. 42nd and S. 51st Avenues would
require the following sign be posted at the southwest corner of the inter-
section of 5.. 144th Street and S. 42nd Avenue:
"Eastbound S. 144th closed for construction May 24 -May 31, 7am-7pm.
Detour Provided."
Construction Procedures
City Design and Construction Standards, section G4.0, states the provi-
sions for construction of public and private infrastructure, including plac-
ing the burden of knowing easement conditions on the construction con-
tractor.
The City Design and Construction Standards, section R4.0, states that "All
work performed inthe construction of City streets shall be per approved
plans only." Section R4.2 states that work in roadways must display signs,
cones, flags, etc. per MUTCD. All work requiting lane closures must be
by permit only."
In general, Section R4.2 maintains the interests of the city and private
property owners for access during construction. It may be desirable to re-
vise this section to reflect work in rights of way, rather than limiting the
requirements to roadways.
Other sections of the Standards (D4.0 and S4.0) define similar require-
ments for provision of record drawings, requiring approved plans on-site,
and compliance with Federal, State and local safety requirements.
It is recommended that the City define a standard set of construction re-
quirements that can be used as a preface for each of these subareas of the
design and construction standards. There are areas where the construction
of the various facilities overlap and it is not clearly stated, for example,
that construction of a roadway trench for sewer installation requires traffic
protection per MUTCD. The City may want to consider approving traffic
control plans.
Page 4-18 Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicat/ons Management ,
For example, each subsection would start out:
X4.0 Construction
All work performed in the construction of public or private infra-
structure, roads, water, sewer or storm water systems, including
construction within City rights of way and easements, shall be per
approved plans only. The contractor is required to maintain a set of
approved plans and permits on the job site, whenever work is be-
ing accomplished. Record drawings (see definitions) will be re-
quired at the completion of the project and prior to final accep-
tance. All work is to be performed in accordance with all appli-
cable Federal, State and local safety laws. Any construction affect-
ing operation of a roadway will require an approved traffic control
plan, including devices per the MLJTCD.
SUMMARY
The above discussion provides a comparison of how other communities,
primarily in Washington, are managing their public rights of way. There
are many consistencies and some differences. The recommendations that
are cited above will provide Tukwila with a comprehensive set of defini-
tions and policies to adopt into an ordinance.
The City, through its participation in the Association of Washington Cit-
ies, should support efforts to change the provisions of the RCW to make it
more consistent with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Until that time, the City's right-of-way ordinance should provide for
collection of fees as allowed under Federal law, with the initial rate set at
zero.
The City has a comprehensive set of construction standards for public utili-
ties, roads, and other infrastructure systems. These standards should be
made consistent between categories and expanded to provide for emer-
gency repair/construction as well as permanent installation.
Chapter 4 - Construction and Restoration Standards, Compensation and Mitigation Fees
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page 4-19
August 1999\,
CHAPTER. 5
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
AND PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies, evaluates and recommends procedures to insure
the Right -of -Way Management Plan will be adhered to. The recommended
process resembles the City's current permitting process, with specific re-
quirements and criteria for new construction, routine repair/maintenance
activities, and emergency repair. The focus is on three types of permits
and approvals:
•
■
•
Franchise
Right-of-way
Construction
Franchise approvals grant the authority to provide a specific service or
services. The right-of-way permit provides approval for a specific loca-
tion and the construction permit specifies the conditions for the actual
installation of the facility.
This chapter also includes an appendix with draft ordinance language for
the City to consider as an implementation measure.
Existing Situation
The City currently requires cable television carriers and providers to ob-
tain franchises for service. They have dealt with fiber optic and other
telecommunication providers on a case-by-case basis. One purpose of
developing a Right -of -Way Management Plan and Ordinance is to meet
the requirements of Federal law to provide nondiscriminatory, competi-
tive access for telecommunications carriers and providers. The sample
ordinance in the appendix addresses many of the same issues identified in
the City's Cable Television Franchise Ordinance (Ordinance #1687).
Under State law this is allowable. While franchise fees may be illegal
under State law, it is legal for the City to recover the cost of administering
the permit process. It is also legal for the City to charge up to 6% of the
carrier or provider's gross revenue as a tax.
The franchise ordinance language in the Appendix includes some addi-
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunications Management Plan
Page 5-1
August 1999 ,
tional language to strengthen the purpose of the chapter, and to provide
definitions that are specific to telecommunications and public right-of-
way issues. One proposed section allows the City to determine a fair and
reasonable compensation, provided nothing shall prohibit the applicant
and City from agreeing on such compensation. This section allows the
City to charge a fee, if RCW 35.21.860 is ever changed. The fees section
is specific to relate to application fees and recovery of all administrative
costs, as well as maintenance incurred by the City related to use of the
right-of-way.
In most jurisdictions, the granting of a franchise does not guarantee the
granting of a right-of-way use permit. In most cases, the franchise process
gives the City the opportunity to review the applicant and it's ability to
serve the community. The right-of-way permit process gives the City a
chance to review the physical proposal.
Currently, the City grants permits for work in the right-of-way to fran-
chise utilities through an over-the-counter franchise utility permit. Non-
franchise utilities are subject to the City's site plan review process. In
some cases, a non -franchise utility leasing capacity or facilities from a
franchise utility can take advantage of the franchise utility's ability to avoid
a more detailed permit process.
A review of other telecommunications and right-of-way management or-
dinances includes a specific definition of purpose and general provisions.
These purposes generally include:
• To set forth rules and regulations regarding reasonable access to right-
of-way in the specific jurisdiction and siting of facilities for:
(1) Railroads and other routes and facilities for public conveyances,
and
(2) Poles, conduits, tunnels, towers and structures, pipes and wires
and appurtenances thereof
(a) for transmission and distribution of electrical energy,
signals, and other methods of communication,
(b) for gas, steam, and liquid fuels, and
(c) for water, sewer, and other private and publicly owned
and operated facilities for public service.
• To establish nondiscriminatory policy for the jurisdiction concerning
telecommunications providers and services.
Page 5-2
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,,
• To reasonably and fairly compensate the jurisdiction for use of and
disruption to right-of-way.
These ordinances also include definitions specific to telecommunications.
In Chapter 4, recommendations were made to include new definitions for
"emergency" and several other terms that should be clearly stated. The
sample ordinance language in the Appendix includes a section of specific
definitions.
Under State law, a jurisdiction may charge fees to cover the cost of pro-
cessing an application. The City's current ordinance requires that appli-
cants for franchises provide detailed information on their proposed sys-
tem and their ability, financially and technically, to provide the service.
These requirements should be expanded to all private utility providers
and carriers who propose to transmit, supply or furnish services to or
through Tukwila.
Most of the ordinances reviewed are specific in separating the franchise
from the right-of-way permit. In general, the franchise allows the service
to occur, while the right-of-way permit allows the physical facilities to be
located in the right-of-way. The third component of permitting is the
construction permit. This permit allows the actual construction and pre-
scribes the construction techniques and mitigation required for the devel-
opment of facilities in the public right-of-way or on private property.
One risk in establishing new code provisions is that there may be some
area of the city code or an existing agreement that is in conflict. The
recommended language provides a section granting existing franchises,
city property leases and permits to remain under their current require-
ments until such time as they expire or are extended at the sole option of
the permit holder. At that time the new requirements will be enforced.
Most ordinances include sections defining penalties for violations. The
ordinances surveyed vary in the amount of the penalty, but the almost all
consider each day of violation a separate offense. The ordinances also
include a severability section and an allowance for the rules, regulations
and procedures to be updated from time to time.
The typical ordinances that were reviewed included specific requirements
to obtain franchises. In most cases these are granted by ordinance. Ap-
plications for franchises are required to include the following information
on a city -provided form:
FRANCHISE
PERMIT
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 5-3
August 1999',
• The financial and technical ability, and the legal capacity of the
applicant;
• A complete description of applicant's proposed facilities;
• The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate applicant's facili-
ties;
• The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate additional utility
or telecommunications facilities;
• The extent of damage to or disruption of any public or private facili-
ties, improvements, services, travel, or landscaping, and any plans
by applicant to mitigate or repair the same; and,
• The availability (or lack thereof) alternate routes to those proposed
by the applicant.
Most ordinances included a requirement for the City to make a determi-
nation on the application within 120 days of receiving a complete appli-
cation. Most ordinances also require a hearing on the granting of the
franchise, likely due to the requirement in most city codes that any ordi-
nance requires a public hearing.
Based on the requirements of state and Federal law, including the Tele-
communications Act of 1996, there is a need to ensure that the terms and
conditions of a franchise granted to one provider or carrier are not sub-
stantially different from the terms and conditions granted to another car-
rier.
The City needs to ensure that its ordinance does not imply that rights or
title to right-of-way is conveyed to a franchise holder and that no fran-
chise grants any exclusive right of occupancy to one carrier or provider.
The ordinance should specify a maximum length of a franchise. Samples
reviewed ranged from five to twenty-five years for the maximum length.
