The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.05.03 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds MAY 3, 2011 6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiations. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.Roll Call B. AM-3916 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2011. C. AM-3911 Approval of claim checks #125160 through #125253 dated April 28, 2011 for $584,989.02. D. AM-3910 FEMA Biological Opinion E. AM-3919 Mayoral Proclamation declaring Thursday, May 5, 2011 to be National Day of Prayer in the City of Edmonds. 3. (5 Minutes) AM-3917 Resolution in support of Edmonds Senior Center's Creative Transitions Program. 4. (30 Minutes) AM-3915 Review of Planning Board recommendation on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless communication facilities (File No. AMD-2010-0004). 5. (90 Minutes) AM-3918 Discussion of levy options. (Public comment will be received.) 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* Packet Page 1 of 383 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Minutes) Council Comments ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 383 AM-3916 Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:Consent Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 26, 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 04-26-11 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 04/28/2011 04:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/28/2011 01:54 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 3 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES April 26, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:16 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Carl Nelson, CIO Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Megan Cruz, Video Recorder Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2011. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #125019 THROUGH #125159 DATED APRIL 21, 2011 FOR $673,962.28. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50350 THROUGH #50381 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2011 FOR $626,104.11. D. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT – APRIL, 2011. E. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF NEIL TIBBOTT AND WILLIAM ELLIS AS PLANNING BOARD MEMBER AND ALTERNATE. F. MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 1, 2011 "LOYALTY DAY." Packet Page 4 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 2 G. MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 28, 2011 "WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY." H. MAYORAL PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF MAY 1 "NATIVE PLANT APPRECIATION WEEK." 3. ANNUAL REPORT BY THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU. Amy Spain, Executive Director, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, introduced Beth Braun, Marketing Manager, Edmonds Center for the Arts, who serves on the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau Board. Ms. Spain commented on the importance of tourism to economic development. She explained visitors to Washington State spent $15.2 billion in 2009; accounting for over $1 billion in tax revenues. Although tourism is Washington States’ 4th largest industry, the legislature is closing the state tourism office. Impacts of the closure result in no umbrella organization to provide cooperative marketing opportunities, advertising options, media coordination and packaged familiarization tours; no state website and no state travel planner. In response to the closure, the industry established the Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA), a 501(c)(6) organization, that will be governed and overseen by the tourism industry and is not a state government organization. The WTA’s mission is sustaining destination tourism marketing for Washington State. The WTA plans to create and implement a strategic statewide destination marketing plan. The just released House proposed budget includes funding to keep the State tourism website live through 2011. She encouraged the Council, staff and the public to get engaged - join, volunteer and advocate for economic development through tourism. Ms. Spain provided several statistics regarding tourism: • Travel spending increased by 7.4 percent in Washington State from 2009 to 2010. This compares to an 8.5% increase for the entire U.S. over the same time period. • Total local and state tax receipts generated by travel spending increased by 5% from 2009 to 2010. • The recovery in the travel industry is being led by demand; Snohomish County saw a 10.3% increase in demand over 2009. • Visitors from outside of Washington (residents of other states or countries) generated $245 of tax revenue for each Washington household. Residents travel within the state generated an additional $145 of tax revenue per household. • Working proprietors represent one out of eight people working in the travel industry and the travel industry is a substantial employer of women and minorities. • The economic impact of tourism in Snohomish County includes 8,980 jobs, $190.8 million payroll, $13.4 million in local taxes and $47.9 million in state taxes. Although visitor spending was down 4.2% in 2010 over 2009, visitor spending in Snohomish County in 2010 totaled approximately $800 million. She described the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on transportation/fuel, restaurants, retail sales, recreation and entertainment as well as employment and local and state taxes. She provided a comparison of Snohomish County Tourism Bureau’s (SCTB) tourism marketing budget compared to economic impact, noting SCTB has the lowest budget to economic impact percentage. She commented on the formation of the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) in Snohomish County and the opportunity it provides the SCTB and cities, festivals and events to obtain funds for marketing. The TPA Board includes representation from all five Snohomish County districts including Stephen Clifton for District 3 as well as 9 voting hotel members. Funds will begin to be collected July 1, 2011 and available to the community by early 2012. The TPA Board is developing criteria and an application process. Packet Page 5 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 3 Ms. Spain reported ads placed in meeting and event planner, reunion and sports related publications generated 1,499 requests for information, and an additional 13,428 requests from leisure travelers. In 2009 instead of printing a meeting facility guide, a CD was created that allows tracking of what is viewed on the CD. Ms. Spain reported on tourism development for individual leisure travel, describing advertising marketed to various publications that generated 14,588 requests for information, a slight decrease (5%) after a 62% increase in 2009.There were 6,970 visits to RoomsAtPar/YourGreat Escape websites as a result of advertising presence. SCTB is moving from print resources to online with online banner ads, keyword buys and search engine optimization. A program launched in late 2010 with Seattle Tourism Bureau and Tacoma Bureau, Tourism Revealed – The Adventure of Puget Sound, encourages visitors to travel throughout Puget Sound. The programs includes monthly emails to 82,000 emails, 1900 visits to the website in 6 weeks and nearly 900 Facebook likes. She provided SCTB’s primary website, www.snohomish.org, a website related to the wedding market, www.snohomishcountywewddings.com, and websites geared toward booking overnight stays, www.RoomsatPar.com and www.YourGreatEscapes. She commented on web trends, a 117% increase in visits to the Snohomish.org website 2007-2010. She described a new guide created in 2010 that highlights aviation attractions. She described public relation and media efforts, publication of StoryLine, a bimonthly media newsletter distributed to travel writers; media sales missions, keyword buys, banner ads, partnerships with Destinations2Discovera neighborhood Vacations2Discover, new social media programs with Facebook and Twitter, Squidoo, blogs and YouTube. She described volunteer hours and services provided at Visitor Centers, education provided to volunteers including two familiarization tours to Edmonds and education provided to the tourism community. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Council could assist the SCTB. Ms. Spain responded the WTA is in its infancy. Because Washington was 47th in tourism funding, the industry had gathered to discuss how to supplement tourism funding, never imagining tourism funding would be totally eliminated. The WTA is a membership organization; individuals and organizations can join for as little as $25. There is a founding board of five members who represent attractions, restaurants, destination marketing organizations and hotels. She envisioned at some point the WTA would broaden from a membership organization to an assessment which will require legislative support. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Ms. Spain make a presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT). Although the SCT’s focus is on growth management, good growth is not possible without economic development. Councilmember Wilson commented he felt in the past that Edmonds was left out of tourism promotion in Snohomish County; Ms. Spain’s presentation demonstrated that is no longer the case. He encouraged her to keep Edmonds on her list of priorities. Ms. Spain answered eight German travel writers are visiting Washington State and will be spending a portion of their day in Snohomish County in Edmonds. She expressed her appreciation for Mr. Clifton’s involvement in tourism. 4. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION 2010 ANNUAL REPORT AND PRESENTATION OF 2011 SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Arts Commission Chair Samantha Saether. Ms. Saether recognized Arts Commissioners in the audience. She described the history of the Arts Commission; in 1975 the City Council recognized the importance of art and culture to the quality of life and a vital economy by creating the Arts Commission. The Arts Commission recently celebrated its 35th anniversary; she thanked the City Council and the community for their continued support and recognition that arts and culture are critical to the identity and economic health of the community. Packet Page 6 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 4 Ms. Saether provided highlights of 2010, explaining creative activities contribute to cultural tourism of the area. In 2010 the Write on the Sound Writers Conference celebrated 25 years, growing from a 1 day event to a 2-day conference attracting participants from across the country. The Arts Commission also facilitated tourism promotion awards that provide funding from Lodging Taxes to local, non-profit organizations promoting cultural events that bring visitors to Edmonds including the Olympic Ballet, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Art Studio tours, the DeMiero Jazz Festival and SnoKing Community Chorale. The Arts Commission publishes a quarterly email newsletter to keep residents and visitors informed about upcoming arts and cultural events. Quality of life for the community is enhanced via visual, performing and literary arts programs. One of he most popular Arts Commission programs is the free summer concert series in City Parks with an average attendance of 400. The City takes pride in its collection of publicly owned and displayed artworks including over 150 original works such as the iconic Cedar Dreams fountain. Artworks are funded through the percent for arts ordinance and significant donations, primarily from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. In 2010 the newest additions to the collection are three art-enhanced flower basket poles funded through the Arts Festival Foundation and a new program similar to the City bench program. Enhancing the missions of the Arts Commission are partnership, grants, and sponsorships that are critical to a limited budget. The Arts Commission recognizes the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Library, Friends of the Edmonds Library, Edmonds School District and Edmonds Community College and sponsorships from Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood for concerts in the park and Windermere Edmonds and Royal Bank Wealth Management for Write on the Sound. For 14 years the Arts Commission has partnered with the Friends of the Edmonds Library to recognize 600 third graders celebrating their favorite book with the Best Book Poster Contest. The Arts Commission co-sponsored two arts workshops in College Place Middle School with a guest writer. The Arts Commission also supports arts education via scholarships. She introduced Joanne Otness, Arts Commission Vice Chair, to present the 2011 recipients. Ms. Otness explained the scholarship program was established in 1985 and is funded via donated funds and proceeds from the Write on the Sound Conference. Scholarships are awarded to Edmonds students planning a career in the arts. To date the Arts Commission has awarded 55 scholarships, many of the recipients have gone on to study at prestigious schools and a number are writers and music teachers. Ms. Otness introduced the 2011 Arts Commission literary and performing arts scholarship recipients, Todd Hollenhorst and Hannah King, Meadowdale High School seniors, who will receive $1250 each. Mr. Hollenhorst has played the piano since age 7. As a freshman he began playing jazz piano and accompanied the award winning Meadowdale Jazz Band. He sings and accompanies the impression jazz choir and plays French horn in the wind ensemble. Ms. King has studied dance since childhood, becoming proficient in ballet and contemporary dance. She is also an honor student, takes voice lessons, has entered art in the Edmonds Arts Festival and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Mr. Hollenhorst advised that he plans to attend Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle in the fall. He thanked the Arts Commission for the scholarship and his parents for their support. Ms. King advised she is deciding between George Mason University and the Boston Conservatory. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported a cell tower was being installed at 232nd & Edmonds Way. He also reported May 5 is National Day of Prayer; Westgate Chapel is recognizing the day. The next Friends of the Edmonds Library meeting is Thursday, April 28 at the Frances Anderson Center. Packet Page 7 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 5 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Consent Agenda Item 2D, Community Services and Economic Development Department Quarterly Report, that describes the long term solution to conflicts between the ferry, rail, automobile, buses and pedestrians; moving to Pt. Edwards; and a new rail station for intercity passengers, commuter rail and Sounder service; and a transit center. He referred to construction on the Commuter Rail station and questioned whether it was a permanent or temporary structure. If it is a permanent structure, it violates the Comprehensive Plan which calls for a temporary structure. He recommended the station either be identified as temporary or, if it is a permanent structure, the Comprehensive Plan be amended. The overhead loading is temporary, constructed so that it can be moved to Pt. Edwards in the future. With regard to the overhead loading, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton reported on December 10, 2004, Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy issued an order reversing the Shoreline Hearings Board decision, taking away the temporary status of the overhead loading and making it a permanent structure. That decision was based on the State’s essential facilities legislation. The City argued the overhead loading should be temporary; the Shoreline Hearings Board agreed but the Superior Court Judge did not agree and reversed the temporary status of the overhead loading. With regard to the commuter rail station, Mr. Clifton explained in late 2008/early 2009, recognizing that the State’s Long Range Washington State Ferries Plan did not include any money for Edmonds Crossing through 2030, he requested the City Council support staff’s recommendation to ask Sound Transit to construct the 2002 commuter rail station plan. The 2002 plan recognized the components of the station would be moved to Edmonds Crossing. At this point it could become a permanent station but it has not yet been defined as a permanent station. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Superior Court decision required any change be made to the Comprehensive Plan as suggested by Mr. Hertrich. Mr. Clifton answered no. Lesly Kaplan, Edmonds, commented she was amazed and astounded at the dedicated, competent, smart, capable people who worked for the City. She referred to concerns expressed about their salaries and tightening up their job descriptions, citing the importance of maintaining strong employees and the services the City offers. She was willing to support tax increases to keep the City strong and capable. She urged the Council to take measures to ensure the City remains financially strong. 6. DISCUSSION OF REALLOCATION OF REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (REET) FUNDS. Council President Peterson explained this subject was discussed at the Council retreat and it was agreed to discuss it further at a Council meeting. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the first ¼% of REET is allocated to Fund 126, Special Capital Improvement Fund. It is currently used primarily for debt but can also be used for acquisition, development, repair, replacement of parks, recreation facilities and public works facilities. After debt is paid, remaining fund are allocated to parks. The second ¼% of REET is allocated to Fund 125, Parks Improvement Fund. Fund 125 is used for planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation and improvement of parks. The City’s current policy allocates the first $750,000 to the Parks Improvement and funds in excess of $750,000/year are allocated to streets. HB 1953 allows cities and counties to use the first and second quarter REET for operations and maintenance purposes for all eligible categories in statute; cities and counties may use the greater of $100,000 or 35% of available funds, not to exceed $1 million per year. The bill allows the second quarter Packet Page 8 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 6 to be used for debt services. The legislation would sunset December 31, 2016. The bill was passed by the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor on April 22; she has not yet signed the bill. Ms. Hite cited the following sections of the Edmonds City Code: • 3.29.010, imposing REET for Special Capital Improvement Fund (Fund: 126) • 3.29.015, imposing additional REET (Fund 125) She provided a description of Fund 126, REET 1, and Fund 125, REET 2 for 2007-2011, advising the City has received $122,410 in each of those funds during the first three months of this year. She reviewed expenditures from Fund 125 including approximately $8,000 in professional services (an easement for the Interurban Trail) that will be allocated from Parks Construction Fund 132. She explained REET 2 is often used to leverage funds for State grants. For example, the interurban trail section between Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. The City was awarded $1.3 million in grants that will be placed in Fund 132. An additional $200,000 will be allocated from REET to Fund 132 to finish that project. She continued her review of expenditures from Fund 125, an interfund transfer out of $158,000; $153,000 of that will be placed in Fund 132 and is earmarked for construction of the Dayton Street Plaza. The other $5,000 will be placed in the Municipal Arts Fund to support interpretive signage on the 4th Avenue Corridor. A grant was received for that program and funds leverage from REET for that project. She summarized Fund 132 is used primarily for larger park construction projects. Ms. Hite reviewed Fund 126 Debt Expenditures in 2010: Purpose 2010 Payments 2001 Bond principal Marina Beach Purchase $100,000 2011 Bonds interest Marina Beach Purchase $ 82,668 2007 LTGO Bond principal Frances Anderson Center Seismic Project $ 15,990 2007 LTGO Bond interest Frances Anderson Center Seismic Project $ 13,882 1998 REF Bond principal City Hall Acquisition and Development $345,591 198 REF bond interest City Hall Acquisition and Development $ 71,673 2002 LTGO Issue REET Share of Edmonds Center for Arts $ 70,792 Grand Total $700,596 Ms. Hite described the following projects budgeted to be funded via Fund 126 in 2011: • Haines Wharf closeout: TBD • Yost Pool repairs: $105,000 • City Park Playground replacement: $200,000 • Old Milltown development: $40,000 • Dayton Street Plaza: $135,500 ( delaying to 2012) • SR 99 Enhancements: grant funded • 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor planning: $75,000 ( delaying to 2012) • Interurban Connection: grant funded, may need additional leveraged funds Ms. Hite identified the following annual park improvements/maintenance: • Citywide beautification (primarily the Flower Program): $30,000 • Miscellaneous paving projects: $10,000 • Citywide park improvements: $35,000 • Miscellaneous unpaved trails/bike paths: $10,000 2012 REET funded projects include: Packet Page 9 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 7 • Interurban Trail: $200,000-$250,000 • Anderson Center Field: $30,000 • Marina Beach Park Improvements: $75,000 (expand parking, portable restroom upgrades, repair/improvement of OLAE, replace play structure, interpretive signs) • Fishing Pier: $30,000 • Mathay Ballinger Park: $45,000 (play structure, picnic area) 2012 park improvements/maintenance include: • Citywide beautification (Flower Program): $30,000 • Sports Field Upgrades: $25,000 • Citywide park improvements: $35,000 Ms. Hite summarized the REET Parks Improvement Fund is used to leverage grants for both planning, acquisition, and development. It is the only capital money currently dedicated to parks. It is also used to take care of some general park maintenance. If the Council chose to reallocate REET funds to streets, she recommended the Council consider other revenue tools for parks as reallocating funds currently used for ongoing maintenance will impact long term park maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Council could talk about Haines Park overruns. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended the Council not discuss the merits of their claim or what the City was doing to defend against the claim. For planning and budgeting purposes, the Council could discuss worst case scenario dollar amounts. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Ms. Hite comment on how cost overruns occur, who approves them, etc. Mr. Taraday cautioned against any specific discussion regarding Haines Wharf. Mayor Cooper suggested if Councilmember Buckshnis had questions that had not been answered in executive session, either she meet with Ms. Hite and Mr. Taraday or the Council meet again in executive session regarding that matter. Councilmember Wilson referred to REET Fund 126 Debt Expenditures, and asked why REET versus General Fund covered the 2002 bond for the ECA and whether the City pays that amount or if the City was paid back by the ECA. Ms. Hite advised these bonds were for the first part of construction; the other bonds were for the second part, the ECA bonds that the City guaranteed. Community Services/Economic Development Director Clifton clarified as part of the overall ECA funding package, the City agreed to contribute $2 million to the ECA project – $1 million in REET cash and a bond for $1 million – the REET fund is used to pay a portion of that bond. The first bond was $7 million and the ECA had a $3.5 million line of credit. When the ECA refinanced in 2008/2009, the line of credit and the amount remaining on the original $7 million bond were combined into one large bond. The bond paid from REET Fund 126 is the original $1 million City contribution. Councilmember Wilson relayed a citizen’s question regarding how much the City has spent on the ECA since it began. Mr. Clifton answered the originally contributed $2 million plus the recently contributed $100,000 plus staff time. Funds are also allocated from Hotel/Motel Tax to assist with marketing. Councilmember Petso referred to the debt schedule, recalling there were debt payments for the library roof made from Fund 126. Ms. Hite offered to investigate. Council President Peterson thanked Ms. Hite for the presentation, noting it clarified some of the expenditures and will assist with discussions regarding the levy. Although there are options with regard to how REET funds are expended, if REET funds are used for transportation, there is less money for basic park maintenance. REET funds need to be considered in conjunction with other funding options. Although it would be difficult to reallocate REET funds at this time due to budgeted items, there may be opportunity in the future to use funds to supplement transportation projects as debt is retired. Packet Page 10 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 8 Councilmember Petso advised she plans to investigate whether some of the debt service could be shifted from the 126 Fund to the 125 Fund in order to free up funds in the 126 Fund for future park acquisition. She acknowledged it would not be a great deal of money but even $70,000 could be enough for a $1 million match on a $10 million parcel. She will research if shifting funds was legal and/or plausible. Councilmember Wilson commented he was interested in a General Obligation Bond to acquire land for park purposes such as the Civic Center Playfields. All the parks projects funded in 2011 are great projects and clearly have a constituency but 97% of the City’s streets need repairs. He suggested before Mayor Cooper prepares the 2012 budget, it would be appropriate for the Council to have that conversation and provide guidance. He was prepared to reallocate some of the REET funds toward streets. Council President Peterson commented those are some of the tough choices that the Council will make. The City has a great history of parks acquisition and that is any city’s ideal. If the voters pass a levy, funding for parks may be more secure because additional funds may be dedicated to transportation. If the Council does not place a levy on the August ballot and a budget is prepared without knowing the outcome of a levy or if a levy on the August ballot fails, the Council will need to make difficult decisions that have been postponed for the past few years. He summarized without additional funding, difficult choices will need to be made. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the City is not receiving sufficient REET revenue to pay down debt and dedicate funds to streets. 7. DISCUSSION OF LEVY OPTIONS. (PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED) Councilmember Buckshnis read the following statement from the 2010-2011 Citizen Levy Committee (John Carlin, Barbara Chase, Darrol Haug, Evelyn Wellington, Harry Gatjens and Bill Vance): Work completed and reported to Council: 1. An Interim Report and Power Point Presentation were provided to the Council in February 2011. The report summarized data relating to the committee research and results since inception at the end of July 2010. 2. Tax Models and Sample Levies initiated by Darrol Haug were presented to the Council along with extensive research on how these levies would impact the City’s Financial Forecasting model. 3. Dissenting opinions from Ms. Beyer, Ms. Chase and Ms. Wellington on research related to discretionary expenditures, employee benefits, fragmentary support from staff, and apparent incomplete financial information were also presented to the Council. Further information available at: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CitLevyComm.stm Levy Committee Recommendations: 1. Committee recommends placement of the levy on the November ballot. This will allow the City’s Legislative and Administrative branches sufficient time to employ polling techniques and educate the public with a positive and clear message. It is also noted that November elections have a larger turnout. 2. Committee recommends multiple targeted levies on the ballot so as to give the voters a choice of preferred capital upgrades. Targeted levies must be clearly stated so as not to confuse the voters. 3. Committee recommends targeted levies for a specific time period: three years. It is determined that timed levies allow the citizens more control of taxation. Packet Page 11 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 9 4. Committee recommends targeted levies until such time as 1) current, accurate and complete information is provided by the Administration; and 2) employee benefit costs are examined (see Ms. Wellington’s dissenting opinion for entire commentary in this area). 5. Committee recommends a targeted STREETS LEVY for street overlays of $1.5 million/year for the next three years. 6. Committee recommends a targeted capital upgrade levy for Parks ($300,000), Public Works ($500,000) and Yost Pool ($300,000) for a total of $1.1million/year for the next three years. Committee wants to highlight to the Council the costs associated with the service contract with Fire District 1: this service contract makes up approximately 18 percent of the General Fund. This service contract will grow from one to three percent a year until its expiry in 2014. Revenues from the EMS tax and transport fees flow into the General Fund but are not sufficient to cover the service contract costs. The Council will need to determine what course of action to take within the next couple of years to make up for that shortfall. This decision will have a significant impact on the budget and/or property taxes of citizens if the City moves to a Regional Fire Authority. It is expected that this issue will most likely require the vote of the people. The City’s forecasting models need to be more specific in terms of breaking out this large expense as well as providing the supporting data for the projections. To date, support for the forecasting models has not been forthcoming. It is also recommended that the forecasting models have two or three scenario to provide both positive and negative trends. Lastly, Mayor Cooper announced that he intends to put together a group of 30 people to help with his levy efforts. [Mayor Cooper later clarified the group would assist with the 2012 budget.] It would be helpful if our members are invited by the Mayor as the work and research we have done to date could be very helpful. Public Comment Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented although $32.5 million is a lot of revenue to operate the City for one year, it is not enough when imprudently allocated. He expressed concern that staffing costs left little for street overlays or other infrastructure maintained. He cited Development Services as an example of boom-year staffing; there were three times as many projects three years ago, Architectural Design Board meetings are frequently cancelled because there are no proposed projects to review and not a single project has been constructed in the five BD zones since they were created five years ago, yet staffing levels have not been reduced. Although other government bodies in the State have negotiated a variety of concessions from their workers to help alleviate revenue shortfalls, the Council has been unable to do the same. He acknowledged some staff took 9 furlough days in 2009; however due to the COLA increase, their total pay in 2009 was still above 2008. Because the Council has misallocated the use of City revenues, Mr. Hertrich urged voters not to support a levy in 2011. He suggested the 2012 budgeting process do what the Council or Mayor would not do, cut staffing costs and reduce expenses to bring them in line with revenue and reduced demand for certain services. He was hopeful after elections in November, concessions will be negotiated to allow restoration of some of the 2012 budget cuts before they are implemented. Citizen may then be more inclined to vote for a smaller levy in 2012. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented the creator of the REET budget was suffering from delusions of grandeur. As the former chair of the Public Safety Levy Committee, he cited the importance of educating the public regarding the need. He commended Mayor Cooper for the explanation of his levy proposal in the Edmonds Beacon. If the Council expected to pass a levy, he recommended getting people who support a levy to attend public meetings and educate the public. He also recommended testing the public’s temperature toward a levy and cuts. Packet Page 12 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 10 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented since Mayor Cooper arrived, there had not been any reductions in staff. He cited an example in the Planning and Building Department where two inspectors compete in the field because there are too many personnel and not enough work. He relayed comments from a developer who found it very confusing to have two inspectors on a project. He suggested Mayor Cooper reduce labor as a way to trim the budget as much as possible to avoid a levy. He suggested the TBD Board pursue funding for roads. He inquired about the status of the City’s finances, commenting he was uncomfortable with increasing taxes until he knew more about the City’s financial situation. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested bringing in special events to generate revenue, citing the opening of Lynnwood Recreation Center. He suggested the City purchase Al Dyke’s property and construct an entertainment center that would attract visitors and generate revenue. He suggested the answer may be a new pool in Edmonds. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on allegations that Development Services is over staffed and how he justified the $1.5 million paid in salaries and benefits to the 16 employees. Mayor Cooper explained the FTE in that department had been stable even during the boom years; staff was not added in that department during the boom years and the City received a lot of complaints about long lines and delays. Previous Councils and the Mayor did not reduce staffing because staff had not been added during the boom years. For at least the last 1½ years the Council and Mayor made a conscious decision not to fill the Development Services Director position, resulting in salary savings for a job that pays in excess of $120,000/year. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mayor Cooper to comment on the current workload of employees in the Development Services Department; how the City was benefiting from their work if they are not processing applications for new development. Mayor Cooper offered to confer with Mr. Clifton regarding the number of FTEs in the department during the boom years and now and the workloads of each individual. During preparation of the 2011 budget, a decision was made to present a budget that left the Development Services Director position vacant for part of 2011 rather than reduce staffing elsewhere in the department. A code rewrite is needed and perhaps some reorganization is warranted to get that work done. He was uncertain the result would be fewer FTEs; it may result in employees doing different work. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the timeline for hiring a new Finance Director and possibly changing from an Administrative Assistant to a second Finance Director to assist with providing accurate and timely financials. Mayor Cooper responded the application period for a Finance Director closes Friday, April 29. On Monday, May 2, he will begin reviewing applications with the Human Resources Director and other staff members. They will narrow down the applicants and begin the interview process. If there is a pool of qualified applicants, his goal is to have the Council interview three finalists in time to make a decision in late May/early June. With regard to an Administrative Assistant, once a new Finance Director is hired, a holistic look will be given to reorganization. He has discussed reorganization citywide with other Directors. Councilmember Wilson advised the former Development Services Director Duane Bowman left April 1, 2008; the position has been vacant for over 3 years. In response to Mr. Wambolt, Councilmember Wilson explained Councilmember Buckshnis and he via the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee have been reviewing employee benefits at the direction of the City Council. It is not the Council’s responsibility to renegotiate contracts with labor organizations and soliciting furloughs is the Mayor’s responsibility. The Council’s responsibility is the policy. Both Councilmember Buckshnis and he are up for re-election this year and he noted there was no political benefit to reviewing employee benefits. He pointed out many people, including possibly Mr. Wambolt, supported a $3.75 million levy a few years ago. The Mayor’s proposal and the Council’s discussions are clearly sensitive to the current economy. He agreed the financials were frustrating to everyone, but regardless of whether they were off by 5% or 10%, the City has a revenue problem not an expense problem. Packet Page 13 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 11 Councilmember Wilson cited Lynnwood as an example of a city with an expense problem. Lynnwood has 30,000 citizens and provide the same essential services with 363 FTEs. Edmonds provides the same services and if fire employees are added in, Edmonds has 270 FTEs for 33% more population. Edmonds’ expenses are being scrutinized but the real problem is revenue. He assured the Council was considering revenues and expenses responsibly. Council President Peterson commented hiring and retraining staff is very expensive. He remembered the complaints during the boom years about the length of time spent on the second floor of City Hall when he and others were opening businesses. He was hesitant to say that a reduction in 1-2 FTEs on the second floor would turn the ship around. To the contrary, if the City is not ready with a code rewrite and an experienced staff when the economy turns around, the City will be behind other cities. Council President Peterson thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Buckshnis for considering creative ways to save money on benefits. He pointed out the City’s employees are willing to consider ways to save the City money; a public employee is more than a salary, it is someone who provides a service for the City and its citizens. Edmonds is a service business and services cannot be provided without quality, experienced employees. Mayor Cooper suggested the Council determine, 1) whether they wanted one or several ballot measures, 2) the amount of a levy, and 3) whether to put a levy on the August or November ballot. Mayor Cooper clarified during his State of the City address he said he planned to assemble a stakeholder group of 30 people to advise him on the 2012 preliminary budget, not to help pass a levy. In fact it would be inappropriate for him to put together a stakeholder group to help pass a levy because it would be misuse of public funds to lead that type of effort at the City’s expense. That will need to be a volunteer effort once the Council makes a decision regarding a levy. The stakeholder group he forms to advise him on the 2012 budget may have conversations about revenue because if the Council chooses not to ask voters for additional revenue, cuts are a definite probability in the preliminary 2012 budget. As he mentioned previously, it is not a matter of whether the City falls below the Council’s once month reserve established in the 2011 budget, it is a matter of how far below. If the Council chooses not to ask voters for additional revenue he will bring decisions to the Council; it may be layoffs, reductions in maintenance, etc. The City’s labor unions are working collaboratively with the City’s negotiating team to identify solutions. In response to Councilmember Wilson’s comment, Mayor Cooper pointed out it is not the Mayor who decides what is presented at the bargaining table with labor unions, the Council makes that decision. The City Council has the responsibility in labor relations, not the Mayor. The Council can request he act as the Council’s agent at the bargaining table, but the Council sets the parameters and votes on the labor contracts. With regard to Mr. Wambolt’s statements, Mayor Cooper explained that in the midst of a 3-year collective bargaining agreement that employees and the City negotiated in good faith, employees received a COLA increase in 2009, the same year they gave up 3% of their pay for furloughs. He noted some of the current Councilmembers may have approved that COLA increase, perhaps even Mr. Wambolt when he was on the Council. He summarized the City honored collective bargaining agreements via the 2009 pay raise, based on 2008 when the cost of living was still increasing. He was on the Snohomish County Council at that time and Snohomish County employees received a 6.5% increase but also took furloughs. Whether the Council adopts his proposal or the Citizen Levy Committee’s proposal, Mayor Cooper recommended the Council consider whether the proposal addresses the deficit. Packet Page 14 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 12 Mayor Cooper explained staff cobbled together professional services money and hired a reputable polling company to conduct a scientifically valid public opinion survey. The survey is being conducted now and he hoped to present raw data to the Council at the May 3 Council meeting. He has requested Council President Peterson schedule a special Council meeting on committee night (May 10) so that Alison Peters from the polling company can make a full presentation to the Council on the polling results. The survey asks about multi-year levies, separate ballot propositions, the size of the levy, etc. He also intends to provide an up-to-date forecasting model based on 2010 yearend actuals at next week’s meeting. He urged the council to continue their conversations and make a decision to address the City’s revenue problem even if a decision cannot be made by May 24 to put a levy on the August ballot. Council President Peterson suggested the Council answer the most basic question, whether to place a levy on the ballot in 2011. Councilmember Bernheim responded he was in favor of a placing a levy on the ballot in 2011. He also favored holding as many meetings as possible to reach unanimity regarding a levy. He anticipated anyone reviewing the City’s financial documents would conclude that taxes need to be raised because the cost of government has increased and the amount citizens pay to keep the government running is less today than in prior years. He assumed citizens would support paying their fair share for what it costs to keep the government running. He summarized as a result of the 1% cap on property taxes, cities must ask the voters for increases. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the Council should have as many meetings as are necessary. She recalled Councilmember Wilson saying on March 15 that he did not approve the 2011 budget or any amendments because he did not have faith in the financial statements. There has been no change in those financial statements and there has not been a representative of the Finance Department at the last six meetings. She acknowledged the City has a revenue problem but financial transparency is important to help citizens understand. She favored a levy that funds streets, parks and the arts. Councilmember Petso agreed the Council needed to keep moving forward. There is potential to bring a variety of proposals to voters that they may be interested in pursuing. In her discussions with citizens, they are particularly interested in dedicating funds to paving. She echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments regarding the City’s financials. She thanked the Citizen Levy Committee for their work to untangle the City’s financials. She was no longer able to review the situation in terms of a one month reserve because she was uncertain the one month reserve was established correctly. She provided the following example using a simplified household budget: Balance in checking account: $2,000 Paycheck (earned but not received): $2,000 House Payment (due but not yet paid): $1,500 One way of evaluating this household’s financial position is the cash position which is the $2,000 in the checking account. Another way is the checking account balance, plus the paycheck less the house payment or $2500. Either of those two numbers would be a common basis for decision making as a policy maker. That is not how the City’s working capital is figured; as she understands it, working capital is figured using the balance in checking, less the liabilities, ignoring the paycheck and reporting the financial position as $500. When the one month reserve was established, she was unaware that was how working capital was figured. Further, the financial polices Councilmember Buckshnis presented that recommended a 1-2 month reserve may have been based on a cash position, maintaining a cash position equal to a 1-2 month reserve. Therefore it may be a mistake to attempt to maintain a working capital target of a one month reserve. Councilmember Petso recognized that when expenses grow faster than revenues, there would be a problem at some point. She will continue researching the one month reserve to ensure the City is setting the right target. Packet Page 15 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 13 Councilmember Buckshnis explained Edmonds uses the phrase “modified working capital.” Using Councilmember Petso’s example, the working capital of $500 is used throughout the entire year as beginning cash which does not provide the City’s actual position. Councilmember Wilson referred to Exhibit 6 in the levy packet, the General Fund forecast that was adopted as part of the budget, noting that reflects lower property tax receipts in 2012 compared to 2011. He commented that is not accurate as property taxes will be 1% higher. He asked Councilmember Petso and Councilmember Buckshnis if they would be unable to support a levy until the finances were perfect. Councilmember Petso answered it was not necessary for her to stop considering a levy until the finances are perfect. She will work toward having a complete understanding prior to the ballot date. When making decisions, she does her best to determine the cash position at the beginning of the year rather than focusing on the working capital target. She supports moving ahead but as the Council moves ahead, she will not necessarily focus on a one month working capital target. She will instead look to other targets such as a balanced operating budget, whether reserves will continue to be eroded and whether capital projects will continue to be neglected. Councilmember Wilson suggesting Councilmember Buckshnis and he make a presentation to the Council regarding employee benefits at the next Council meeting. He suggested Councilmembers begin proposing levies for Council discussion. There are budget deficits in nearly every account, there are capital deficits and public building deficits and because the City provides more with less staff than any other city, there is a morale deficit. The budgeted increase in benefits 2011 to 2012 is 8% which may be low. Even with that low number, next year’s expenses will exceed revenue by $600,000. He did not support the 2011 budget due to cuts in the Police Department and he will not support a 2012 budget that makes $600,000 in cuts. He was ready to proceed with the right levy and preferred to put a levy on either the August 2011 or February 2012 ballot. He anticipated there was sufficient time to educate the public prior to an August ballot if all seven Councilmembers were on board. To Councilmember Wilson’s comment that the forecast that indicated lower property tax receipts in 2012 than 2011, Mayor Cooper explained the general property tax levy and the EMS levy are included in the chart. Property tax collections for the EMS levy go down because the EMS levy is $0.50/$1000 AV on much lower property values. Because of the EMS levy, the Snohomish County projects property tax collections will be lower in 2012 than 2011. Property values in Snohomish County have gone down 13% this year. He suggested in the future the EMS levy and the general property tax levy be separated. Council President Peterson summarized there appears to be general agreement on the Council to move forward with some type of levy proposal in 2011. Another issue is the lack of financial information. Whether the Council chooses to place a levy on the August or November ballot, a new Finance Director will not be hired until at least June. He was doubtful that a new Finance Director will be able to create a new set of reports by campaign season. He asked if the Council was willing to allocate funds to either staff another employee in the Finance Department or a contract employee for six months to physically do the work. Mukilteo’s model requires a great deal of data entry that Edmonds does not have the staff to create. The interim Finance Director believes the Finance Department is understaffed and the last few Finance Directors believed the department was understaffed. At some point the Council either has to allocate funds to fix the problem or accept the fact that the numbers will not be completely clear and move forward anyway. He preferred to allocate resources so that clearer financials could be prepared. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE $100,000 FROM THE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND AND DEDICATE IT TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO EITHER HIRE A NEW EMPLOYEE OR HIRE A CONTRACT/CONSULTANT EMPLOYEE TO CREATE A MORE READABLE BUDGET OUTLOOK. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Packet Page 16 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 14 Mayor Cooper estimated the annual cost of wages and benefits for an accountant was approximately $100,000. Councilmember Buckshnis reported at the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee, Councilmember Wilson and she will be discussing a Council staff position for budget/financial/insurance purposes. Darrol Haug and she obtained the templates created by Redmond’s Finance Director Mike Bailey. Mr. Haug will insert the City’s numbers in the templates for Council consideration. Councilmember Wilson expressed general support for an additional FTE in the Finance Department. The Council is being provided data that does not serve its needs, in part because not enough resources are being provided to create the necessary data. In addition to another person in Finance, the Council needs a full-time staff person to coordinate policy initiatives. The Council has done a lot of innovative policy things such as the community solar project. If the Council had a staff person to coordinate with City staff, six hours of Council and staff time spent on the solar project at Council meetings could have been saved. He supported hiring a Council staff person this summer so that the Council has someone to break down communication barriers. Council President Peterson explained his proposal was a part-time consultant for six months or less to assist with preparing reports and avoid the ongoing expense of a full-time employee. Councilmember Wilson commented the problem was a political challenge; the Council is trying to develop tools to make political decisions. He commented on the importance of Councilmember Plunkett’s support and understood from his comments last week that he would be willing to support a capital levy for streets. Councilmember Wilson suggested Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Peterson provide draft numbers for a levy. Councilmember Plunkett advised he could support a capital levy to fund street overlays and deferred park maintenance. Councilmember Wilson asked whether Councilmember Plunkett could support a 4-year with $700,000 for streets and $500,000 for parks maintenance. Councilmember Plunkett answered he would consider it. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO GO TO THE VOTERS IN AUGUST WITH A 4-YEAR LEVY THAT INCLUDES $700,000 FOR STREETS AND $500,000 FOR PARK MAINTENANCE. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have the polling information before making any decision. Councilmember Bernheim observed if the levy succeeds, there is a tax increase dedicated to those purposes. If the levy fails, the City still needs those things but there is not enough money to pay for it. Councilmember Wilson agreed. His intent was to make a proposal so that MyEdmondsNews could report on it and get some public conversation about it. The consequence of a levy failure is that no revenue is generated. To the question that Councilmember Plunkett raised last week, whether a project/program be cut if funding is included in a levy and the levy fails, he explained including a project/program in a levy offered the public an opportunity to approve a dedicated funding stream. If the levy fails, there is no dedicated funding, and the project/program is subject to the budget process. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s explanation regarding funding for a project/program: if the levy fails, the project/program will be subject to potential cuts like other projects/programs. He will oppose the motion due to his interest in the “financial reset” that the Mayor will present. He also wanted the Finance Committee to review and accept the Mayor’s reset. He suggested further discussion regarding a levy versus a TBD funding mechanism. Mayor Cooper intended to present Packet Page 17 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 15 updated financial information to the full Council at the May 3 meeting; the Finance Committee does not meet until May 10. Councilmember Wilson commented he was open to funding provided via the TBD, noting funding for parks could not be provided via that method. He preferred a general operating levy that would include enough reserves for four years. He summarized Mayor Cooper will present updated financials and survey data at the May 3 meeting and at that point the Council may be in a better position to vote on his motion. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO TABLE THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wilson asked what Councilmember Plunkett meant by “financial reset.” Mayor Cooper explained the most current information available would be added to the forecasting model. That includes the 2010 yearend numbers, the change in the City Attorney budget, the $320,000 decrease in healthcare with AWC, and adding $200,000/year for the ECA. Information that likely will not be available is the legislature’s decision regarding contributions for workman’s compensation and pension. He noted the City may be able to struggle through 2012; the forecast takes a nosedive in 2013 and beyond unless the economy improves. Councilmember Wilson explained the reason he made a motion and tabled it was to avoid the Council taking votes to kill things; the motion was in many ways a trial balloon to generate feedback and keep the Council moving forward. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS. Councilmember Bernheim reported on the Port Commission meeting; their finances are slightly worse than last year although occupancy at Harbor Square has improved. He reported the Port added recycling bins on their walkways. He plans to talk with their Operations Manager regarding funding for emptying garbage and recycling. The May 9 Port Commission meeting will include a report from Makers regarding Harbor Square redevelopment. Councilmember Petso reported on the Public Facilities District Board meeting; the news regarding operating is positive. They had a successful fundraising event last week, sold out their most recent show and rental income was up in March. Discussions regarding their capital challenges will continue on Monday. Councilmember Plunkett reported CTAC’s quarterly report was provided to the Council last week. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum has met several times. There is broad support for their $4 million federal request; it is unknown whether Congress will fund it this year or next. There was frustration with the financial reports at the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). The reports will be clarified and the LTAC will meet again next month. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the joint Planning Board/Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting included discussion related to zoning; plans for the BN zones, Westgate and Five Corners; building heights and establishing a 3-story building height rather than 25+5 feet. She reported on the presentation the UW students made at the EDC meeting. That effort is well worth what the City paid and will be very helpful. Packet Page 18 of 383 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 26, 2011 Page 16 Council President Peterson reported on the Disability Board. He stated that Councilmember Fraley- Monillas and he met with Human Resources staff and citizen volunteers to approve expenditures for LEOFF1 employees. Expenditures are slightly below last year’s budget. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper reported the annual Egg Hunt was a giant success; the weather was great. He explained the City did not expend any money for the Egg Hunt; it is funded by sponsorships. Employees who work at the event do so as part of their routine job description and there is no overtime. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson commended Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and her staff on the Egg Hunt. Councilmember Bernheim commended the Parks Department and the Public Works Department for the reports they provide. He was impressed with their competence, confidence and clarity. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority Finance Committee met last week; she prepared a written summary for Mayor Cooper and Councilmember Wilson. The committee elected officers and is continuing to collect data. Council President Peterson advised he added a Council meeting on May 10 at 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. to allow Mayor Cooper to present the polling data. Committee meetings will follow. He also scheduled a discussion regarding a Council staff position on the May 17 agenda. Council President Peterson reported the ECA had a tremendously successful event last week, exceeding their fundraising goals, raising nearly $100,000 in sponsorships for the upcoming season. He thanked Councilmember Wilson and Snohomish County Councilmember Wright for attending. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Packet Page 19 of 383 AM-3911 Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:Consent Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #125160 through #125253 dated April 28, 2011 for $584,989.02. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure:584,989.02 Fiscal Impact: Claims $584,989.02 Attachments Claim Checks 4-28-11 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Jim Tarte 04/28/2011 12:33 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2011 01:48 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 04/28/2011 04:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 04/28/2011 08:33 AM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 20 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125160 4/21/2011 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT Permit 1039 Postage for Permit 1036 - 2011 WQR Postage for Permit 1036 - 2011 WQR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 125161 4/22/2011 073634 ALISON PETERS CONSULTING April2011 COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SURVEY Community Priorities survey 001.000.390.519.900.411.00 9,010.00 Total :9,010.00 125162 4/28/2011 041695 3M XAM3522 SS72962 Reflectivity - Yellow EG Prismatic 30"x Reflectivity - Yellow EG Prismatic 30"x 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 600.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 57.00 Reflectivity - Black 30"x50YdSS72963 Reflectivity - Black 30"x50Yd 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 183.75 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 17.45 Total :858.20 125163 4/28/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 293530 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56 Total :75.56 125164 4/28/2011 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND MAY 2011 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 5/11 EDMONDS AC ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 05/11 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66 Total :2,032.66 125165 4/28/2011 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 1847100 PS - Pest Control 1Page: Packet Page 21 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125165 4/28/2011 (Continued)073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL PS - Pest Control 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 503.70 Total :503.70 125166 4/28/2011 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7139 TREE REMOVAL TAKE DOWN OF LEANING ALDER AND REMOVAL 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 375.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 35.63 Total :410.63 125167 4/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5509018 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.38 Total :27.40 125168 4/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5509025 21580001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 69.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.65 Total :76.62 125169 4/28/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5489380 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.01 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5509019 2Page: Packet Page 22 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125169 4/28/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06 PW MATS655-5513759 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5513762 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 13.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.24 3Page: Packet Page 23 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :82.54125169 4/28/2011 069751 069751 ARAMARK 125170 4/28/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0179693-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,514.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 333.84 Total :3,847.91 125171 4/28/2011 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 59709 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.31 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.31 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 290.58 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 290.57 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.58 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.58 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.84 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 93.04 Total :880.81 125172 4/28/2011 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2011-51 INV 2011-51 EDMONDS PD - BREDIGER PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00 Total :150.00 125173 4/28/2011 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011828788 CANON 5870 COPIER CHARGE Canon 5870 Copier Charge 5/1/11 - 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 379.00 4Page: Packet Page 24 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125173 4/28/2011 (Continued)070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 36.00 CANON 5870 COPIER CHARGE011855815 Canon 5870 Copier Charge 6/1/11 - 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 379.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 36.00 Total :830.00 125174 4/28/2011 002258 BENS EVER READY 4611 Annual Fire Ext Inspection - Library 6 Annual Fire Ext Inspection - Library 6 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 48.66 Cemetery 1 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 8.11 City Hall 12 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 97.32 MCH 3 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 24.33 PS 21 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 170.31 Museum 4 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 32.44 FAC 13 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 105.43 Yost 5 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 40.55 PW 16 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 129.36 Beach Ranger Station 1 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 7.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 73.91 Old PW 8 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 64.88 5Page: Packet Page 25 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125174 4/28/2011 (Continued)002258 BENS EVER READY Parks Bldg 6 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 48.66 Total :851.91 125175 4/28/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 862270 INV#862270 - EDMONDS PD - RAMSEUR SUMMIT II BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88 Total :793.88 125176 4/28/2011 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14144390 136859 ELECTRICAL ENGR. 