Specific procedures for renewal of a franchise were usually identified as
requiring an application for renewal not more than one to three years
prior to the expiration, and not less than 180 days prior to the expiration.
One key section that was in every ordinance, in some form, allowed the
Page 5-4 Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
City to receive compensation for franchises. For example:
x.xx.xxx COMPENSATION TO THE CITY: Each fran-
chise granted hereunder is subject to the City's right, which
is expressly reserved, to determine a fair and reasonable
compensation to be paid for the use of City property, annu-
ally or on some other basis, provided nothing shall prohibit
the applicant and the City from agreeing upon such com-
pensation.
The section underlined relates to RCW 35.21.860, which prohibits com-
pensation other than a tax on receipts. Cities may also charge franchises
the cost to the City of administering the process and any capital costs
caused by the utility provider.
Most cities reserve the right to require a new franchise application if the
applicant requests any extension, addition, relocation, or other material
modification to an applicant's facilities or services. If the City requires a
change, the need to reapply is waived. This provision ensures that the City
has the most current information regarding the applicant's request and
intentions to provide service.
State and federal laws allow different types of services to be charged dif-
ferent rates. For example, single family residences and commercial lines
may be charged differently. Many of the ordinances reviewed included
sections prohibiting discrimination in providing service, including terms,
conditions, rates and charges, if customers are situated similarly. Many of
these ordinances also require the provider to offer its services to the city at
its most favored rate for similar users. Many cities also reserve the right to
negotiate more favorable rates or free service in lieu of other obligations
placed on the franchise.
State law allows the City to establish fees for franchises, including the
processing of applications and maintenance of the right-of-way that is re-
lated to the presence of the franchisee. These provisions are included in
the sample ordinance in the appendix.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
USE PERMIT
The City has specifically requested provisions to better manage its asset.
Issues addressed in this section include requirements for how the City
advertises opportunities for installation of utilities in the right-of-way as a
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 5-5
August 1999
part of a City construction project, as well as requirements for installation
outside of City projects. Right-of-way use permits are discussed, along
with preferred location of utilities and capacity issues.
The second part of the sample ordinance includes provisions specifically
related to right-of-way use by utilities and telecommunications facilities.
This part includes notification requirements, right-of-way and construc-
tion permit requirements, safety and protection requirements, provision
for emergency repair, insurance, indemnification and performance bond-
ing. This section also includes construction standards for design and
installation of facilities in the public right-of-way.
Typical ordinances begin with a general provisions section that includes
requirements for compliance with other laws and policies, the require-
ment for provision of confirmation by survey of facility location, and pro-
vision of as -built maps and other information related to facilities for the
City's records.
The City has expressed a desire to openly advertise road construction
and other projects that may offer an opportunity for utility providers to
install underground facilities at lesser expense and without future damage
to the roadway. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a pub-
lic document where utility providers can see the City's plans for construc-
tion. In addition, the ordinances of several cities include requirements
that the City notify all adjacent property owners and existing utility pro-
viders in the corridor that a project is forthcoming and that they have the
opportunity to construct now, or there will be a five-year moratorium on
cuts into the pavement. In Chapter 3, it was suggested that the City also
make it a policy to advertise the opportunity for utilities to join in con-
struction projects. This may provide another opportunity for notice to be
given to interested parties, not just those directly associated with the sub-
ject right-of-way.
Some ordinances provided the public works director the discretion to
grant waivers to the five-year moratorium to a public utility (as defined
by State law), provided no other feasible means are available to provide
the service without cutting the street.
The City must identify a process for granting right-of-way permits.
Ideally this permit can be applied for in combination with the franchise
application and construction permits. This can gain some efficiency on
the part of the City's review process and make for less duplication of
Page 5-6
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%ommunicadons Management Plan
paperwork on the part of the applicant. Information on the application for
right-of-way permits should include:
• The financial and technical ability and legal capacity of the applicant;
• A complete description of applicant's proposed facilities;
• The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate applicant's facili-
ties;
• The capacity of the right-of-way to accommodate additional utility or
telecommunications facilities;
• The extent of damage to or disruption of any public or private facili-
ties, improvements, services, travel, or landscaping and any plans by
applicant to mitigate or repair the same; and,
• The availability or unavailability of alternate routes or sites to those
proposed by the applicant.
In general, the application for right-of-way use by a utility should not raise
concerns of the public and should be a Type 2 administrative decision.
The notice of application should be published and allow for public com-
ment, as with all administrative land use -type decisions. The City may
want to consider allowance for a written request for a hearing on the appli-
cation. It may be in both the City's and the applicant's best interest to
allow for a combined hearing on the ordinance granting the franchise and
the permit for right-of-way use, if a hearing is requested.
This section of the ordinance also includes provisions mandating that no
one may unreasonably interfere with use of the right-of-way for it's in-
tended use, or that no one may take an action to impair or damage the right-
of-way or another permitted use of the right-of-way.
Emergency situations can have a serious effect on utilities. An accidental
dig by one provider may sever the line of another, or worse, rupture a natu-
ral gas or water line. Extreme weather conditions could cause landslides,
which break conduit and tear fibers. Utility providers need the ability to
access their facilities to allow service to continue and to make repairs both
for the short and long term. While many ordinances define emergency, few
actually provide for emergency repairs.
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures Page 5-7
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management P/an August 1999
In the same way that the City grants the providers and carriers special
provisions to deal with emergencies, the City also needs to be able to deal
with emergencies. To accomplish this, the ordinance should include lan-
guage reserving the City's right to cut, alter, remove, or relocate any fa-
cilities located within the right-of-way as necessary for public health or
safety emergency.
It is conceivable that an emergency caused by weather (or other causes)
may create a situation where timely restoration of the right-of-way, land-
scaping of a public utility easement, or other public area is not feasible.
The ordinance should acknowledge these types of situations and allow for
temporary restoration until conditions make a quality permanent restora-
tion feasible.
There may also be situations where the emergency repair is itself a tem-
porary one. A provider should not be required to fully restore an area,
only to have to go in again to make the permanent fix. It is suggested that
the ordinance include language allowing for emergency repairs and for
temporary restoration in cases where a quality restoration cannot be
achieved or that the repair is itself temporary.
The City's ordinance should prescribe requirements that the utility is re-
sponsible for maintaining it's facilities in compliance with the various
federal and state laws and standards for the particular service.
The City has expressed an interest in directing the location of utilities in
the right-of-way. The ordinance should clearly define the preferred loca-
tion to be existing underground duct where capacity permits. If new ca-
pacity is being created, the preferred location is the public utility ease-
ment behind the sidewalk. If such easement is not available, then the pre-
ferred location is under the sidewalk. The least preferred location is under
the traveled roadway. There may be some situations where location in the
roadway is the only option. This could include situations where a capacity
increase is planned and the connections to other parts of the system are
already in place. This section would achieve the City's objective of keep-
ing construction out of the traveled way and having no impact on pave-
ment and road structure.
The City should allow for continuation of above ground location where
there are no short- to midterm plans for undergrounding facilities. In
situations where a utility provider has existing facilities underground, any
additional facilities or services should be required to be underground also.
Page 5-8
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
When a provider is relocating facilities underground or installing new un-
derground facilities, the requirement should be to underground all facili-
ties within a particular corridor. Further, other users of the given corridor
should cooperate to accomplish all relocation at the same time to minimize
disruption of the right-of-way. This activity would have an added benefit
of allowing accurate mapping to be done and entered into the City's data-
base of utility locations.
Many ordinances include a requirement that an applicant who will exhaust
the surplus capacity of a right-of-way provide additional capacity such
that the City can continue to allow nondiscriminatory access by future car-
riers desiring to locate in the corridor. There is some question whether this
is legal under RCW 35.21.860. It could be included in the ordinance as a
possible condition on the approval.
Coordination between the City and the providers is essential. The dis-
cussion above suggests requirements that the City provide adequate notice
to utility providers when the City is proposing a road construction project.
Many of the ordinances reviewed include a requirement for each utility
provider to provide an annual update to the City of its proposed construc-
tion activities for the upcoming year. This gives the City an understanding
of the work load that may be imposed upon it's staff for the permitting
process. It also allows the City to assume a coordinator role between com-
peting providers without compromising what could be considered sensi-
tive or proprietary information.
If the ordinance includes such requirements, it needs to specify that listing
of proposed construction activities by a provider, and acceptance of the list
by the City does not constitute an approval of the project by the City, nor
does it bind the provider to construct any or all projects in the coming year.
The ordinance needs to include a section reserving the right for the City to
request removal or relocation of a facility. This section would be called
upon when maintenance, construction or other projects may be needed in
the right-of-way, or the right-of-way is being vacated. This section of the
ordinance should specifically state a time frame between notice and dead-
line for the requested action to be completed. A similar provision requiring
removal of unauthorized facilities would also aid the City in enforcement.
The City should consider a section for noncompliance which grants the
City authorization to move or remove such facilities after the deadline, at
the owner's expense. Conditions deemed as unauthorized could include:
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures Page 5-9
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan August 1999
■ Termination or expiration of such person's franchise or permit.
■ Abandonment of a facility within the right-of-way.
• The facility having been constructed or located without the prior grant
of franchise, execution of a lease, or issuance of a construction permit,
or constructed or located at a location not so permitted.
• Circumstances reasonably determined by the City to be inconsistent
with public health, safety, or welfare.
Liability and insurance issues always arise with regard to construction
and use of property by other than the owner. There are several parts to this
equation that need to be spelled out in the ordinance. First, the City should
reserve it's right to perform routine activities in the right-of-way, and in
combination with the requirement to remove or relocate facilities on re-
quest, the permittee needs to be aware that unless directly caused by the
willful, intentional, or malicious acts of the City or its sole and gross neg-
ligence, the City shall not be liable for any damage to or loss of facilities
within the right-of-way as a result of any public works or improvements,
construction, excavation, grading, filling, maintenance or work of any kind
either by or on behalf of the City.
Second, the City's ordinance needs to specify insurance requirements for
permittees. In some cases, the City may choose, after evaluating the risk
related to a particular action, require different coverage. The following
values were identified in almost all ordinances reviewed.
(1) $1,000,000 for personal injury or death to any one per-
son and $3,000,000 aggregate for personal injury or death
per single accident or occurrence.
(2) $1,000,000 for property damage to any one person and
$3,000,000 aggregate for property damage per single acci-
dent or occurrence.
(3) $1,000,000 for all other types of liability including
claims for damages for invasion of the right of privacy; for
defamation of any person, firm, or corporation; for the vio-
lation or infringement of any copyright, trademark, trade
name, service mark or patent; or, for damage to any other
Page 5-10
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan.
person, firm, or corporation arising out of or alleged to
arise out of failure to comply with the provisions of any
statute, regulation or resolution of the United States, State
of Washington, or any local agency with jurisdiction.
The City, its officers and employees will want to be specifically named as
additional insured on the policy. It should also be required that the policy
shall not be modified or canceled during the life of the permit or fran-
chise without giving 30 days'. written notice to the City. Copies of all
certificates of insurance showing up-to-date coverage, additional insured
coverage, and evidence of payment of premiums as set forth above shall
be filed with the City upon approval of the permit for right-of-way use.
Coverage shall not be changed or canceled without approval of the City,
and failure to maintain required insurance may be considered a breach of
this agreement. The City may, at its option, review all insurance cover-
age. If it is determined by the City Risk Manager that circumstances re-
quire and that it is reasonable and necessary to increase insurance cover-
age and liability limits to adequately cover the risks of the City, the City
may require additional insurance to be acquired. The City shall provide
written notice should the City exercise its right to require additional in-
surance. All insurance coverage shall provide for 30 days' prior written
notice to the City in the event of modification or cancellation. The City
shall be provided written notice within 30 days after any approved reduc-
tion in the general annual aggregate limit.
Finally, there needs to be a requirement that the permittee agrees to fully
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, the officers and employ-
ees thereof, from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, liability
and judgments for damage or otherwise (except those arising wholly from
negligence on the part of the City or its employees). The Appendix in-
cludes a sample of language that covers the array of situations for which
the City would need to be covered.
Public safety during construction and after restoration is also a concern
for the City. The ordinance needs to include a requirement that any time
any street, alley, sidewalk, curb or other structure is open or disturbed, the
permittee shall maintain adequate and proper safeguards thereon. In re-
pairing the opening or disturbance, the permittee shall fill and properly
compact the subsurface and shall rebuild the foundation and surface of
the street, alley, sidewalk, curb or other structure to its original condition
all in accordance with thestandards of the city. The discussion of con -
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures Page 5-11
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan August 1999\
struction standards is more specific and includes references to the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for standards on signing
and traffic routing through construction areas.
Requirements for restoration of right-of-way are essential elements the
City is seeking from the ordinance. The Appendix contains sample lan-
guage that covers restoration requirements and protection of existing fea-
tures and users of the right-of-way. This language includes requirements
for prompt removal, at the permittee's expense, any obstructions there-
from and restoration of rights-of-way or adjacent property to the same con-
dition as existed prior to work.
In order to provide some leniency, permanent restoration of right-of-way
as a result of an emergency repair may be delayed during events that may
compromise the quality of the repair work (e.g. inclement weather), and a
provision to allow delayed restoration of damage resulting from a tempo-
rary repair of an emergency situation.
The City may want to require a performance bond of the permittee. If so,
the bond should be conditioned that in the event the permittee shall fail to
comply with any one or more of the provisions of its permit or franchise,
the City shall be able to recover from the bond holder, any damages suf-
fered by the City as a result thereof, including the full amount of any com-
pensation, indemnification, or cost of removal or abandonment of prop-
erty as prescribed. The bond shall be a continuing obligation for the dura-
tion of the permit or franchise and thereafter until the permittee has liqui-
dated all of its obligations with the City that may have arisen from the
acceptance of a franchise or issuance of a permit.
Upon completion of any construction called for in a franchise or permit,
the amount of this bond may be reduced to an amount reasonably deter-
mined by the City to be adequate to protect its interests. Written evidence
of payment of required premiums shall be provided to the City upon re-
quest.
In addition to, or in lieu of a performance bond, the City may choose to
require a security fund. Such fund should be defined as a deposit into a
bank account, established by the City, and maintained for such term as is
reasonable under the circumstances with interest running to the permittee,
a sum of money in an amount reasonably determined by the City as secu-
rity for the faithful performance by the permittee of all the provisions of its
franchise or permit, and compliance with all orders, permits and directions
Page 5-12
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan,
of any agency of the City, and for the payment of any claims, liens and
taxes due the City or liquidated damages imposed by the City which arise
by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the permittees
system. Within 30 days after notice that any amount has been withdrawn
by the City from the security fund pursuant to the foregoing, the permittee
shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such security fund to the
original amount in the account at the time of withdrawal.
In addition, the City should consider allowing other uses of the security
fund, including use to cover any delinquent fees, taxes or other amounts
due and unpaid after a suitable notice period that the fund will be used for
this purpose. Sample ordinances reviewed also included the provision
that security fund shall become the property of the City in the event that a
franchise or permit is canceled by reason of the default of the permittee or
is revoked for cause. The permittee is generally allowed the return of such
security fund or portion thereof which remains on deposit at the expiration
of the term of the permit or franchise, or upon termination of the permit or
franchise at an earlier date, upon payment of all sums then due to the City.
With all of the consolidation, mergers, acquisitions and changes in the
utilities industry, the City may want a provision in the ordinance which
reserves the right of the City to review and approve the transference of a
permit to an organization other than the original permittee, provided con-
sent of the City shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
In order for the City to revoke or terminate a franchise or permit, a set
of criteria should be established for the City to base a decision on. The
following are some criteria the City may want to consider as grounds for
revocation or termination:
• Construction or operation in the City without a franchise or permit.
• Construction or operation at an unauthorized location.
• Unauthorized transfer of control of the person subject to this chapter.
• Unauthorized assignment of a franchise or permit.
• Unauthorized sale, assignment or transfer of all of a franchisee's or
permittee's assets, or a substantial interest therein.
• Misrepresentation or lack of candor by or on behalf of a person in any
application upon which the City relies in making any decision herein.
• Abandonment of facilities in the public ways.
• Failure to relocate or remove facilities as required in this chapter.
• Failure to pay taxes, compensation, fees or costs when and as due.
• Insolvency or bankruptcy of the franchisee or permittee.
Chapter 5 - Administradon Process and Procedures
Page 5-13
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan August 1999,
■ Violation of material provisions of this chapter.
• Violation of the material terms of a permit or franchise agreement.
Prior to revoking a franchise or permit, the City should provide written
notice to the permittee that there are apparent violations or issues of non-
compliance which the City believes are grounds for revocation of a fran-
chise or permit. Such notice should describe the apparent violation or
noncompliance, including a short and concise statement of the nature and
general facts of the violation or noncompliance, and providing a reason-
able period of time days to furnish evidence that corrective action has
been or is being actively pursued, provides a rebuttal to the City's allega-
tions of violation or noncompliance, or that a lesser penalty or sanction
would be in the public interest.
The Ordinance should provide criteria for hearings and grounds for de-
partmental action on a permit. Conditions may include:
• In the event that a permittee fails to provide evidence reasonably sat-
isfactory to the City, the City department which issued the permit may
terminate it or take other reasonably necessary action based on the
criteria and goals set out in this chapter.
• In the event that a franchisee fails to provide evidence reasonably sat-
isfactory to the City department responsible for administration of the
franchise shall refer the apparent violation or non-compliance to the
City Council. The City Council shall provide such person with notice
and a reasonable opportunity to be heard concerning the matter.
In determining whether a permittee has violated or failed to comply with
material provisions of the ordinance or of a franchise or permit, the City
or courts, as appropriate, shall determine the appropriate action to take
considering the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation
as reflected by one or more of the following factors:
• Whether the misconduct was egregious.