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 414.00 Total :414.00 125177 4/28/2011 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN13549 GARDENS FOR BIRDS! GARDENS FOR BIRDS #13549 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 54.60 Total :54.60 125178 4/28/2011 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE13429 PRENATAL YOGA PRENATAL YOGA #13429 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 130.90 FIT MAMASBRUNETTE13585 FIT MAMAS #13585 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 113.40 Total :244.30 125179 4/28/2011 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON13418 ART FOR KIDZ ART FOR KIDZ - ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 546.00 Total :546.00 125180 4/28/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9421312693 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 6Page: Packet Page 26 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125180 4/28/2011 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 310.48 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 29.50 Total :339.98 125181 4/28/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 6818 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte - Interim Finance Director 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 4,750.00 Total :4,750.00 125182 4/28/2011 066580 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO KANAKARIS 20719 86TH PL W, EDMONDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 411.000.652.594.380.620.00 163,268.43 PURCHASE OF PROPERTY 411.000.652.594.380.610.00 138,727.31 Total :301,995.74 125183 4/28/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2305999 Fac Maint - Liners, TT, Disposable Fac Maint - Liners, TT, Disposable 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 578.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.99 Total :633.88 125184 4/28/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3248281 LEGAL AD FOR STRATEGIC PLAN RFP Legal ad for Strategic Plan RFP 001.000.240.513.110.440.00 68.00 Total :68.00 125185 4/28/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 151025 INV#151025 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATION #GHD-02444 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 7Page: Packet Page 27 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125185 4/28/2011 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.70 INV#151026 - EDMONDS PD151026 REPAIR/CALIBRATION #GHD-02447 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 100.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 9.60 INV#151027 - EDMONDS PD151027 CALIBRATION #GHD-03892 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.70 INV#151028 - EDMONDS PD151028 CALIBRATION #XE01579 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.70 INV#151029 - EDMONDS PD151029 CALIBRATION #PL22598 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 1.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 7.70 Total :465.40 125186 4/28/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3193 MINUTE TAKING 4/12 & 4/19 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 267.00 8Page: Packet Page 28 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :267.00125186 4/28/2011 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 125187 4/28/2011 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 1558/1 Yost - Tape Foam Yost - Tape Foam 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.76 Total :8.75 125188 4/28/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 33278 2000 BRAKE CLEAN 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 44.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.21 Total :48.49 125189 4/28/2011 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP KNAUSS0425 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: JONAH KNAUSS 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 54.00 Total :54.00 125190 4/28/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99 LIFT STATION #144-34080 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50 Total :83.49 125191 4/28/2011 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0070310-IN INV#0070310-IN, ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD FLAT TIE TACKS-30 YRS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 186.00 FLAT TIE TACKS-25 YRS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 76.00 FLAT TIE TACKS-15 YRS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 140.00 9Page: Packet Page 29 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125191 4/28/2011 (Continued)008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO HANDLING CHARGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.86 Total :413.36 125192 4/28/2011 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 123808 2 ETHERNET JACKS & 1 PHONE JACK CITYHALL Install 2 Ethernet jacks & 1 phone jack 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 277.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 26.35 Total :303.73 125193 4/28/2011 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 29 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 2,380.00 Total :2,380.00 125194 4/28/2011 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH13536 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #13536 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 66.30 IRISH DANCE 13+ #13540 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 273.00 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #13554 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 34.66 Total :373.96 125195 4/28/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 4/16/11 - 5/15/11 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 417.27 Total :417.27 125196 4/28/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 712-0423 03 0260 103797592 07 AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.80 10Page: Packet Page 30 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :56.80125196 4/28/2011 011900 011900 FRONTIER 125197 4/28/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.35 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.34 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.34 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.71 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 60.24 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 60.24 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 80.31 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE425-745-4313 Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 103.28 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.38 Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & UB 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.62 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.78 PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 11Page: Packet Page 31 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125197 4/28/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total :771.09 125198 4/28/2011 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE13257 WATERCOLOR WATERCOLOR #13257 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20 Total :431.20 125199 4/28/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7197198 112830 LAB SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 658.29 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 59.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 68.25 1128307199402 PURIFICATION PACK WATER SYSTEM 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 495.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 47.03 Total :1,328.52 125200 4/28/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7197197 Water Quality - Supplies Water Quality - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 80.71 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.19 12Page: Packet Page 32 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :105.85125200 4/28/2011 012560 012560 HACH COMPANY 125201 4/28/2011 013007 HASNER, EZRA J 31 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 174.35 Total :174.35 125202 4/28/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3039187 LUMBER, ETC. BUSHINGS, CAPS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 302.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.72 02053041648 TWSTD POLY 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 129.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.26 02053081202 VARATHANE, NOZZLES, WASHERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 204.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.40 02058034396 BUSHINGS, PRUNERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 362.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.47 02058034446 CEMETERY SUPPLIES 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 149.70 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 14.22 020591645 MINI SHARPES, BAGS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.30 9.5% Sales Tax 13Page: Packet Page 33 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125202 4/28/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.94 Total :1,279.35 125203 4/28/2011 070042 IKON 84635102 INV#84635102 ACCT#467070-1005305A3 COPIER RENTAL 04/13-05/12/11 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 3/2 TO 4/4/11 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 283.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 59.20 Total :682.34 125204 4/28/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1844331 Pens Pens 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 28.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.71 Total :31.28 125205 4/28/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1862031 Chair for Pat Lawler. Chair for Pat Lawler. 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 379.99 Misc. office supplies. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 496.67 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 36.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 47.19 Total :959.95 125206 4/28/2011 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE 04202011 MONITOR FOR ECON DEV COMMISSION MTG Monitor for Econ Dev Commission meeting 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 14Page: Packet Page 34 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125207 4/28/2011 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13480 BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY #13480 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 182.00 Total :182.00 125208 4/28/2011 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK 3/28/11 Tuition reimbursement - Winter qtr. 2011 Tuition reimbursement - Winter qtr. 2011 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 431.93 Total :431.93 125209 4/28/2011 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 238469 INV#238469 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD WHALE MOUTH JAR 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 11.25 CLEAR EVIDENCE JARS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 30.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 7.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 4.63 Total :53.38 125210 4/28/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 743425 LINE TRIMMER LINE LINE TRIMMER LINE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.78 Total :43.54 125211 4/28/2011 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 56663 DELUXE BRUSH 18" DELUXE BRUSH 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.23 Total :14.18 125212 4/28/2011 073635 MEFFORD, KATHRYN 3-39885 RE:# 1302-5009551 UTILITY REFUND 15Page: Packet Page 35 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125212 4/28/2011 (Continued)073635 MEFFORD, KATHRYN RE: #1302-5009551 UTILITY REFUND 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 84.30 Total :84.30 125213 4/28/2011 072010 MEISER, GARLAND MEISER0419 PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR @ 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 125214 4/28/2011 065331 MILLIPORE CORPORATION 5657704 G622889-B3331059-S3331057 REPLACE CIRCUIT DI WATER SYSTEM 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 1,066.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 82.54 Total :1,149.34 125215 4/28/2011 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-242105 101690-01 ELECTRIC MOTORS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 880.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 83.61 Total :963.71 125216 4/28/2011 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB13414 FUN FACTORY CLASSES FUN FACTORY #13414 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 921.60 FUN FACTORY #13416 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 741.60 Total :1,663.20 125217 4/28/2011 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 20394 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 771.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 73.28 16Page: Packet Page 36 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :844.68125217 4/28/2011 066391 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 125218 4/28/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-276474 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HAINES WHARF PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 219.47 Total :219.47 125219 4/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 694462 INV#694462 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD FLEXIGRIP BLACK PENS-FINE PT 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.06 FLEXIGRIP BLUE PENS-FINE PT 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.46 OKIDATA MICROLINE PRNT RIBBON 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 9.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.310.00 0.86 Total :36.82 125220 4/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 637622 Toner cartridge (HR) Toner cartridge (HR) 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 208.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 19.85 Total :228.80 125221 4/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 748241 LAMINATING POUCHES LAMINATING POUCHES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.99 Total :11.47 125222 4/28/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 695323 Sewer - Printer Ink Sewer - Printer Ink 17Page: Packet Page 37 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125222 4/28/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.08 Water Quality - Letter Folding Mach709662 Water Quality - Letter Folding Mach 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 210.24 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.98 Total :265.81 125223 4/28/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER February 2011 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,635.71 PSEA 1 2 & 3 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 36,907.10 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 45.00 State Patrol Death Investigations 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 737.11 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,895.76 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 3,174.49 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 589.37 Total :48,984.54 125224 4/28/2011 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE OBT0427 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT 123.000.640.573.100.410.00 2,500.00 Total :2,500.00 125225 4/28/2011 073085 PACSOFT LLC 11-04025 1 YR SUPPORT DATACORE SANMELODY 1 yr support DataCore SANMelody 8 TB 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 5,000.00 18Page: Packet Page 38 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125225 4/28/2011 (Continued)073085 PACSOFT LLC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 475.00 Total :5,475.00 125226 4/28/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 191921 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST192067 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41 FAC. MAINT. RETURN SHIPPING TO SIEMENS192095 FAC. MAINT. RETURN SHIPPING TO SIEMENS 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 20.84 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST192241 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST192425 19Page: Packet Page 39 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125226 4/28/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41 FAC MAINT. SAFETY FILM RETURN FEES192446 FAC MAINT. SAFETY FILM RETURN FEES 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 10.07 Total :69.71 125227 4/28/2011 064088 PROTECTION ONE 291104 MONITORING 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 51.10 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING-PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.10 Fire Monitoring F/S 16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 97.50 Total :199.70 125228 4/28/2011 072136 QQEST ASSET MGMNT SERVICES 425775-622011 MANAGERPLUS SOFTWARE EXT SRV AGRMT ManagerPlus Software Extended Service 511.000.657.548.680.490.00 406.00 Total :406.00 125229 4/28/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 117154 MARKER MARKER: KINDLEY 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00 MARKER117155 MARKER: DOSS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00 Total :632.00 20Page: Packet Page 40 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125230 4/28/2011 036955 SKY NURSERY 290518 PLANTING SUPPLIES PLANTING MIX, SEEDS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 55.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 5.26 Total :60.62 125231 4/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200493146 19827 89TH PL W 19827 89TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04 Total :31.04 125232 4/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 136824690 2030-9778-7 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 29,835.01 Total :29,835.01 125233 4/28/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02 SCHOOL LIGHT 20829 76TH W200202562 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04 SIGNAL LIGHT 84TH & 220TH200348233 Signal Light at 84th & 220th 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 73.55 SIGNAL LIGHT 9730 220TH200748606 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.51 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN200865202 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 140.48 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219TH ST SW201151412 School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02 LIBRARY201551744 21Page: Packet Page 41 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125233 4/28/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,226.42 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH W201611951 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.82 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220TH ST SW201751476 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220th ST SW 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 107.58 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH SW201907862 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 40.46 Public Works201942489 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 81.15 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 308.36 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 308.36 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 308.36 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 308.36 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 308.38 Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870 Lift Station #6 100 Pine St 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 553.65 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99202289120 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 102.09 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,196.97 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803 22Page: Packet Page 42 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125233 4/28/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04 CITY HALL202439246 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,723.08 Fire station #16 Light202807632 Fire station #16 Light 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 31.51 FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151 Five Corners Water Tower 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 614.28 Total :12,627.49 125234 4/28/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000270613 INV#I000270613 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5HR 4/11/11 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 475.00 SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5HR 4/12/11 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 475.00 Total :950.00 125235 4/28/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER February 2011 CRIME VICTIMS FEB 11 COURT REMITTANCE Feb 11 Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 1,058.38 Total :1,058.38 125236 4/28/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 4142011 ASH DISPOSAL ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 9,961.77 Total :9,961.77 125237 4/28/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4182622-01 Water - 5 Work Jeans - R Shore Water - 5 Work Jeans - R Shore 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 196.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 18.64 23Page: Packet Page 43 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :214.89125237 4/28/2011 038410 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 125238 4/28/2011 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO May 2011 Standard STANDARD INSURANCE MAY 2011 PREMIUMS May 2011 Insurance Premiums 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,693.18 Total :13,693.18 125239 4/28/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2477760 PW - Elect Supplies PW - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 224.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.29 City Hall - Elect Supplies2477761 City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 76.