• Whether substantial harm resulted.
• Whether the violation was intentional.
• Whether there is a history of prior violations of the same or other
requirements.
• Whether there is a history of overall compliance.
• Whether the violation was voluntarily disclosed, admitted or cured.
Page 5-14 Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan_
CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS
The City currently requires a construction permit for any construction in
the right-of-way. Issues addressed in this section include insurance, in-
demnification, and process for getting a permit. This section includes re-
quirements for safety, traffic protection and detours, and restoration. It also
includes provisions for emergency repairs and temporary restoration of
emergency repairs.
In identifying construction standards, the ordinance should cover general
provisions, and be specific regarding responsibility. Because of the nature
of utility construction projects, the construction specifics of a particular
project will likely need to be determined on a case by case basis, based on
type of utility and service level, existing and planned facilities in the right-
of-way, and other factors. The construction standards should begin with a
general statement regarding the applicability of the standards and the need
for compliance with federal, state and local codes rules and regulations as
defined for the specific type of facility.
The City has identified the preferred construction method as directional
bore. The least desired method has been identified as trenching. There are
some cases, especially emergency situations, where trenching may be the
only option. The City should consider allowing trenching in cases where it
is the expeditious means to address an emergency situation or will have
minimal negative impact on the right-of-way. For example:
• Emergency repair;
• As part of the construction, reconstruction or significant widening of a
roadway;
• Along a platted but not developed right-of-way;
• On a street where resurfacing is identified on the City's Capital Im-
provement Program for construction within two (2) years;
• For private connections from local streets.
The City is allowed under state law to grant construction permits. Under
the ordinance, the City should establish a fee, aimed at recovering costs of
granting the permit and any inspections or other public costs incurred.
Construction permits shall be granted through an application process, ex-
cept as exempted by other laws. The application process should request
information similar to that required in the application for franchise and
right-of-way use permits:
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures Page 5-15
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan August 1999
• The location and route of all facilities to be installed on existing utility
poles.
• The location and route of all facilities to be located underground, in-
cluding the line and grade proposed for the burial at all points along
the route which are within the public ways.
• The location of all existing underground utilities, conduits, ducts, pipes,
mains and installations which are within the public ways along the
underground route proposed by the applicant.
• The location of all facilities within the City which are not located
within right-of-way.
• Construction methods to be employed for protection of existing struc-
tures, fixtures, and facilities within and adjacent to the right-of-way.
• The location, dimensions, and type of trees and significant vegetation
within or adjacent to the right-of-way along the route proposed by the
applicant, together with a landscape plan for protecting, trimming,
removing, replacing, and restoring any trees or significant vegetation
or areas disturbed by the construction.
The City may want to require that drawings, plans and specifications are
certified by a registered professional engineer in the appropriate disci-
pline of engineering, as being in compliance with applicable technical
codes, rules and regulations.
The construction section of the ordinance needs to contain a requirement
regarding protection of users of the right-of-way during construction.
With regard to a construction permit, this generally relates to traffic and
construction signage. The City should require a traffic control plan as
part of the permit application for work on, in, under, across or along any
public ways. The plan should show the protective measures and devices
that will be used, consistent with the Manual on Uniform of Traffic Con-
trol Devices, to prevent injury or damage to persons or property and to
minimize disruptions to efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The City
may want to require traffic control plans to be signed by a registered pro-
fessional engineer (civil).
As with the right-of-way use permit, the City should set a limit on the
review time for the construction permit application. In most of the ordi-
nances reviewed, the cities used 45 days after submission of a complete
application and payment of required fees to make a decision on the per-
mit, including any conditions, restrictions or regulations affecting the time,
place and manner of performing the work as deemed necessary or appro-
priate.
Page 5-16
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
As discussed above, communication between the City, the permittee and
contractor, and the affected public is important to the success of a project.
All of the ordinances reviewed included some level of required notice.
The following is a list of potential notice requirements:
■ The permittee or its contractor shall notify the City not less than 10 (7
to 10 in the ordinances reviewed) days in advance of any excavation or
work in the public ways. Such notice shall include names and phone
numbers for a contact person at the provider and for the construction
contractor.
• At the time of permit application, the permittee shall provide the City
with a certified list of properties adjacent to the subject right-of-way.
The permittee shall prepare mailing labels for street addresses of all
developed properties and mailing labels for property owners of vacant
properties. The permittee shall provide a generic notification letter de-
scribing the project, the limits of construction and assurance that all
disturbed surfaces will be restored to existing conditions. The permit-
tee will mail the letter to the mailing list at the same time as required
notice is mailed to the City.
• For projects that will require road closures and/or detours of traffic
lasting in excess of 10 (5 to 10 in the reviewed ordinances) working
days, except for single lane closures where flaggers are provided to
direct traffic, the road shall be posted not fewer than seven (7) days
before construction begins. Signs shall be an orange diamond, mini-
mum of 36" x 36", with lettering not less than 3", stating the road to be
detoured, approximate endpoints of the detour and anticipated closure
dates.
The City will want to reserve the right to review construction of the project
to ensure that the project is being constructed in accordance with the per-
mit and approved final plans and specifications. The Ordinance should
have a section requiring that authorized representatives of the City be pro-
vided access to the work and such further information as required to en-
sure compliance with permit requirements and associated standards.
The City may want to allow the provider to pay for a contracted inspector
rather than pay for the City's inspector to be on-site. This will remove
some of the burden on the City.
As with other types of construction projects, the permittee should be re-
quired to have a copy of the construction permit and conditions, as well as
the approved plans at the construction site. These documents should be
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures
Gly of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 5-17
August 1999'x,
available for inspection by representatives of the City at all times when
construction work is occurring.
In order to avoid potential accidents and emergencies, the permittee
should be required to identify existing and newly constructed facilities
by depth, line, grade, and proximity to other facilities or other standards.
This should be a standard condition on permits granted. The permittee
should provide documentation of the location of such facilities, verified
by a registered land surveyor. The permittee shall relocate any of its
own facilities that are not located in compliance with permit require-
ments.
In order to minimize the disruptive effects of construction activity on
users of the public right-of-way, the construction permit should include
a deadline for completion of construction activity in the right-of-way,
including restoration.
As discussed above, the permittee shall promptly repair any portion of
the right-of-way that is damaged or disturbed as a result of the permitted
construction activity. As the City has stated in the past, there is interest
in instituting a ban on cutting pavement newer than five years old, as
well as minimizing the mitigation requirements for pavement that is iden-
tified and funded for improvement in the near term. The following is
representative of restoration requirements found in other ordinances
throughout Washington:
The permittee shall promptly repair any and all public
and private property improvements, fixtures, structures
and facilities in the public ways or otherwise damaged
during the course of construction, restoring the same as
nearly as practicable to its condition before the start of
construction.
(A) Roads with asphalt surfaces less than five years
old shall not be open trenched. Permission to cut into
such surface will require an overlay of the full travel
lane disturbed for cuts parallel to the direction of
travel. Permission to cut across the direction of travel
on such a surface shall be ...
(B) Roads with concrete surfaces shall be restored
with full panel replacement.
Page 5-18
August 1999
Chapter 5 - Administrative Process and Procedures
City of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
On the issue of restoring crosscuts, there were three options that were
identified in representative ordinances. Some ordinances were silent on
the issue of crosscuts. One city required that cross cuts shall be restored by
city work crews at the permittee's expense, thus giving the city control
over the process and the material sources. The third option was that cross-
cuts shall be restored using controlled density backfill under full-time ob-
servation by a city inspector. The Public Works Department may want to
decide how to deal with this issue, as it affects the amount of construction
permit fee that may be collected to cover City cost of administration.
Requirements forconduct of all work in accordance with State of Wash-
ington "locate laws" and with Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction are also in-
cluded. In the standards for restoration, the City may want to include quan-
tifiable standards to define a failure in restoration. One example included
the following language:
In the event settlement occurs that exceeds three inches
below the street surface, which is evidence that improper
backfilling has taken place, the permittee shall remove such
material as deemed necessary by the director and shall
replace and compact with material approved by the direc-
tor.
Another component of right-of-way restoration is landscaping. With con-
struction recommended for public utility easements, there is a chance that
privately installed and maintained landscaping may be on the surface. These
areas should be treated in the same manner as the paved areas, in that they
should be restored as nearly as possible to the condition prior to the work
occurring.
This means that trees, landscaping and grounds removed, damaged or dis-
turbed as a result of the construction, installation, maintenance, repair or
replacement of facilities shall be replaced or restored, to the condition
existing prior to performance of work. Plans for restoration are included in
the required submittal for the permit approval, and shall be treated with
the same level of importance as the facility construction and pavement
restoration plans. The City should reserve the right of it's inspectors to
review landscape restoration as well as pavement restoration. Where land-
scaping is privately installed and maintained, the private party should be
allowed input into the plan review and acceptance of the restored site.
Chapter 5 - Administration Process and Procedures
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 5-19
August 1999
'ti
CHAPTER 6
WIRELESS FACILITIES
This chapter summarizes the City's (Department of Community Develop-
ment) process for granting conditional use permits and applicable zoning
code issues for wireless facilities. It also includes a review of other jurisdic-
tions policies and provides recommendations on guidelines for permitting
the placement of wireless facilities on City property.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are two types of wireless technologies available in the South
King County area, cellular (or first generation service), and personal com-
munications services (PCS) or second generation service. Third generation
technology is under development, however proposed standards for equip-
ment and signals have not yet been decided.
Cellular communications use the 800MHz band to provide two-way, ana-
log or digital signals to transmit voice over wireless communication units.
PCS allows the use of an all -in -one device that incorporates wireless mo-
bile phones with voice and data transmission, including paging, caller ID,
call waiting, wireless fax and fax -modems. PCS uses digital signals and the
1900MHz band. Within this band several ranges are assigned to different
carriers within each market. PCS, as well as first generation wireless com-
munication is generally limited within each continent.
Third generation communication is an expansion of PCS type service in the
2GHz band. This technology operates within a spectrum of 230MHz. The
standards for operations and services are still in the process of standardiza-
tion. These systems will aim a global communication
Both cellular and PCS technologies require land-based transmission and
signal amplification devices to relay signals between the origin and destina-
tion callers. These signals require line -of -sight between towers, and can be
blocked by dense foliage, large buildings, tunnels, and other structures. PCS
providers that use satellites in their networks are less plagued by these chal-
lenges.
Historically, cellular and PCS providers have competed with each other to
locate facilities at the highest locations in a city, on water towers, tall build -
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faci//ties
C/ty of Tukwi/a Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-1
August 1999
ings or other communication facilities where signal interference will not
occur. Locating one or more cellular provider's devices in one facility is
called co -locating. Traditionally, providers have been against co -location
because the second provider on a site generally get a less competitive loca-
tion than the originator of the structure. However, to order to regulate tower
proliferation, many cities have developed ordinances that require that a pro-
vider prove that there are no viable collocation opportunities before grant-
ing a permit for a new site.
Traditional cellular technology resulted in the large triangular structures on
monopoles or lattice towers, with a large box at the base of the tower for
additional equipment. More recent technology has resulted in the develop-
ment of"micro-cells" and "stealth cells," which can be hidden against build-
ings or camouflaged into ornaments on existing features such as flagpoles
and church spires. Many of these are useful only for data transmission or
paging services, but the technology is also evolving for voice transmission.
These units also use an equipment structure the size of a typical electrical
transformer or smaller, as compared to traditional equipment structures on
an 8 -foot by 12 -foot pad.
There are also flush -mount devices that can be placed on the sides of build-
ings, water towers or other existing structures, and painted to match. They
often blend so well into the host structure that they are almost not discern-
ible to the surrounding community.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions
placing an outright moratorium on cell facilities, and requires that any limi-
tations not serve as a disincentive to enter into a particular market. Most
cities have been able to amend their development codes and design stan-
dards to meet their needs, as well.
As reported in Wireless Week (March 8, 1999), a group of industry experts
are not sure what the future demand for "vertical real estate" will be in the
future. One expert predicted a need for about 28,300 new towers nation-
wide to meet the demand for digital buildout on the 800 and 1900 MHz
bands. This estimate does not include accommodation for the ever increas-
ing demand for wireless data transmission, for which there are few esti-
mates of demand.
Industry trend in some parts of the country for carriers to sell their tower
assets and concentrate on serving customers. This allows the tower owners
to develop creative ways for multiple providers to co -locate on a single
tower. There is at least one tower company planning to enter the King County
Page 6-2
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faalities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
area. There is no confirmation of which providers this company will sup-
port, or if any carriers are proposing to sell their tower assets.
There are currently seven providers of wireless services in South King
County: Sprint, US West Wireless, GTE, Nextel, Western Wireless
(Voicestream), Airtouch and AT&T Wireless. The City has not been ap-
proached by any of the paging -only or intemet-only network providers at
this time. Each of the existing providers is in various stages of "buildout" of
their networks.
The majority of these providers have built their primary networks and are
looking for what are called infill sites. These sites are used for repeaters as
well as new base stations. Often, infill sites are at lower elevations, and can
be hidden more readily as they are used to improve the line -of -sight. These
situations are ideal for tower -only companies, as they make an initial in-
vestment and recoup the cost (and more), from single or multiple tenants.
PERMITTING
PROCESS
The City of Tukwila grants approvals for cellular communications facilities
through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, whether they are on pub-
lic or private property, on monopoles, co=locations on an existing mono-
pole, or communications equipment mounted on another existing structure
such as a rooftop or water tower. CUPs are granted under a Type 4 process,
with an open record public hearing and a decision by the Planning Commis-
sion, with the opportunity for appeal to the City Council.
The City has processed about 30 applications for cellular facilities in the
past three years. Many of these approvals have been virtually uncontested
and been granted after minimal discussion at the hearing. Other projects
have been more contentious and required that applicants significantly modify
the proposed location, design or height of their proposals.
City requirements for monopoles require that they be painted to match the
surrounding area. The mounting arms are required to be of the straight arm
or "flower -top" style. Older designs used an open framed triangular box
which are considered by most members of the public to be unsightly. Other
types of cellular equipment, such as flush -mounted devices, need to be
painted or otherwise colored to blend into the host structure. In situations
where two or more providers locate on the same pole, the style of the mounts
must be the same.
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-3
August 1999
Other Examples
The permitting process of a variety of communities in Washington and
Oregon were reviewed to identify the similarities and differences in their
wireless communication facility (WCF) permitting requirements.
■ Development Permit — Every jurisdiction reviewed had some form
of administrative process for granting development permits. In cities where
conditional use permits or other special approvals are needed, these are in
addition to a basic development permit and are often granted through a
planning commission or design review process.
• Conditional Use Permits — Many larger cities have listed WCFs as
allowable uses in under a building or general development permit particu-
lar zones, primarily commercial and industrial areas. In other cases WCFs,
are expressly prohibited (e.g. single family zones) and are allowed as a
conditional use in others.
• Level of review — In most cases, conditional use permits follow the
Type 4 process identified in Tukwila, with approval granted by a planning
commission or design review board. Where only a development permits is
required, it is usually granted under an administrative decision process at
the staff or department director level.
• Exemptions from CUP, where Required — Some jurisdictions have
allowed exemptions from conditional use permits where communication
facilities are to be located on an existing structure with communications
uses. Examples where location on city property or existing city structures
was justification for exemption from CUP have been adopted in few loca-
tions, however they are still subject to strict design or visual impact crite-
ria.
■ Proof of Need — Virtually every larger city has a requirement to
show, in the case of a new WCF that is not being located on an existing
pole or other structure, that there are no viable options for co -location.
• Design standards — Most major cities and urban counties had re-
quirements that monopoles be colored to match the surroundings and that
equipment stations be screened with vegetation and/or fencing. Many had
requirements for flush -mounted arrays to be painted to match the host struc-
ture.
Page 6-4
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wireless Faci/ides
aty of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
SUGGESTED
CHANGES FOR
TUKWILA TO
CONSIDER
In 1997, a group of wireless communications providers worked with a pri-
vate consultant to identify changes to generic city code language that would
meet the needs of a City to regulate design and land use, while streamlining
the process for the providers and meeting the requirements of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996. A review of these recommendations sug-
gested that some of the ideas may be inappropriate for Tukwila. The City of
Tukwila may wish to consider the following changes to it's conditional use
permit as it relates to Wireless Communication Facilities. The following
suggestions are based, in part on recommendations from the 1997 report,
along with recent experiences of wireless communications providers in the
Puget Sound and Portland areas.
■ Zones Where Facilities are Permitted — The City may wish to
identify zoning classifications where WCF are allowed up to the maximum
height permitted in the zone. This type of permission is most used in heavy
industrial zones, some light industrial zones, and some commercial zones.
Generally, approvals of WCFs are conditional uses or prohibited outright in
residential zones, especially single family. They are also usually conditional
uses in areas zoned for open space, parks or agriculture and forestry uses.
■ Facilities to be Permitted Outright - Wireless communication
facilities should continue to be permitted under a staff -approved develop-
ment permit if the proposed antenna array is collocated on an existing tower.
They should also be permitted on a staff -approved basis when they are pro-
posed for location on an existing building or structure on public property
(including public rights of way with controlling agency approval), and does
not increase the height of the structure by more than 10 feet. This serves to
encourage providers to locate their WCF on existing WCF structures, where
there is already a visual impact or that the impact can be minimized through
hiding flush -mount panels on an existing building.
The provision for locating on public property can serve as an incentive,
although the City may wish to exclude sensitive properties such as parks
from the outright approval and make WCFs on these sites a conditional use.
■ Administrative review and permit — Departmental directors may
approve wireless communication facilities proposed on an existing build-
ing or other structure, other than an existing wireless communication struc-
Chapter 6 - Wire%ss Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-5
August 1999
ture that is not City -owned. These approvals shall go to the planning com-
mission if the addition of the antenna array increases the height of the exist-
ing structure over 20 feet.
■ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)— A CUP, including a hearing be-
fore the planning commission, should be required when the facility is pro-
posed in a residential zone or within 150 feet of a residential zone, or when
the height of an existing structure is proposed to increase by more than 20
feet, or sensitive public facilities such as parks.
Analysis
There has been some discussion within City staff as to whether certain
cellular facilities should be approved through a Type 1 (decision by a spe-
cific department) or Type 2 (decision by a specified department director)
process. Because many of the proposals are not contentious and current
trends are moving toward installing low -height, smaller and hidden de-
vices, there are some who believe it would serve the city's interests to make
these Directorial decisions and leave the more challenging or contentious
ones to the Planning Commission.
Within City staff, there may be some support encouraging WCF location
on city property through an administrative process.
Administrative Approvals
+ Administrative approvals for well-defined situations can reduce the
burden on City administration to meet the legal requirements for
hearings and planning commission decisions.
+ Administrative approvals can be appealed if the applicant or other
party feels the decision was incorrect.
+ For situations where co -location is proposed on an existing tower
or building, the major decision has already been made and the addi-
tional communications facilities are not likely to have a significant
impact.
+ Speeds up the approvals process for the applicant with a simple
project.
Page 6-6
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
at, of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Teleommunicadons Management Plan
-f- Administrative approvals for location on City property could serve
as incentive for providers to locate on public property. Such loca-
tion can result in added revenue for the City.
▪ Possibility of arbitrary decisions. Administrative decisions, made
outside of a public process can sometimes reflect the bias of the
decision maker.
▪ Need for specific and detailed criteria for determining when an ad-
ministrative decision is appropriate and how to make that decision.
- . Hearings process allows public input and can provide insight into
local issues hidden to the City decision maker.
▪ Possibility of increased appeals to the planning commission. There
would still be fewer total planning commission decisions, however
the appeals process would likely extend the length of time between
application and decision beyond the current Type 4.
Location on City Property/Public Right of Way
+ Many existing potential sites (electric poles, traffic signal poles, light
standards)
+ Aesthetic impacts on sites such as substations or existing utility poles
minimal
+ City may be able to generate income from site rental or gain ser-
vices in lieu of rental fee
▪ Some sites are sensitive (e.g. parks) where aesthetic impact may be
too great
- Some sites may not be feasible from safety or other standpoints
▪ Public feeling that City is "selling out"
POSSIBLE CODE
LANGUAGE
Goal: Allow wireless communication facilities (WCF) in the broadest range
of zones possible, with the appropriate approval processes and performance
standards.
Wireless communication support towers are allowed in nonresiden-
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-7
August 1999
tial zones if the site is located at least 300 feet from the nearest
existing residential lot (a lot where a dwelling unit may be con-
structed as an outright permitted use). Such towers are allowed on
all City property if sited `at least 300 feet from the nearest existing
residential lot. Installation requires only the granting of a develop-
ment permit and the execution of necessary agreements if located
on City property.
Towers located in residential zones or within 300 feet of an exist-
ing residential lot requires granting of a conditional use permit from
the Planning Commission.
Goal: Encourage use of public facilities and sites for WCF
The following sites shall be considered by applicants as the pre-
ferred order to location of proposed wireless facilities, including
antenna(e), equipment, and equipment shelters. As determined fea-
sible and in order of preference, the sites are:
1. Existing broadcast and relay towers;
2. Industrial and manufacturing areas;
3. Publicly used structures: attached to existing public facilities such
as water towers, utility structures, fire stations, bridges and other
public buildings within all zoning districts not utilized primarily
for recreational uses, subject to the restrictions on residential areas
as above;
4. Business, commercial and urban center sites;
5. Residential zones, residential structures.
Goal: Coordinate the permit approval process and development standards
so that incentives are used to direct WCFs to desired locations. Distin-
guish between an antenna or antenna array and the installation of a tower
or monopole. Reduce approval process for antenna array to be located on
an existing structure as opposed to new tower or other supporting struc-
ture.
Broadcast and relay towers. Broadcast and relay towers including
monopoles shall be minimized by collocating wireless facilities on
existing towers. New broadcast and relay towers are most appro-
priately located areas as described above. Broadcast and relay tow-
ers are allowed in all zones under either as an outright permitted
use or as a conditional use subject to the criteria above.
Micro facilities (individual antennae from 0 to 4 feet) are permitted
in all zones, provided they are located on existing buildings, poles
or other existing support structures and that the interior wall or ceil-
Page 6-8 Chapter 6 - Wireless facilities
August 1999 City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
ing immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential
space.
Attached WCFs are permitted outright in zones other than those
designated as residential and those properties with the primary use
designation as recreation or open space. In these zones, attached
WCFs may be permitted as a conditional use.
Goal: Encourage WCFs to attach to existing buildings, structures, emer-
gency communications antennas,and to share these locations with other
providers. As provided above, create incentives for collocation such as
allowing increased height or expedited processing when collocation is
planned for or demonstrated. Recognize that collocation may not be prac-
tically or technically feasible in certain locations or circumstances. Also
recognize antitrust limitations on requirements that various industry pro-
viders share proprietary information regarding proposed site locations,
coverage areas and scheduling.
An FCC licensed wireless communications provider proposing a
new WCF with a support structure shall demonstrate to the reason-
able satisfaction of the Planning Commission that no existing tower
or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evi-
dence submitted to demonstrate that no suitable existing site is avail-
able may include any of the following:
• No existing towers or structures are located in the geographic
area required to meet the applicant's engineering require-
ments to provide service coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to
meetapplicant's engineering requirements to provide ser-
vice coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient struc-
tural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna
and equipment.
• The proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic inter
ference with the antenna on the existing tower or structure
or the existing antenna will cause interference with the
applicant's antenna.
• The fees, costs or provisions required by the owner to share
an existing site are unreasonable. Unreasonable is defined
as a cost that exceeds the cost of developing a new antenna.
• The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting fac-
tors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
Chapter 6 - Wireless Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-9
August 1999
SUMMARY
Goal: Provide streamlined application requirements for WCF on existing
buildings or support structures. Develop application requirements for con-
ditional use WCFs that are performance based.
For WCFs that are proposed for collocation on an existing support
structure or tower, or for attachment to an existing building, a build-
ing permit application with notification to the planning department
of such application, and recitation of zoning, height and building
location is required.
For WCFs that are proposed to include a new support tower or struc-
ture, the application for a Conditional Use permit will require site
plans that include site and landscape/screening plans to scale; a de-
scription of the proposed structure with documentation establishing
its structural integrity for the proposed use; a statement describing
excess space and whether it will be leased; proof or ownership or
authorization to use the proposed site; copies of any needed ease-
ments; area map identifying any existing WCF towers and an analysis
of area containing existing topographical contours, buildings and
other 'factors influencing tower location; proof that no other fea-
sible sites exist; and a description of design treatments to reduce the
aesthetic impact of the proposed site.
Based on general trends in the wireless communication industry, there will
be a continued demand to locate wireless communication antennas, relay
facilities and other devices on individual support structures as well as on
existing buildings and other supporting structures. Traditionally, Tukwila
has required a conditional use permit for all of these types of facilities,
except when a second provider chooses to collocate with an existing pro-
vider on a structure.
Trends in permitting throughout Washington and other areas are showing
that Cities are allowing WCFs on existing towers or on existing buildings
through a building permit process, as long as the building is not in a resi-
dential zone or contain a residential use. In these cases a Conditional Use
Permit is required. CUPs are also usually required for new WCFs that
include support structures. There is also a trend to reduce permitting re-
quirements for WCF proposals that use existing city or other public prop-
erty. The City may also want to consider following these trends.
The City may also want to revise it's code language to facilitate the use of
certain types of City facilities for WCF location under a building permit
Page 6-10
August 1999
Chapter 6 - Wire%ss Facilities
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Te%communications Management Plan
rather than a CUP. Use of city property could provide a small amount of
income for the city.
These changes will not likely have an adverse impact on the city. Most of
the applications for WCFs are not contentious, and while requiring a plan-
ning commission approval, they likely could be processed administratively.
Under the proposed system, new towers/monopoles and other facilities that
could likely be contentious, would still undergo planning commission re-
view. The proposed changes could reduce administrative burden on staff to
prepare for planning commission hearings, and allow the commission to
focus on more important issues and decisions.
Chapter 6 - Wire%ss Faci/ides
City of Tukwila Right -of -Way and Telecommunications Management Plan
Page 6-11
August 1999
• •
DRAFT - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5
WIRELESS FACILITIES
This tech memo summarizes the City's (Department of Community Devel-
opment) process for granting conditional use permits and applicable zoning
code issues for wireless facilities. It also includes a review of other jurisdic-
tions policies and provides recommendations on guidelines for permitting
the placement of wireless facilities on City property.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are two types of wireless technologies available in the South
King County area, cellular (or first generation service), and personal com-
munications services (PCS) or second generation service. Third generation
technology is under development, however proposed standards for equip-
ment and signals have not yet been decided.