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.23 Total :328.70 125240 4/28/2011 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO313376 WINTER KINDERMUSIK KINDERMUSIK WINTER #13376 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,201.04 KINDERMUSIK WINTER #13378 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 517.46 KINDERMUSIK WINTER #13375 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,201.91 Total :2,920.41 125241 4/28/2011 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360003696541 C/A 360000657091 Basic e-commerce hosting 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 360000764828360003700185 Apr/2011 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 C/A 430001405909440010837362 P&R Directory Listing 24Page: Packet Page 44 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125241 4/28/2011 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 132.50 Total :202.40 125242 4/28/2011 072772 T E BRIGGS CONSTRUCTION CO E6DB.Pmt 10 FINAL E6DB.PAYMENT 10 FINAL E6DB.Payment 10 Final 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 95,000.00 Total :95,000.00 125243 4/28/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1733287 AMD-2010-0004 (Wiereles) legal notices. AMD-2010-0004 (Wiereles) legal notices. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 57.40 AMD-2011-0001 (Odgers) legal notices.1733506 AMD-2011-0001 (Odgers) legal notices. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 51.72 Total :109.12 125244 4/28/2011 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 308541 PS - Supplies PS - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.32 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.74 Total :31.56 125245 4/28/2011 069832 TIMEMARK INC 112839 TRAFFIC COUNT SUPPLIES Traffic Count Supplies 001.000.620.532.200.480.00 282.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.532.200.480.00 26.79 Total :308.79 125246 4/28/2011 072029 TRIAD COMPUTER CONNECTION INC SC1-77588 UPS UPS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 49.99 25Page: Packet Page 45 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125246 4/28/2011 (Continued)072029 TRIAD COMPUTER CONNECTION INC Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.85 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.59 Total :64.43 125247 4/28/2011 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 36177 E8GA.SERVICES FOR MARCH 2011 E8GA.Services for March 2011 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 59.29 E8GA.Services for March 2011 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 59.29 Total :118.58 125248 4/28/2011 062693 US BANK 3363 T& C - Unit 125 - Trans Repairs T& C - Unit 125 - Trans Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 799.79 Fisheries - Unit M-16 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.78 Western Hoist - Shop Tools 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 204.02 T&C - Unit 58 - Tail Light 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 61.10 Alldata - Shop Tech Tools 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 1,642.50 Fisheries - Unit M16 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.11 Fisheries - Unit 106 - Stainless Hollow 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.66 Ted's Custom Upholstery - Unit 126 - 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 355.05 Water - Chevron Gas for Truck3439 Water - Chevron Gas for Truck 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.85 FedEx- PW - Copies3546 FedEx- PW - Copies 26Page: Packet Page 46 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125248 4/28/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 11.69 FedEx - PW - Copies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 7.79 CCEC - Elect E-Class - G Evans 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 119.00 American Turbine - Unit - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2,336.30 Car Quest - Uni t10 - Fuel Pump 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 218.72 EJ Prescott Inc - Space Saver Flanges 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 819.64 Total :6,722.00 125249 4/28/2011 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0967605955 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 124.21 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 144.78 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.11 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.34 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 65.51 Cell Service-PD 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 467.60 Cell Service-Planning 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.68 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 28.07 Cell Service-PW Storm 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 26.68 Cell Service-PW Fleet 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.64 27Page: Packet Page 47 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125249 4/28/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Service-WWTP 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.32 Cell Service-PW Water 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 80.46 Total :1,133.40 125250 4/28/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 24832303 Miranda Peers (week ending 4/10/11) 40 Miranda Peers (week ending 4/10/11) 40 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 832.00 Total :832.00 125251 4/28/2011 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES BLD20110230 Permit withdrawn. Customer cancelled Permit withdrawn. Customer cancelled 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 65.00 Total :65.00 125252 4/28/2011 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 30 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 118.28 Total :118.28 125253 4/28/2011 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 113299 GARDENING SUPPLIES SPEEDZONE/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 175.59 SNAPSHOT, SUPER IRON, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,132.08 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 16.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 107.54 Total :1,431.89 Bank total :584,989.0294 Vouchers for bank code :front 584,989.02Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report94 28Page: Packet Page 48 of 383 04/28/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:48:04AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 29Page: Packet Page 49 of 383 AM-3910 Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:Consent Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Committee:Type:Action Information Subject Title FEMA Biological Opinion Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Choose Option #3: Permit-by-permit demonstration of compliance. Previous Council Action This issue was presented to the CS/DS Committee on April 12, 2011. The Council members agreed with the Staff recommendation to go with compliance option number 3 (Permit-by-Permit compliance) and forwarded it to the full Council's consent agenda. (Attachment 6) Narrative In September 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as currently implemented, caused jeopardy to salmon and and southern resident killer whales and also adversely modified their critical habitat. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), collaborated with NMFS in developing alternatives that would reduce the adverse effects and thus not cause jeopardy or adverse modification. Ultimately, NMFS developed only one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that is comprised of 7 Elements. Element 3 of this RPA requires evaluating, prohibiting or mitigating adverse effects to species/habitat on any development occurring in the floodplain. NMFS requires FEMA to revise implementation of the NFIP by requiring participating communities to demonstrate to FEMA that any proposed development in the FEMA designated floodway, Channel Migration Zone plus 50 feet, and the riparian buffer zone does not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. FEMA is implementing RPA Element 3 by requiring local jurisdictions to implement one of three options: (1) adopt a FEMA-developed model ordinance that meets the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements identified in RPA Element 3; (2) demonstrate through a FEMA-approved checklist that the jurisdiction’s current land use regulations and plans already meet the requirements of RPA Element 3; or (3) demonstrate ESA compliance through permit-by-permit coordination with NMFS for any new development in the floodplain. The City of Edmonds, as a FEMA-defined “Tier 3 community”, must demonstrate full compliance with the Biological Opinion by September 23, 2011 (Attachment 1). See Attachment 2 for staff's evaluation of the three options for compliance with the Biological Opinion. Attachments Packet Page 50 of 383 Attachment 1 - FEMA Letter to City of Edmonds Attachment 2 - Staff Memo to CS/DS Committee Attachment 3 - NMFS Bulletin on Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 3 Attachment 4 - 100-year Floodplain in Edmonds Attachment 5 - Everett Herald Article on FEMA Biological Opinion Attachment 6 - 04-12-2011 CS/DS Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2011 01:48 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 04/28/2011 04:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 04/28/2011 Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 51 of 383 P a c k e t P a g e 5 2 o f 3 8 3 P a c k e t P a g e 5 3 o f 3 8 3 P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 o f 3 8 3 Page 1 of 3 Date: April 7, 2011 To: CS/DS Committee From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Subject: FEMA Biological Opinion _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In 2003, the National Wildlife Federation sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for failure to consult under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in regards to its administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In November 2004, a judge agreed and required FEMA to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the NFIP impacts to salmon. In September 2008, NMFS provided a Biological Opinion concluding that the NFIP, as currently implemented, caused jeopardy to three salmonid populations and the Southern Resident killer whale populations and also adversely modified their critical habitat. FEMA collaborated with NMFS in developing alternatives that would reduce the adverse effects and thus not cause jeopardy or adverse modification. Ultimately, NMFS developed only one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) that is comprised of 7 Elements. Element 3 of this RPA requires evaluating, prohibiting or mitigating adverse effects to species/habitat on any development occurring in the floodplain. NMFS requires FEMA to revise implementation of the NFIP by requiring participating communities to demonstrate to FEMA that any proposed development in the FEMA designated floodway, Channel Migration Zone plus 50 feet, and the riparian buffer zone does not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. FEMA is implementing RPA Element 3 by requiring local jurisdictions to implement one of three options: (1) adopt a FEMA-developed model ordinance that meets the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements identified in RPA Element 3; (2) demonstrate through a FEMA- approved checklist that the jurisdiction’s current land use regulations and plans already meet the requirements of RPA Element 3; or (3) demonstrate ESA compliance through permit-by-permit coordination with NMFS for any new development in the floodplain. The City of Edmonds, as a FEMA-defined “Tier 3 community”, must demonstrate full compliance with the Biological Opinion by September 23, 2011. MEMORANDUM Packet Page 55 of 383 Page 2 of 3 Reasonable and Prudent Alternative Element 3 Compliance Options City of Edmonds staff (along with all the other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region) has been researching the three options for compliance with the Biological Opinion. A brief summary of the three options follow. Option 1 – FEMA Developed Model Ordinance The Model Ordinance is a template that cities, counties and tribes can customize and adopt which allows land users to comply with the NFIP and ESA. The Model Ordinance combines floodplain requirements with habitat requirements and was written to be ESA inclusive, not just salmon specific. As a result, the Model Ordinance also contains some “bells and whistles” that are more than minimally necessary to comply with the Biological Opinion. Adopting the Model Ordinance would ensure that development within the City of Edmonds floodplains is compliant with the Biological Opinion; however, the Model Ordinance may be overly restrictive. Outright adoption of the Model Ordinance would significantly complicate floodplain use and development, even for critical infrastructure facilities. The limitation may even apply in areas that are already developed and provide little or no habitat benefit. The City of Edmonds has limited flood hazard areas within the City and the bells and whistle approach of the Model Ordinance might not be appropriate for the City. Option 2 – FEMA Checklist The FEMA Checklist is a way to demonstrate to FEMA how the City’s existing regulations, programs and requirements associated with issuance of floodplain development permits (such as the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, stormwater and floodplain regulations, etc.) conform to the requirements outlined in the Biologic Opinion. If while filling out the checklist it is determined that something is missing, the City may adopt portions of the Model Ordinance to fill in the gaps. Completing the checklist and receiving approval by FEMA meets the minimum requirements of the Biological Opinion and may be salmon-centric. Completion of the Checklist puts a significant upfront burden on the City. The approach, however, also provides a potential avenue for meeting the new NFIP requirements while achieving local community needs. The Checklist approach would likely require a review of existing floodplain habitat conditions, an assessment of existing local regulatory programs, and completion of a gap analysis to identify where additional protections may be necessary. Staff initially pursued this approach and solicited proposals from a select number of consultants. The consultant that was selected indicated it would take $23,960 to implement this approach for the City of Edmonds. Given budgetary constraints, we decided not to follow through with the Checklist approach. Option 3 – Permit-by-permit Coordination with NMFS Option 3 is a permit-by-permit approach that requires demonstration of compliance on a project level basis. A habitat assessment will be required for each project within the floodplain that also requires a look at cumulative effects of development. For jurisdictions like Edmonds that have a limited amount of floodplain plain area permit-by- permit review may be an appropriate strategy. The attached map shows the floodplain areas within the City of Edmonds as identified by the FEMA FIRM maps. Generally the 100 year floodplain areas are located along the shoreline of Puget Sound and around Lake Ballinger. Packet Page 56 of 383 Page 3 of 3 These areas are already largely developed and it is not likely that the City will receive many applications for development with the floodplain. Option 3 would put the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Biological Opinion on the applicant, while Option 1 and Option 2 would put the demonstration of compliance on the City. Recommendation While NMFS and FEMA have provided jurisdictions with three options for demonstrating compliance with the Biological Opinion, there is still significant uncertainty about how this new regulatory regime will work out. A conference titled “Demystifying National Flood Insurance Program Alignment with the Endangered Species Act” was held at the Edmonds Conference Center on March 1 & March 2, 2011 in which close to 300 people from federal, state, and local agencies as well as consultants and tribes attended. After two days of discussion, there was still great uncertainty about how far local jurisdictions are going to have to go to demonstrate compliance with the Biological Opinion (see attached article from the Everett Herald). Given the uncertainty surrounding Biological Opinion compliance and the limited amount of floodplain within the City of Edmonds, staff feels the best option for the City of Edmonds at this time is to follow Option 3, permit-by-permit coordination. The City can monitor how implementing Option 3 is working for permitting and can change course at a later time if Option 3 turns out to be overly burdensome. If at a later date it is determined that the City should implement Options 1 or 2, some of the uncertainties surrounding compliance with the Biological Opinion may be cleared up by that time and it will be more clear on how the City can demonstrate compliance with the Biological Opinion. Next Steps If the City of Edmonds goes with Option 3, the City must send a letter to FEMA stating that is the path chosen for compliance with the Biological Opinion. The City will also have to adopt language in the code indicating that applicants will have to demonstrate their project is ESA compliant prior to City permit issuance for projects within the floodplain. Packet Page 57 of 383 noaa fisheries service U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries ServicePhoto: John McMillian National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) February 2011 Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria Summary A. FEMA shall modify its Floodplain Management Criteria ASAP for PS NFIP communities to carry out the following measures: 1. Allow no development in the Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ, identified as the greater of the channel migration zone plus a 50-foot buffer, the riparian buffer width specified by stream type, and the floodway), OR 2. Local jurisdiction must demonstrate to FEMA that proposed RBZ development does not adversely affect salmon habitat needs. 3. In addition to either 1 or 2 above, either: a) Prohibit development in the 100 yr floodplain, OR b) Avoid, rectify or compensate for any loss of floodplain storage and fish habitat from development in the 100 yr floodplain (outside RBZ). Any development allowed must use Low Impact Development methods to minimize or avoid stormwater effects. Any indirect adverse effects must be mitigated. c) Structural improvements/repairs resulting in greater than 10% increase in structure footprint must mitigate adverse effects to fish or their habitat. B. FEMA shall ensure that all PS NFIP communities implement land-use management measures consistent with criteria in 3.A.1 1. Prioritized FEMA implementation schedule and benchmarks a) 35% of all PS NFIP jurisdictions shall implement RPA 3.A. criteria, including 100% of Tier 1 jurisdictions (see Appx 3) b) 75% of all PS NFIP jurisdictions shall implement RPA 3.A. criteria, including 100% of Tier 2 jurisdictions (see Appx 3) c) 100% of all PS NFIP jurisdictions shall implement RPA 3.A. criteria 2. FEMA shall report annually to NMFS until all PS NFIP jurisdictions have implemented RPA 3.A. C. Until all PS NFIP jurisdictions have implemented RPA 3.A., they must track and report to FEMA all floodplain permits issued. Any unmitigated 1 The original times frames for compliance with RPA element 3 were modified by letter from NMFS to FEMA on September 10, 2010, extending the time frame for compliance for tier 1 and 2 communities to be uniform with the tier 3 communities. The compliance date is now September 22, 2011 for all three tiers. Packet Page 58 of 383 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria development must be mitigated by FEMA. Any mitigation shall comport with WA State Fish Passage & Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic (7-08- 08). D. Any communities allowing projects in the floodplain using the mitigated cut and fill option, shall report to FEMA semi-annually. If NMFS finds that any mitigation actions taken are not fully effective, FEMA shall ensure further mitigation is provided through RPA 6 or other means available to the community (e.g., mitigation banks). Reasonable & Prudent Alternative full text The FEMA shall modify its implementation of the NFIP minimum criteria in NFIP communities in the Puget Sound Region in order to prevent and/or minimize the degradation of channel and floodplain habitat, as described below. In addition FEMA will report progress to NMFS on an annual basis on all sub-elements below. A. As soon as possible upon issuance of this Opinion, FEMA shall revise its implementation of the current NFIP minimum criteria so that the following measures, necessary for protecting listed salmonids, are carried out in the Puget Sound Region as described in Appendix 4 (Minimum Criteria) and summarized below: 1. Allow no development in the floodway, the CMZ plus 50 feet (as identified according to Ecology 2003), and the riparian buffer zone (RBZ, as described by the Department of Natural Resources 2007 stream typing system and WDFW’s 1997 stream buffer guidelines), and floodway (as mapped by the FIRM). OR 2. The local jurisdiction with permitting authority must demonstrate to FEMA that any proposed development in the FEMA designated floodway, the CMZ plus 50 feet (as identified according to Ecology 2003), and the riparian buffer zone (RBZ, as described by the Department of Natural Resources 2007 stream typing system and WDFW’s 1997 stream buffer guidelines) does not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. 3. In addition to either 1 or 2 above, either: a. Prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain, OR b. If development within the 100-year floodplain but outside the RBZ, is permitted, any loss of floodplain storage shall be avoided, rectified or compensated for. An example of compensation is the creation of an equivalent area and volume of floodwater storage and fish habitat through a balanced cut and fill program that provides fish refugia habitat and prevents fish stranding. Additionally, indirect adverse effects of development in the floodplain (effects to stormwater, riparian vegetation, bank stability, channel migration, hyporheic zones, wetlands, etc.) must also be mitigated such that equivalent or better salmon habitat protection is provided. (See Appendix 4 for more detail on how to comply with this criteria). Using option 3.A.3.b will require tracking the projects that occur and reporting to FEMA on a semi-annual basis (see 3.D. below). For development within the 100-year floodplain permitted under 3.A.3.b, construction in the floodplain shall use Low Impact Development (LID) methods (generally requiring infiltration of all on-site stormwater), such as those described in the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team and WSU/Pierce County Extension 2002) to minimize or avoid stormwater effects. 