Cellular communications use the 800MHz band to provide two-way, ana-
log or digital signals to transmit voice over wireless communication units.
PCS allows the use of an all -in -one device that incorporates wireless mo-
bile phones with voice and data transmission, including paging, caller ID,
call waiting, wireless fax and fax -modems. PCS uses digital signals and the
1900MHz band. Within this band several ranges are assigned to different
carriers within each market. PCS, as well as first generation wireless com-
munication is generally limited within each continent.
Third generation communication is an expansion of PCS type service in the
2GHz band. This technology operates within a spectrum of 230MHz. The
standards for operations and services are still in the process of standardiza-
tion. These systems will aim a global communication
Both cellular and PCS technologies require land-based transmission and
signal amplification devices to relay signals between the origin and destina-
tion callers. These signals require line -of -sight between towers, and can be
blocked by dense foliage, large buildings, tunnels, and other structures. PCS
providers that use satellites in their networks are less plagued by these chal-
lenges.
Historically, cellular and PCS providers have competed with each other to
locate facilities at the highest locations in a city, on water towers, tall build-
BACKGROUND
uild-
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Faal/des
August 61999
•
ings or other communication facilities where signal interference will not
occur. Locating one or more cellular provider's devices in one facility is
called co -locating. Traditionally, providers have been against co -location
because the second provider on a site generally get a less competitive loca-
tion than the originator of the structure. However, to order to regulate tower
proliferation, many cities have developed ordinances that require that a pro-
vider prove that there are no viable collocation opportunities before grant-
ing a permit for a new site.
Traditional cellular technology resulted in the large triangular structures on
monopoles or lattice towers, with a large box at the base of the tower for
additional equipment. More recent technology has resulted in the develop-
ment of"micro-cells" and "stealth cells," which can be hidden against build-
ings or camouflaged into ornaments on existing features such as flagpoles
and church spires. Many of these are useful only for data transmission or
paging services, but the technology is also evolving for voice transmission.
These units also use an equipment structure the size of a typical electrical
transformer or smaller, as compared to traditional equipment structures on
an 8 -foot by 12 -foot pad.
There are also flush -mount devices that can be placed on the sides of build-
ings, water towers or other existing structures, and painted to match. They
often blend so well into the host structure that they are almost not discern-
ible to the surrounding community.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions
placing an outright moratorium on cell facilities, and requires that any limi-
tations not serve as a disincentive to enter into a particular market. Most
cities have been able to amend their development codes and design stan-
dards to meet their needs, as well.
As reported in Wireless Week (March 8, 1999), a group of industry experts
are not sure what the future demand for "vertical real estate" will be in the
future. One expert predicted a need for about 28,300 new towers nation-
wide to meet the demand for digital buildout on the 800 and 1900 MHz
bands. This estimate does not include accommodation for the ever increas-
ing demand for wireless data transmission, for which there are few esti-
mates of demand.
Industry trend in some parts of the country for carriers to sell their tower
assets and concentrate on serving customers. This allows the tower owners
to develop creative ways for multiple providers to co -locate on a single
tower. There is at least one tower company planning to enter the King County
2 Draft - Technical Memorandum 5 - Wireless facilities
August 6,1999
• •
area. There is no confirmation of which providers this company will sup-
port, or if any carriers are proposing to sell their tower assets.
There are currently seven providers of wireless services in South King
County: Sprint, US West Wireless, GTE, Nextel, Western Wireless
(Voicestream), Airtouch and AT&T Wireless. The City has not been ap-
proached by any of the paging -only or internet-only network providers at
this time. Each of the existing providers is in various stages of "buildout" of
their networks.
The majority of these providers have built their primary networks and are
looking for what are called infill sites. These sites are used for repeaters as
well as new base stations. Often, infill sites are at lower elevations, and can
be hidden more readily as they are used to improve the line -of -sight. These
situations are ideal for tower -only companies, as they make an initial in-
vestment and recoup the cost (and more), from single or multiple tenants.
PERMITTING
PROCESS
The City of Tukwila grants approvals for cellular communications facilities
through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, whether they are on pub-
lic or private property, on monopoles, co -locations on an existing mono-
pole, or communications equipment mounted on another existing structure
such as a rooftop or water tower. CUPs are granted under a Type 4 process,
with an open record public hearing and a decision by the Planning Commis-
sion, with the opportunity for appeal to the City Council.
p
The City has processed about XI applications for cellular facilities in the
past three years. Many of these approvals have been virtually uncontested
and been granted after minimal discussion at the hearing. Other projects
have been more contentious and required that applicants significantly modify
the proposed location, design or height of their proposals.
City requirements for monopoles require that they be painted to match the
surrounding area. The mounting arms are required to be of the straight arm
or "flower -top" style. Older designs used an open framed triangular box
which are considered by most members of the public to be unsightly. Other
types of cellular equipment, such as flush -mounted devices, need to be
painted or otherwise colored to blend into the host structure. In situations
where two or more providers locate on the same pole, the style of the mounts
must be the same.
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Faalides 3
August 61999
Other Examples
The permitting process of a variety of communities in Washington and
Oregon were reviewed to identify the similarities and differences in their
wireless communication facility (WCF) permitting requirements.
• Development Permit — Every jurisdiction reviewed had some form
of administrative process for granting development permits. In cities where
conditional use permits or other special approvals are needed, these are in
addition to a basic development permit and are often granted through a
planning commission or design review process.
• Conditional Use Permits — Many larger cities have listed WCFs as
allowable uses in under a building or general development permit particu-
lar zones, primarily commercial and industrial areas. In other cases WCFs,
are expressly prohibited (e.g. single family zones) and are allowed as a
conditional use in others.
• Level of review — In most cases, conditional use permits follow the
Type 4 process identified in Tukwila, with approval granted by a planning
commission or design review board. Where only a development permits is
required, it is usually granted under an administrative decision process at
the staff or department director level.
• Exemptions from CUP, where Required — Some jurisdictions have
allowed exemptions from conditional use permits where communication
facilities are to be located on an existing structure with communications
uses. Examples where location on city property or existing city structures
was justification for exemption from CUP have been adopted in few loca-
tions, however they are still subject to strict design or visual impact crite-
ria.
• Proof of Need — Virtually every larger city has a requirement to
show, in the case of a new WCF that is not being located on an existing
pole or other structure, that there are no viable options for co -location.
• Design standards — Most major cities and urban counties had re-
quirements that monopoles be colored to match the surroundings and that
equipment stations be screened with vegetation and/or fencing. Many had
requirements for flush -mounted arrays to be painted to match the host struc-
ture.
4 Draft - Technical Memorandum 5 - Wireless Facilities
August 6,1999 .
•
In 1997, a group of wireless communications providers worked with a pri-
vate consultant to identify changes to generic city code language that would
meet the needs of a City to regulate design and land use, while streamlining
the process for the providers and meeting the requirements of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996. A review of these recommendations sug-
gested that some of the ideas may be inappropriate for Tukwila. The City of
Tukwila may wish to consider the following changes to it's conditional u
permit as it relates to Wireless Communication Facilities.. he following
suggestions are based, in part on recommendations from the 1997 report,
along with recent experiences of wireless communications providers in the
Puget Sound and Portland areas.
• Zones Where Facilities are Permitted — The City may wish to
identify zoning classifications where WCF are allowed up to the maximum
height permitted in the zone. This type of permission is most used in heavy
industrial zones, some light industrial zones, and some commercial zones.
Generally, approvals of WCFs are conditional uses or prohibited outright in
residential zones, especially single family. They are also usually conditional
uses in areas zoned for open space, parks or agriculture and forestry uses.
• Facilities to be Permitted Outright - Wireless communication
facilities should continue to be permitted under a staff -approved develop-
ment permit if the proposed antenna array is collocated on an existing tower.
They should also be permitted on a staff -approved basis when they are pro-
posed for location on an existing building or structure on public property
(including public rights of way with controlling agency approval), and does
not increase the height of the structure by more than 10 feet. This serves to
encourage providers to locate their WCF on existing WCF structures, where
there is already a visual impact or that the impact can be minimized through
hiding flush -mount panels on an existing building.
The provision for locating on public property can serve as an incentive,
although the City may wish to exclude sensitive properties such as parks
from the outright approval and make WCFs on these sites a conditional use.
• Administrative review and permit — Departmental directors may
approve wireless communication facilities proposed on an existing build -
SUGGESTED
CHANGES FOR
TUKWILA TO
CONSIDER
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Facilities
August 61999
5
• •
ing or other structure, other than an existing wireless communication struc-
ture that is not City -owned. These approvals shall go to the planning com-
mission if the addition of the antenna array increases the height of the exist-
ing structure over 20 feet.
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP)— A CUP, including a hearing be-
fore the planning commission, should be required when the facility is pro-
posed in a residential zone or within 1,-5{3 feet of a residential zone, or when
the height of an existing structure is p oposed to increase by more than 20
feet, or sensitive public facilities suc as parks.
Analysis
There has been some discussion within City staff as to whether certain
cellular facilities should be approved through a Type 1 (decision by a spe-
cific department) or Type 2 (decision by a specified department director)
process. Because many of the proposals are not contentious and current
trends are moving toward installing low -height, smaller and hidden de-
vices, there are some who believe it would serve the city's interests to make
these Directorial decisions and' leave the more challenging or contentious
ones to the Planning Commission.
Within City staff, there may be some support encouraging WCF location
on city property through an administrative process.
Administrative Approvals
+ Administrative approvals for well-defined situations can reduce the
burden on City administration to meet the legal requirements for
hearings and planning commission decisions.
+ Administrative approvals can be appealed if the applicant or other
party feels the decision was incorrect.
+ For situations where co -location is proposed on an existing tower
or building, the major decision has already been made and the addi-
tional communications facilities are not likely to have a significant
impact.
+ Speeds up the approvals process for the applicant with a simple
project.
6 Draft - Technical Memorandum 5 - Wireless Facilites
August 6,1999
• •
4- Administrative approvals for location on City property could serve
as incentive for providers to locate on public property. Such loca-
tion can result in added revenue for the City.
▪ Possibility of arbitrary decisions. Administrative decisions, made
outside of a public process can sometimes reflect the bias of the
decision maker.
- Need for specific and detailed criteria for determining when an ad-
ministrative decision is appropriate and how to make that decision.
- Hearings process allows public input and can provide insight into
local issues hidden to the City decision maker.
▪ Possibility of increased appeals to the planning commission. There
would still be fewer total planning commission decisions, however
the appeals process would likely extend the length of time between
application and decision beyond the current Type 4.
Location on City Property/Public Right of Way
+ Many existing potential sites (electric poles, traffic signal poles, light
standards)
+ Aesthetic impacts on sites such as substations or existing utility poles
minimal
+ City may be able to generate income from site rental or gain ser-
vices in lieu of rental fee
- Some sites are sensitive (e.g. parks) where aesthetic impact may be
too great
- Some sites may not be feasible from safety or other standpoints
- Public feeling that City is "selling out"
POSSIBLE CODE
LANGUAGE
Goal: Allow wireless communication facilities (WCF) in the broadest range
of zones possible, with the appropriate approval processes and performance
standards.
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Fadlities 7
August 61999
• •
Wireless communication support towers are allowed in nonresi-
dential zones if the site is located at least 300 feet from the nearest
existing residential lot (a lot where a dwelling unit may be con-
structed as an outright permitted use). Such towers are allowed on
all City property if sited at least 300 feet from the nearest existing
residential lot. Installation requires only the granting of a develop-
ment permit and the execution of necessary agreements if located
on City property.
Towers located in residential zones or within 300 feet of an exist-
ing residential lot requires granting of a conditional use permit from
the Planning Commission.
Goal: Encourage use of public facilities and sites for WCF
The following sites shall be considered by applicants as the pre-
ferred order to location of proposed wireless facilities, including
antenna(e), equipment, and equipment shelters. As determined fea-
sible and in order of preference, the sites are:
1. Existing broadcast and relay towers;
2. Industrial and manufacturing areas;
3. Publicly used structures: attached to existing public facilities such
as water towers, utility structures, fire stations, bridges and other
public buildings within all zoning districts not utilized primarily
for recreational uses, subject to the restrictions on residential areas
as above;
4. Business, commercial and urban center sites;
5. Residential zones, residential structures.
Goal: Coordinate the permit approval process and development standards
so that incentives are used to direct WCFs todesired locations. Distin-
guish between an antenna or antenna array and the installation of a tower
or monopole. Reduce approval process for antenna array to be located on
an existing structure as opposed to new tower or other supporting struc-
ture.
Broadcast and relay towers. Broadcast and relay towers including
monopoles shall be minimized by collocating wireless facilities on
existing towers. New broadcast and relay towers are most appro-
priately located areas as described above. Broadcast and relay tow-
ers are allowed in all zones under either as an outright permitted
use or as a conditional use subject to the criteria above.
Micro facilities (individual antennae from 0 to 4 feet) are permitted
in all zones, provided they are located on existing buildings, poles
or other existing support structures and that the interior wall or ceil-
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5 - Wireless Faa/ides,
August 6,1999'
• •
ing immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential
space.
Attached WCFs are permitted outright in zones other than those
designated as residential and those properties with the primary use
designation as recreation or open space. In these zones, attached
WCFs may be permitted as a conditional use.
Goal: Encourage WCFs to attach to existing buildings, structures, emer-
gency communications antennas, and to share these locations with other
providers. As provided above, create incentives for collocation such as al-
lowing increased height or expedited processing when collocation is planned
for or demonstrated. Recognize that collocation may not be practically or
technically feasible in certain locations or circumstances. Also recognize
antitrust limitations on requirements that various industry providers share
proprietary information regarding proposed site locations, coverage areas
and scheduling.
An FCC licensed wireless communications provider proposing a new
WCF with a support structure shall demonstrate to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Commission that no existing tower or
structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evi-
dence submitted to demonstrate that no suitable existing site is avail-
able may include any of the following:
• No existing towers or structures are located in the geographic
area required to meet the applicant's engineering require-
ments to provide service coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to
meet applicant's engineering requirements to provide ser-
vice coverage for Tukwila.
• Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient struc-
tural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna
and equipment.
• The proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic inter
ference with the antenna on the existing tower or structure or
the existing antenna will cause interference with the
applicant's antenna.
• The fees, costs or provisions required by the owner to share
an existing site are unreasonable. Unreasonable is defined as
a cost that exceeds the cost of developing a new antenna.
• The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting fac-
tors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable.
Goal: Provide streamlined application requirements for WCF on existing
buildings or support structures. Develop application requirements for con -
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Facilites
August 61999
SUMMARY
• •
ditional use WCFs that are performance based.
For WCFs that are proposed for collocation on an existing support
structure or tower, or for attachment to an existing building, a build-
ing permit application with notification to the planning department
of such application, and recitation of zoning, height and building
location is required.
For WCFs that are proposed to include a new support tower or struc-
ture, the application for a Conditional Use permit will require site
plans that include site and landscape/screening plans to scale; a de-
scription of the proposed structure with documentation establishing
its structural integrity for the proposed use; a statement describing
excess space and whether it will be leased; proof or ownership or
authorization to use the proposed site; copies of any needed ease-
ments; area map identifying any existing WCF towers and an analysis
of area containing existing topographical contours, buildings and
other factors influencing tower location; proof that no other fea-
sible sites exist; and a description of design treatments to reduce the
aesthetic impact of the proposed site.
Based on general trends in the wireless communication industry, there will
be a continued demand to locate wireless communication antennas, relay
facilities and other devices on individual support structures as well as on
existing buildings and other supporting structures. Traditionally, Tukwila
has required a conditional use permit for all of these types of facilities,
except when a second provider chooses to collocate with an existing pro-
vider on a structure.
Trends in permitting throughout Washington and other areas are showing
that Cities are allowing WCFs on existing towers or on existing buildings
through a building permit process, as long as the building is not in a resi-
dential zone or contain a residential use. In these cases a Conditional Use
Permit is required. CUPs are also usually required for new WCFs that
include support structures. There is also a trend to reduce permitting re-
quirements for WCF proposals that use existing city or other public prop-
erty. The City may also want to consider following these trends.
The City may also want to revise it's code language to facilitate the use of
certain types of City facilities for WCF location under a building permit
rather than a CUP. Use of city property could provide a small amount of
income for the city.
10 Deft - Technical Memorandum 5 - Wireless Facilities
August 6,1999
• •
These changes will not likely have an adverse impact on the city. Most of
the applications for WCFs are not contentious, and while requiring a plan-
ning commission approval, they likely could be processed administratively.
Under the proposed system, new towers/monopoles and other facilities that
could likely be contentious, would still undergo planning commission re-
view. The proposed changes could reduce administrative burden on staff to
prepare for planning commission hearings, and allow the commission to
focus on more important issues and decisions.
Draft - Technical Memorandum 5- Wireless Fealties
August 61999
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
• •
MEMORANDUM
Brian Shelton
Frank Iriarte
Joanna Spencer
Robin Tischmak
Michael Jenkins
Bob Giberson
August 10, 1999
Right -Of -Way Management & Telecommunications Plan
Draft Technical Memorandum 5
Wireless Facilities
Please review and return comments to me regarding the attached draft technical
memorandum 5.
This tech memo summarizes the City's (DCD) process for granting conditional use
permits and applicable zoning code issues for wireless facilities. It also includes a reivew
of other jurisdictions policies and provides recdommendations on guideleins for
permitting the placement of wireless facilities on City property.
The next step is to submit the draft Working Plan for Utility Committee review and
comment (and staff), with the goal of revising it and forwarding Committee of the Whole
and then on to full Council for adoption.
Attachments — Tech Memo 5
File: 98-RW02
P:\projects\98rw02\tm5mem.doc