4. Any improvements or repairs to existing structures that result in a greater than 10 percent increase of the structure footprint must mitigate for any adverse effects to species or their habitat as described in 3.A.3.b. B. The FEMA shall implement RPA Element 3.A by ensuring that all participating NFIP communities in the Puget Sound region implement land-use management measures consistent with the criteria as soon as practicable, but in no event later than three years from the date of this Opinion. 1. The FEMA shall focus its implementation efforts first on communities located in areas of “Tier 1” salmon populations, secondly on communities located in areas of “Tier 2” salmon populations, and then on the remaining Puget Sound NFIP communities (see Appendix 3 for Page 2 of 6Packet Page 59 of 383 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria an explanation of Tier 1 and 2 populations and a list of jurisdictions where they are located). The FEMA shall demonstrate compliance with the following benchmarks: a. Thirty-five percent of NFIP jurisdictions in the Puget Sound Region shall have implemented the criteria set forth in RPA Element 3.A within two years of this issuance of this opinion, including 100 percent of Tier I jurisdictions; b. Seventy percent of NFIP jurisdictions in the Puget Sound Region shall have implemented the criteria set forth in RPA Element 3.A within two and a half years of the issuance of this opinion, including 100 percent of Tier 2 jurisdictions; and c. One hundred percent of NFIP jurisdictions within the Puget Sound Region shall have implemented the criteria set forth in RPA Element 3.A within three years of the issuance of this Opinion. 2. Until all Puget Sound communities have implemented the criteria set forth in RPA Element 3.A, the FEMA shall report annually to NMFS on the status of its efforts to implement the RPA and the number of Puget Sound NFIP jurisdictions that have implemented the revised criteria. C. Interim Actions. In the time period between the issuance of this Opinion, and the full implementation of RPA 3.A by participating communities, FEMA shall advise the Puget Sound NFIP communities that they must keep track of all floodplain permits that they issue and report this information to FEMA on an annual basis. The FEMA will provide this information to NMFS annually, highlighting any permits that allowed development affecting channel or floodplain habitat, or resulted in indirect effects to salmonid habitat from stormwater, removal of riparian vegetation, bank armoring, changes in the CMZ, large wood input, or gravel recruitment, etc. If NMFS finds that any unmitigated actions affecting listed species have occurred as a result of these permits, NMFS will advise FEMA to this effect, and FEMA will ensure that mitigation is provided prior to the next reporting period. Mitigation actions shall comport with those habitat restoration and enhancement actions consulted on in the programmatic consultation between NMFS Page 3 of 6 and the COE, entitled Washington State Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic, NMFS Tracking No. 2008-03598. D. Long term actions. Communities that have adopted the minimum criteria option allowing equivalent cut and fill (3.A.3.b. above), must report to FEMA on the number of projects that take place in the floodplain and the effectiveness of the mitigation. If based on FEMA’s annual reporting, NMFS finds that the mitigation is not fully effective, FEMA shall ensure that further mitigation is provided for these actions through RPA Element 6 or through other means available to the community (e.g., mitigation banks) and shall reflect these actions in the next annual report. Mitigation actions shall comport with those habitat restoration and enhancement actions consulted on in the programmatic consultation between NMFS and the COE, entitled Washington State Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic, NMFS Tracking No. 2008-03598. Appendix 4: Minimum Criteria It is the purpose of the following criteria to maintain streams and floodplains in their natural state to the maximum extent possible so they support healthy biological ecosystems, by: 1) assuring that flood loss reduction measures under the NFIP protect natural floodplain functions and riparian habitat, and the natural processes that create and maintain fish habitat, and 2) preventing or minimizing loss of hydraulic, geomorphic, and ecological functions of freshwater and estuarine floodplains and stream channels. In all 100-year floodplain areas (SFHAs) the following criteria apply: 1. Restrict Development in the Riparian Buffer Zone for all watercourses including off channel areas (areas outside this zone but within the Special Flood Hazard Area) to provide necessary protection to the RBZ. The RBZ is the greater of the following:  250 feet measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water for Type S (Shorelines of the State) streams, 200 feet for Type F streams (fish bearing streams) greater than 5 feet wide, 150 feet for Type F streams less than 5 feet wide, and 150 feet for N (nonsalmonid-bearing) streams, lakes and marine shorelines2. 2 2nd Errata LetterPacket Page 60 of 383 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria  the Channel Migration Zone3 plus 50 feet; and  the mapped Floodway. The Riparian Buffer Zone is an overlay zone that encompasses lands as defined above on either side of all streams, and for all other watercourses including off channel areas. The RBZ is a no-disturbance zone, other than for activities that will not adversely affect habitat function. Any property or portion thereof that lies within the RBZ is subject to the restrictions of the RBZ, as well as any zoning restrictions that apply to the parcel in the underlying zone. Restrictions in this area apply to all development, per the definition of development.4 Uses that are not permitted unless shown not to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmon, include the following: new buildings, including accessory buildings; new impervious surfaces; removal of native vegetation; new clearing, grading, filling, land-disturbing activity or other “development” (see definition), other than for the purpose of replacing non-native vegetation with native vegetation, and for other 3 The lateral extent of likely movement along a stream reach during the next one hundred years with evidence of active stream channel movement over the past one hundred years. Evi- dence of active movement can be provided from aerial photos or specific channel and valley bottom characteristics. A time frame of one hundred years was chosen because aerial photos and field evidence can be used to evaluate movement in this time frame. Also, this time span typically represents the time it takes to grow mature trees that can provide functional large woody debris to most streams. In large meandering rivers a more detailed analy- sis can be conducted to relate bank erosion processes and the time required to grow trees that function as stable large woody debris. With the exception of shorelands in or meeting the criteria for the “natural” and “rural conservancy” environments, areas separated from the active channel by legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit bank erosion and channel avulsion without hydraulic connections shall not be considered within the CMZ. All areas, including areas within the “natural” and “rural conservancy” environments, separated from the natural channel by legally existing structures designed to withstand the 100- year flood shall not be considered within the CMZ. A tributary stream or other hydraulic connection allowing listed species fish passage draining through a dike or other constricting structure shall be considered part of the CMZ. 4 Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, exca- vation or drilling operations, storage of equipment or materials, or any other activity which results in the removal of substantial amounts of vegetation or in the alteration of natural site charac- teristics located within the area of special flood hazard. approved restoration work; septic tanks and drain fields, dumping of any materials, hazardous or sanitary waste landfills; receiving areas for toxic or hazardous waste or other contaminants; and, stream relocations, unless the primary function of the action is to restore natural ecological function. In the RBZ the following uses are allowed: [1] repair or remodel of an existing building in its existing footprint, including buildings damaged by fire or other casualties; [2] removal of noxious weeds; [3] replacement of non- native vegetation with native vegetation; [4] ongoing activities such as lawn and garden maintenance; [5] removal of hazard trees; [6] normal maintenance of public utilities and facilities; and [7] restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian areas and streams that meets Federal and State standards. 2. Protect fish habitat and flood storage in the remaining 100-year floodplain (outside the RBZ) by either: a.) Prohibiting development in the 100-year floodplain, OR b.) Providing compensation for any effects to floodwater storage and fish habitat function within the 100-year floodplain. Any development in the 100-year floodplain must be compensated, for example, through the creation of an equivalent area and volume of floodwater storage and fish habitat through a balanced cut and fill program. The new flood storage/habitat area must be graded and vegetated to allow fish refugia during flood events and return to the main channel as floodwaters recede without creating stranding risks. In addition, equivalent area, if not located on site, must be located in priority floodplain restoration areas identified in the ESU Recovery Plan for listed species. 3. Mitigate for all indirect effects of development in the floodplain (effects to stormwater, riparian vegetation, bank stability, channel migration, hyporheic zones, wetlands, LWD, etc.) such that equivalent or better salmon habitat protection is provided. Stormwater. Reduce flood volumes and stormwater runoff from new development by ensuring that increased volumes of stormwater reach the river at the same frequency, timing, and duration as historical runoff. Low Impact Development (LID) methods are required to treat and infiltrate runoff as described in PSAT 2002. These methods generally include various Page 4 of 6Packet Page 61 of 383 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria practices for infiltrating stormwater to provide water quality treatment, match historical runoff durations, and preserve base flows. Riparian vegetation: Maintain or replace riparian function by providing equivalent area, diversity, and function of riparian vegetation as currently exists on the site (per WDFW riparian management recommendations (Knutson and Naef 1997)). Bank Stability: Bank stabilization measures along salmonid-bearing streams, channel migration zones, and along estuarine and marine shorelines must be minimized to the maximum extent possible. If bank stabilization measures are necessary, bioengineered armoring of streambanks and shorelines must be used (per the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines 2003 (for riverine shorelines) or the State Shorelines Guidelines on bank stabilization (2003) (for estuarine and marine shorelines). Channel migration. No activity is allowed that limits the natural meandering pattern of the channel migration zone, however, natural channel migration patterns may be enhanced or restored (see Rapp and Abbe 2003, for delineating channel migration zones). Hyporheic zones. No activity is allowed that interferes with the natural exchange of flow between surface water, groundwater and the hyporheic zone, however, natural hyporheic exchange may be enhanced or restored (see Bolton and Shelberg. 2001 for hyporheic zone issues). Wetlands. Wetland function must be maintained or replaced by providing equivalent function per Washington State Department of Ecology (McMillan 1998) regulations. LWD. Any LWD removed from the floodplain must be replaced in kind, replicating or improving the quantity, size, and species of the existing LWD (per WDFW Aquatic Habitat guidelines). In the 100-year floodplain outside the Riparian Buffer Zone the following apply: 1) For buildable lots partially in the floodplain, require structures to be located on the portion of the lot outside of the mapped floodplain. Where a buildable lot is fully in the floodplain, structures must be sited in the location that has the least impact on listed salmon, e.g., located as far from the stream or river as possible on the lot, placing structures on the highest land on the lot, orienting structures parallel to flow rather than perpendicular, and avoiding disruption of active hyporheic exchange on a site. 2) Require zoning to maintain a low density (e.g., 5-acre lots or greater) of floodplain development to reduce the damage potential within the floodplain to both property and habitat, and help maintain flood storage and conveyance capacity. 3) All structures must be set back at least 15 feet from the RBZ and shall be sited as close to the 100-year floodplain boundary as possible. 4) In an effort to site structures as far away from the watercourse and RBZ as possible, the applicant will be apprised of the elevations of the 10-year and 50-year floods in detailed study areas at the same time that the (city, county) provides the 100-year elevation as a part of the permit review. The applicant, in addition to plotting the 100-year elevation near the building site, will also plot the 10 and 50-year elevations on the land. The purpose is to show the applicant the significantly lower risk of placing the structure further away from the watercourse. 5) Structures built using post, pier, piling or stemwall construction may require less mitigation than structures built on earth fill, but must provide equivalent mitigation for lost fish habitat and indirect effects from development. 6) Creation of new impervious surfaces5 shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the portion of the lot in the floodplain unless mitigation is provided. 7) Removal of native vegetation must leave 65 percent of the surface area of the portion of the lot in the floodplain in an undeveloped state; the 65 percent pertains to the entire portion of the lot in the floodplain, including that area in the RBZ, where removal of native vegetation is generally prohibited. 8) The proposed action must be designed and located so that it will not require new structural flood protection (e.g., levees). 5 Any material or land alteration (i.e. clearing, grading, etc.) which reduces or prevents absorption of storm water into the ground. That hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil, water that had entered under natural conditions prior to development; and/or that hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from that present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, and packed earthen materials. Page 5 of 6Packet Page 62 of 383 National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reasonable & Prudent Alternative Element 3: Floodplain Management Criteria 9) During the floodplain permit review process, applicants shall be notified that their property contains land within the Riparian Buffer Zone and/or 100-year floodplain, and that the applicant is required to record a Notice on Title on the property before a permit may be issued. Applicants shall be further notified that development in the RBZ and 100-year floodplain can only occur according to the above criteria. 10) New road crossings over streams are prohibited. 11) Concepts of cluster development, density transfer, credits and bonuses, planned unit development, and transfer of development rights shall be employed wherever possible. 12) Any flood information that is more restrictive or detailed than the FEMA data can be used for flood loss reduction and/or fisheries habitat management purposes, including data on channel migration, more restrictive floodways, maps showing future build-out and global climate change conditions, specific maps from watershed or related studies that show riparian habitat areas, or similar maps. In the RBZ and the floodplain the following re- development criteria apply: 1) Require that expansion to existing buildings in the floodplain be limited to no more than 10 percent of the existing footprint (i.e., when building and other structures such as garages are substantially damaged or expanded in the floodplain), unless mitigation for any adverse effects to floodplain habitat is provided, as described above. 4. Communities choosing to implement the mitigation option (2.b. above) must track the projects for which they issue floodplain development permits, including effects to flood storage, fish habitat, and all indirect direct of development. The expected development effects, the equivalent mitigation provided, and the success of the mitigation in replacing the affected fish habitat and flood storage functions shall be reported to FEMA on a semi-annual basis (according to the monitoring requirements in RPA element 3.D). Page 6 of 6Packet Page 63 of 383 76 t h A v e W Main St Oly m p i c V i e w D r 196th St SW Pine St 9t h A v e N 66 t h A v e W N 205th St/244th St SW 84 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 220th St SW 68 t h A v e W Bowdoin Wy 212th St SW 10 0 t n A v e W Dayton St 74th A v e W 208th St SW Talb o t R d Ol y m p i c A v e 200th St SW Lund's Gulch Rd 80 t h A v e W Ti m b e r L n 224th St SW 95 t h P l W 3rd A v e N 168th St SW 75 t h P L W 96 t h A v e W 72 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e R d Ma p l e w o o d D r 206th St SW 240th St SW Wachussett Rd 80 t h A v e W §¨¦I-5 ¯99 ¯104 ¯524 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet H100-year Floodplain 1 inch = 2,500 feet Packet Page 64 of 383 Everett, Washington Published: Sunday, April 3, 2011 New rules to protect fish are clear as mud, cities say By Debra Smith, Herald Writer EVERETT -- Building near shorelines may get a lot more complicated this fall. That's when new rules are scheduled to take effect that further limit development in floodplains. The rules, handed down by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are intended to protect vital fish habitat. They also could severely limit building within 250 feet of waterways. That includes hundreds of acres slated for development or already developed now in local cities. In Everett, these areas include the Port of Everett's Riverside Business Park and part of the city's multimillion- dollar planned riverfront development. Spencer Island, Smith Island and private home sites along Lowell-Larimer Road also fall under the FEMA rule. More than 100 Puget Sound communities are expected to be affected by the rules, including Snohomish, Monroe, Sultan, Arlington, Granite Falls and county areas along waterways. If communities can't appease the federal agencies involved, they risk losing eligibility for federal flood insurance. "It's kind of scary when we look at the amount of land that would be affected," said Allan Giffen, Everett's Planning & Community Development director. The guidelines stem from an opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The agency found that the FEMA's flood insurance program is so widely available in the Puget Sound region, it's leading to rapid development in floodplains. That, in turn, harms habitat for fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. "What we've tried to do with the biological opinion is change standards and activities that adversely affect fish in the floodplain," said Tom Sibley, north Puget Sound branch chief for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Floodplains play a vital role in the health of Puget Sound, he said. They store nutrients, filter pollutants and provide shelter for young salmon. Floodplains also help protect people by slowing down millions of gallons of destructive floodwaters, he said. In Everett, officials are concerned the new rules are designed for pristine habitat, not urban areas such as Everett that have been diked and developed for a century. "We aren't talking about pristine habitat," Giffen said. "We are talking about already developed areas that are definitely not native." Everett already follows local and state rules for building near shorelines, he said. Those rules include a biological assessment to make sure there is "no net loss" to fish habitat. The new rules are more restrictive, requiring "no adverse effects" to fish habitat -- even in the short term. Giffen worries that means restoration projects, such as breaching dikes or pulling out creosote pilings, wouldn't be Page 1 of 2HeraldNet: Print Article 4/6/2011http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110403/NEWS01/704039942/1060... Packet Page 65 of 383 allowed because they temporarily harm fish habitat by stirring up the water. Development in floodplains has led to dozens of acres of habitat restoration in and around Everett. That's because the city requires builders to pay for enhancement or restoration of habitat when they build in floodplains. The new rules aren't intended to return already developed areas to their pristine beginnings, Sibley said. The intention is to protect floodplains from losing any more fish habitat. "We didn't mean for urbanized areas to go back to 1820," he said. "If you don't have any fish functions, it's hard to lose any." He also said restoration projects and utility work are still allowed under the new rules. FEMA has held workshops for local public officials to help make sense of the rules, and more are planned. Yet, officials from several local cities indicated there are still unanswered questions and widespread confusion about what the rules mean. The city of Snohomish's public operations yard is located in a floodplain, and it's not clear if moving raw materials to and from that yard might violate the rules, said Snohomish City Manager Larry Bauman. He's also not certain whether the trail by the Snohomish River that's sometimes damaged during floods could be repaired. "We are deeply concerned about these regulations and what they mean and how they might affect city operations," he said. In Sultan, public and private property -- including a number of homes and one planned subdivision -- could potentially be affected. That may mean the city has to change its plans for future growth, something all cities are required to do by the state. County officials said they aren't quite as concerned, since most of the land affected in unincorporated areas is agricultural. But that's not entirely true. The Election Day floods of November 2006 caused nearly $9 million in damage to homes and personal property countywide. A Herald investigation a few weeks later showed that between 1995 and 2003, more than 1,100 permits were issued for building and grading projects in the county's flood-prone areas, including more than 300 single-family homes and nearly 100 double-wide mobile homes. One week after the Election Day flood, county officials issued permits for a new home in one of the county's hardest-hit neighborhoods. Communities have a few options for complying, including convincing the federal agencies that rules already on the books are sufficient. That's the route Everett is taking. It's not clear yet how that will pan out. One thing is certain: The old way of doing things wasn't working, Sibley said. The new rules should do more to save what fish habitat remains. Reporter Noah Haglund contributed to this report. Debra Smith: 425-339-3197 or dsmith@heraldnet.com © 2011 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, WA Page 2 of 2HeraldNet: Print Article 4/6/2011http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110403/NEWS01/704039942/1060... Packet Page 66 of 383 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting April 12, 2011 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer Jerry Shuster,Stormwater Eng Program Mgr Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Services Director The committee convened at 7:00 p.m. A. FEMA Biological Opinion Mr. Lien gave a brief explanation of the item, including laying out the City's three options to comply with the the upcoming FEMA deadline. The Councilmembers asked questions regarding floodplains and Staff showed a map that indicated the small floodplain areas in Edmonds. The Councilmembers agreed with the Staff recommendation to go with compliance option number 3 (Permit-by-Permit compliance) and forwarded it to the full Council's consent agenda. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. B. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds-South Snohomish County Historical Society for the 2011 Edmonds Market. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. C. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Edmonds Arts Festival Association for the 2011 Edmonds Arts Festival. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. D. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July parade and fireworks display. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. E. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 2011 Taste of Edmonds. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. Packet Page 67 of 383 CS/DS Committee Minutes April 12, 2011 Page 2 2 F. Authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 2011 Classic Car Show. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. G. 2011 Senior Center Agreement ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. H. Authorization for the Mayor to sign utility easements for the Lift Station 2 Improvements Project. Mr. English reviewed the scope of the Lift Station 2 project and discussed how operating and maintaining the existing lift station is difficult given the age and current location of the facility. He explained to the committee that the value of the easements were determined by the Appraisal Group of the Northwest and the cost would be paid by sewer utility rates (412 utility fund). There were follow-up questions on the project and how this project is tied to the City’s sewer system. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. I. Quarterly Public Works Capital Project Report. Mr. English, reviewed the Quarterly Public Works Capital Project Report with the Committee. He explained that the purpose of the report is to provide the committee with information on projects managed by the Public Works Department. ACTION: None. J. Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report. Mr. English reviewed the 2010 traffic impact fee report and answered questions from the committee on the current amount of traffic impact fees, how they are assessed and what type of projects qualify for impacts fees. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. The meeting adjourned at 8:05p.m. Packet Page 68 of 383 AM-3919 Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:Consent Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Mayoral Proclamation declaring Thursday, May 5, 2011 to be National Day of Prayer in the City of Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached proclamation. Attachments National Day of Prayer Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 04/28/2011 04:43 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 69 of 383 Packet Page 70 of 383 AM-3917 Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Resolution in support of Edmonds Senior Center's Creative Transitions Program. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Facing increasing unemployment rates in the senior population of South Snohomish County, the Edmonds Senior Center has started a program called Creative Transitions in order to connect seniors to local job opportunities. This resolution supports their efforts. Attachments Creative Transitions Resolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 04/28/2011 04:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/28/2011 02:24 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 71 of 383 RESOLUTION NO. _____ Resolution of the Edmonds City Council in Support of Edmonds Senior Center’s Creative Transitions Program. Whereas, the Washington State unemployment rate for seniors 54 and older is estimated to be above 14%, and Whereas, there are an estimated 15,000 unemployed seniors in South Snohomish County, and Whereas, the Edmonds Senior Center is developing a program called Creative Transitions to work with local businesses to assist in employing our unemployed seniors, and Whereas, The Edmonds Senior Center and the City of Edmonds are strong partners in helping and advocating for our senior population, and Whereas, coordinated efforts by communities are greatly needed to help reduce unemployment, revitalize our economy, and provide a positive economic impact in return, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Edmonds City Council endorses the Creative Transitions program of the Edmonds Senior Center. RESOLVED this ____ day of May, 2011. APPROVED: ___________________________ MAYOR, MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ______________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ____ Packet Page 72 of 383 AM-3915 Item #: 4. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Review of Planning Board recommendation on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless communication facilities (File No. AMD-2010-0004). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Set a public hearing date for public comment on this item. Previous Council Action The Council forwarded this item to the Planning Board on January 5, 2010 (Exhibit 3, Attachment 1). The Planning Board held numerous meetings on this topic since April 2010, including in March 2011 (Exhibit 1). The entirety of that work led to the creation of the revised draft regulation which the Planning Board recommended for Council approval on April 27, 2011. The following is a timeline of the work by the Planning Board as well as the Architectural Design Board who discussed the topic at their February 16, 2011 meeting. 1) April 28, 2010 - Planning Board discussion on updates to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 (Exhibit 3) 2) June 9, 2010 - Planning Board continued work and scheduled 7/28/10 public hearing (Exhibit 4) 3) July 28, 2010 - Planning Board public hearing - new information was presented at the hearing that led to additional work and revision to the code (Exhibit 5) 4) September 8, 2010 - Planning Board considered new information from 7/28/10 (Exhibit 6) 5) October 10, 2010 - Planning Board driving tour and discussion of additional changes to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 (Exhibit 7) 6) November 10, 2010 - Planning Board received new draft ECDC 20.50 regulation which incorporated new information and integrated relevant code from ECDC 18.05 (Exhibit 8) 7) January 12, 2011 - Planning Board discussed new draft ECDC 20.50 (Exhibit 9) 8) February 16, 2011 - Architectural Design Board discussed new draft and provided input regarding aesthetic concerns and design standards (Exhibit 10) Packet Page 73 of 383 9) March 9, 2011 - Planning Board finalized changes to ECDC 20.50 update and scheduled 4/27/11 public hearing (Exhibit 11) 10) April 27, 2011 - Planning Board public hearing - recommended Council approval of proposed changes to ECDC 18.05 and ECDC 20.50 (minutes from the meeting are not yet available but a presentation given at the meeting is included as Exhibit 13). Exhibit 2 contains the code amendment language recommended by the Planning Board. Narrative Given the FCC's goal of encouraging the expansion of wireless networks, federal regulations prohibit local municipalities from outright excluding wireless communications facilities and go further by restricting the ability of cities to deny wireless applications (see the discussion in the City Attorney's memo, Exhibit 3/Attachment 5). At the same time, wireless facilities cannot be regulated on the basis of health impacts if they meet federal criteria for radio frequency emissions. That said, Edmonds can regulate the location of different types of facilities as well as their appearance through design standards. Beginning in April 2010, the Planning Board began to examine the existing siting and appearance requirements for wireless communications facilities in Edmonds as requested by the City Council. Initially, it was felt that minor changes to the existing code language in ECDC 18.05 (Utility Wires) and 20.50 (Wireless Communications Facilities) would be sufficient to provide the additional clarification and protection that the Council was looking for regarding siting and visual impact. However, it quickly became clear that the City's existing wireless regulations were largely outdated and therefore needed to be re-evaluated in a more comprehensive way. This work included extensive reading and discussion about the technology used by the wireless industry, how other jurisdictions regulate wireless facilities, and a driving tour of the wireless sites in the City to become better acquainted with the technology currently in place in Edmonds. The Board's work led to the creation of an updated draft wireless communications facility regulation which integrated newly learned information, as well as pertinent code from ECDC 18.05, into ECDC 20.50 using the following format: 20.50.010 Purpose - updates existing 20.50.020 Applicability - new 20.50.030 Exemption - updates existing 20.50.040 Prohibitions - new 20.50.050 General siting criteria - new 20.50.060 Permit requirements - new 20.50.070 Application requirements - new 20.50.080 Review timeframes - new 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.110 Ground-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.120 Temporary facilities - new 20.50.130 Modification - new 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use - updates existing 20.50.150 Maintenance - new A number of the sections new to ECDC 20.50 fill gaps in the existing code. For example, the section on "Prohibitions" would disallow the use of guyed and lattice towers anywhere in the City (they are currently permitted outright in the CG zones and allowed by conditional use permit in other business and commercial zones). In addition, monopoles would not be allowed in residential zones, within Packet Page 74 of 383 rights-of-way, in public and open space zones, nor in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned at the beginning, "Prohibitions" does not mean that wireless antennas themselves are disallowed in those areas, rather the certain support structures that hold them up are not permitted in those areas. Wireless facility location preferences and general design standards are described in the "General siting criteria" section. The siting criteria are a new way to prioritize the location of wireless antenna sites preferred by the City. In short, of the many ways wireless antennas can be deployed, the draft regulation indicates that the City prefers: 1) co-location of wireless antennas at existing wireless sites without an increase of height; 2) co-location at an existing site where additional height is necessary over existing; 3) placing antennas on a replacement pole or structure for an existing one; and, finally, 4) placing antennas on a new pole or structure altogether. Wireless providers will have to demonstrate during the application process how a particular location meets their needs and if co-location is not proposed, why it is technically not feasible. Several permit types are summarized in "Permit requirements". The proposed permitting framework brings ECDC 20.50 in line with the recently approved changes to land use permitting in Title 20. The permitting framework is structured into three types: building-mounted, structure-mounted, and monopole facilities. Within each category, there are additional specific requirements for location and appearance. Co-location is encouraged by providing a more simplified permit application process. The updated draft regulation was also reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. The ADB looked at relevant aesthetic concerns and design standards and provided comments that were included in the current public hearing draft (Exhibit 2). Subsequent to the ADB's February 16, 2011 meeting and the Planning Board's March 9, 2011 meeting, a comment was received regarding the possible use of tree-like camouflage for monopole installations (Exhibit 12). The Planning Board had studied the viability of using tree-camouflage for monopoles at their October 13, 2010 meeting and decided that such techniques were not appropriate for Edmonds since the camouflaged structure can often be more visually obtrusive than a typical monopole within a developed landscape. As mentioned previously, the proposed regulation would restrict the location of monopoles to certain business and commercial areas of the City. In addition, monopoles could be shrouded to enclose the antennas and the poles painted to match an existing background if that is appropriate to a selected site. For an overview of the project that was presented at the Planning Board's April 27, 2011 public hearing, see Exhibit 13. Attachments Exhibit 1 - PB minutes 3/9/11 Exhibit 2 - Draft wireless code ECDC 20.50 Exhibit 3- 4/28/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 4 - 6/9/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 5 - 7/28/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 6 - 9/8/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 7 - 10/13/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 8 - 11/10/10 PB agenda memo Exhibit 9 - 1/12/11 PB agenda memo Exhibit 10 - 2/16/11 ADB agenda memo Exhibit 11 - 3/9/11 PB agenda memo Packet Page 75 of 383 Exhibit 12 - Comment letter Exhibit 13 - Wireless Communication Facilities presentation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/28/2011 01:48 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 04/28/2011 04:19 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 08:22 AM Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 04/28/2011 12:16 PM Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 76 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 7 step back approach was originally adopted by the City Council as a way to differentiate between 25 and 30-foot buildings. They settled on the step back approach as a compromise solution. However, he acknowledged there are other options that would accomplish the same goal and buildings can be attractively designed with no step back. He specifically referred to the Beeson and Chanterelle buildings, which provide good examples of other ways to address the issue. Board Member Stewart suggested that rather than talk about height, the City could identify design goals that must be met as part of a development agreement. The City Council could then negotiate the final decision with the developer. They should focus on the function of a building rather than the specific height. Board Member Clarke agreed and suggested that most people have difficulty visioning height. Somehow the community has gotten stuck on a numerical figure to address the height issue rather than a visual understanding of what a development would look like. This approach must change if they want to promote a unique and attractive environment. The Board directed staff to prepare draft code language that would enable the step back issue to be addressed on a case-by- case basis using the development agreement process. Mr. Chave summarized that staff would prepare draft code language as directed by the Board. The draft proposal would be presented to the Board for additional review on March 23rd. It is anticipated a public hearing would be scheduled for April 13th. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK AT 8:35 P.M. THEY RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 18.05 AND 20.15 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NUMBER AMD-2010-0004) Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board has held multiple meetings on this topic since April 2010, and their work has led to the creation of completely revised draft regulation, which was distributed for Board review on November 10, 2010. The Board discussed various refinements of the draft regulation in detail at their January 12, 2011 meeting. In addition, the Architectural Design Board reviewed the document on February 16, 2011. Overall, they were satisfied with the proposed language, but they offered some additional clarification. Using input from both the Planning Board and the Architectural Design Board, staff worked with the City Attorney to further refine the draft (Attachment 3). He specifically highlighted the following changes: 1. The term “ground-mounted facilities” was changed to “monopole facilities” for clarity since other possible ground- mounted facilities like lattice towers and guyed towers are specifically prohibited. 2. Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, the definitions would be included with the chapter as opposed to placing them in a different title. 3. Section 20.50.050.N (landscaping and screening) was updated to better reflect existing landscaping code (ECDC 20.13). 4. The Planning Board’s recommended language for location and height of building-mounted wireless facilities was included in ECDC 20.50.090, and their recommended language for structure-mounted antennas was included in ECDC 20.50.100. 5. Table 20.50.080.2 was eliminated and monopole height and setbacks were aligned to Chapter 16 (zoning). Mr. Clugston referred the Board to an email from Council Member Petso asking the Board to consider the fact that she has heard comments from neighbors about service vehicles parking on lawns and landscaped areas. He pointed out that ECDC 20.50.050.F states that any application must demonstrate there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. Problems would be dealt with on a complaint basis. Vice Chair Reed asked if Council Member Petso’s concern is a result of access problems or just bad manners. Mr. Clugston said it is probably the latter. However, he noted that in some situations, private residential property owners have located landscaping or lawn area within public rights-of-way. Packet Page 77 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 9, 2011 Page 8 Board Member Clarke asked if it would be possible to address the problem by providing signage to identify the parking space for service vehicles. Mr. Chave pointed out that parking is generally located within the right-of-way and they typically try to pull the vehicles as far off the road as possible. He acknowledged that this can impinge on landscaping that has been planted by private property owners in the rights-of-way. He suggested this is an operational issue and property owners may have to remind service providers to be more careful in these situations. He said it would be difficult to use signage to designate parking within the right-of-way. However, if a wireless facility is located on private property, the private property owner would have to provide on-site parking for service vehicles. He summarized that without knowing more specific information about the case, it is difficult for staff to clearly understand the problem. Staff agreed to seek additional information from Council Member Petso. Board Member Johnson referred to the monopole that is currently located on Bowdoin Way next to the water tower, which was previously behind the fire station. She noted that ECDC 20.50.040.B.3 would prohibit monopoles on public and open space zoned parcels. Mr. Clugston said that upon adoption of the new regulations, this monopole would become nonconforming. That means it would be allowed to continue, but no new pole would be allowed. Board Member Johnson referred to the photographs provided in ECDC 20.50.110 to illustrate acceptable monopoles. She noted that the height of a monopole is not allowed to extend above the maximum height allowed in the zone, and the monopoles in the pictures appear taller than what the zone allows. Mr. Clugston agreed that monopoles would be permitted up to the height allowed by the zone with just a building permit. A conditional use permit would be required to exceed the height limit of the underlying zoning. Board Member Johnson expressed concern that the pictures do not clearly illustrate the intent of the proposed language. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the pole in the right hand picture is constructed near the Campbell Nelson dealership, which is zoned general commercial (CG). The maximum height allowed in the zone is 60 feet. To clarify the height requirements for monopoles, the Board agreed that language should be inserted to require monopoles to conform to the height and setback requirements of the underlying zoning (ECDC 16). It was noted that this information is also available on the permit table (ECDC 20.50.060.B.1). Board Member Johnson also referred to ECDC 20.50.110.B.1, which states that to the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, structures and other features camouflage the facilities. She suggested that better pictures could be provided to illustrate this concept. Board Member Johnson observed that this is the eighth time the Board has reviewed the proposed revisions to the wireless communication facilities regulations, and she thanked Mr. Clugston for keeping the Board on track throughout the process. She also thanked him for keeping an open mind to the comments provided by the public and the Board and for creating language to address the concerns. Mr. Clugston said that, once approved, service providers will have a clear understanding of the City’s expectations. The Board agreed that a public hearing on the draft regulations should be scheduled for April 27th. Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Clugston to contact Council Member Petso to learn more about the situation she referred to in her memorandum and then examine the proposed language to see if her concerns would be adequately addressed. Mr. Clugston agreed to accomplish this task prior to the public hearing. Vice Chair Reed noted that the proposed language in ECDC 20.50.010.A.3 encourages providers, to the extent possible, to locate facilities in areas where the adverse impact on the community would be minimal. Rich Busch, outside Council for AT&T and President of the Northwest Wireless Association, congratulated the Board for moving from structure-based regulations to aesthetic-based regulations. This approach will encourage the industry to come up with the least intrusive design. Once adopted, he suggested the new regulations would provide a good example for other jurisdictions to follow. He announced that a new type of antenna is currently being tested that is about half the size of a letter-sized sheet of paper. Once the technology is available, it can be integrated into existing facilities, and the larger antennas can eventually be phased out. However, he cautioned that the new antennas would have a lower capacity than the current technology so more of them would be required. New facilities would have to be constructed to provide adequate coverage using the smaller antennas. He noted that even the smaller antennas require an equipment box of some kind. Packet Page 78 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 1 of 18 Chapter 20.50 Wireless Communications Facilities 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Monopole facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. 20.50.160 Definitions. 20.50.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter may be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Encourage and where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable Packet Page 79 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 2 of 18 structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact on the City; 7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the City to use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed as necessary, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through strict compliance with State building and electrical codes; and 12. Provide a means for public input on wireless communication facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), this Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Packet Page 80 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 3 of 18 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. B. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. 20.50.030 Exemptions. The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter: A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.D. D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.E. E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. G. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that the equipment, structure or enclosures maintain compliance with the standards of this chapter. If the cost of repair of a legally nonconforming equipment, structure and/or enclosure exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the equipment, structure and/or enclosure, the repair shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. H. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in Edmonds. 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations: 1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)]; 2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center; 3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; and 4. Within the City rights-of-way. Packet Page 81 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 4 of 18 20.50.050 General Siting Criteria and Design Considerations. A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use existing sites or more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless communication facilities: 1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon which the facility would be located; 2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or structure; 3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one; 4. A new pole or structure altogether. B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. 1. To the greatest extent technically feasible, applicants for new monopole facilities shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. 2. Any Wireless Communication Facility that requires an conditional use permit (CUP) under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information clearly indicates that the requested site is needed in order to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible. C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. D. Business license requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. G. Finish. A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment. I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color Packet Page 82 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 5 of 18 of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are permitted, the City shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord with FCC requirements. K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure. L. Equipment enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required co-location. M. Radio frequency emissions compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant. N. Landscaping and screening. 1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The Director or his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property perimeter provide a sufficient buffer. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with ECDC 20.13. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. Packet Page 83 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 6 of 18 b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant. d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts with other surrounding utilities. 3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to ECDC 20.13.040. 4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or wood fencing materials are preferred. 20.50.060 Permit Requirements. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20 and ECDC Title 18. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The Conditional Use Permit types referenced are described in ECDC Chapter 20.01. Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Permit Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Required Type of Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right-of- Way Permit Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole X Structure-mounted facilities (excluding co-location on existing monopole) X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable) Monopole facilities (structure complies with height requirement of the underlying zone in ECDC Title 16) X Monopole facilities (structure exceeds maximum height of zone in ECDC Title 16) X X (Type III-B) Packet Page 84 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 7 of 18 C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private property, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director, or his designee. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the City rights-of-way. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works or their respective designees, are reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the Director or his designee. E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility which minimize parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under ECDC chapter 20.85. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter. H. Third party review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require third party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the City. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site- specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the proposal. The third party review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other site or sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner without the approval of the City. Packet Page 85 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 8 of 18 L. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming monopole is allowed. 20.50.070 Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds: A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis indicating the alternative locations and technologies considered; B. Existing wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities and wireless coverage in the area; C. Proposed wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s wireless coverage with the proposed facility; D. Site information on scaled plans, including; 1. Site plan 2. Elevation drawings 3. Undergrounding details, as applicable 4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with ECDC 20.13), as appropriate E. Photos and photo-simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints; F. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050.C), if applicable; G. Radio frequency emissions report for the proposed facility, which shall not be reviewed further by the City; H. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the Director in order to issue a decision. 20.50.080 Review Timeframes. A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to Superior Court under the Land Use Permit Act. 2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant. 3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of facilities: Packet Page 86 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 9 of 18 a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes; or b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For purposes of this section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopole” means: 1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing height of the monopole by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; 2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; 3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the monopole at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or 4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site; or c. Facilities that are a part of a Distributed Antenna System, provided that the Distributed Antenna System connects to an existing tower or antenna. A Distributed Antenna System, for the purposes of this section, is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure. B. New monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05. 20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facility Standards. A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using radio frequency-transparent panels. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted. B. Height. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas shall be flush-mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the Packet Page 87 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 10 of 18 building on which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush-mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the City right-of-way if a right-of- way use agreement is established with the City. Antennas shall not project into the right- of-way by more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way. 2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building- mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine (9) feet above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes. C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable then an equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below existing parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. D. Feed lines and coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right of way or adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building. Acceptable Building Mounted WCF Unacceptable Building Mounted WCF Packet Page 88 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 11 of 18 20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. 1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City rights-of- way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirement: a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. 2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with non- reflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure. B. Height. 1. The maximum height of structure-mounted wireless communication facilities shall not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six (6) feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed. This includes installation of facilities on structures built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a wireless communication facility in excess of the allowed height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting wireless communication facilities shall be used to determine compliance with this subsection. 2. Only one extension is permitted per structure. 3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility’s requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. D. Feed lines and coaxial cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid right-of-way use agreement shall be eligible to apply for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to installation of facilities within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter. Packet Page 89 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 12 of 18 20.50.110 Monopole Facility Standards. A. New monopoles are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternatives – No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and Acceptable Structure Mounted WCF Unacceptable Structure Mounted WCF Packet Page 90 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 13 of 18 3. Least intrusive – The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. Equipment enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. 4. Feed lines, coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. C. Review criteria. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards are met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III-B conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible co-location opportunity) Acceptable Monopole WCF Packet Page 91 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 14 of 18 2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. D. Zoning setback exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially-zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related Packet Page 92 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 15 of 18 appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor. 20.50.130 Modification. The applicant and/or co-applicant may apply to alter the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP) by modifying specific features of the wireless communication facility. If any of the following changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City as a new CUP application. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a wireless communication facility (WCF), as described in ECDC 20.50.030.G 20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless communication facility, such carrier will notify the Director by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the wireless communication facility. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling and the like from the subject property. 2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the City. 3. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre-permit condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility operator may remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this section, the City shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be charged to the wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the City removes the facility. 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. Packet Page 93 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 16 of 18 20.50.160 Definitions. A. Antenna. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”), directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless communication services). B. Cell-on-wheels (COW). Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. C. Co-location. Collocation means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes D. Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure. E. Guyed tower. Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. F. Lattice tower. Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment. G. Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. H. Monopole. Monopole. A freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities. Antenna(s) may be externally mounted (visible antenna) or internally mounted (no visible antennae). I. Satellite Earth Station Antenna. A satellite earth station antenna which includes any antenna in any zoning district that: 1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; 2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted; Packet Page 94 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 17 of 18 3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and 4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals. J. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Unlicensed Wireless Services. The offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services.. K. Wireless communication facility. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components: 1. Antenna; 2. Mount; 3. Equipment enclosure; 4. Security barrier. L. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing monopoles. M. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged. Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. N. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure. Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. O. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole. Wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010. Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. Packet Page 95 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 4-27-11 pb hearing.doc Page 18 of 18 P. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. Q. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks. R. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. Packet Page 96 of 383 AI-3009 8.a. Discussion on wireless facility regulations Planning Board Agenda Date:04/28/2010 Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Discussion on wireless facility regulations Staff Recommendation Determine what improvements should be made to the code applying to PUD pole/wireless facility retrofits. Previous Board Action None. Narrative The Council has asked the Planning Board to re-examine the existing siting requirements for wireless facilities within the City of Edmonds (Attachments 1 & 2). Wireless telecommunication facilities located in zoned areas are regulated in Chapter 20.50 (Attachment 3). Wireless facilities within the City right-of-way are regulated in the Utility Wires chapter within the Public Works code found in Title 18 (Attachment 4). The City Attorney has provided a memo summarizing recent updates to the Federal Telecommumications Act of 1996 as well as pertinent case law regarding what aspects of wireless facilities can and cannot be regulated by local governments (Attachment 5). As the memo indicates, a city cannot deny an application based on concerns over RF emissions. Only one type of wireless facility is permitted on single-family zoned parcels – the micro facility – the development standards for which are found in ECDC 20.50.010. Location and size requirements are described as well as design standards for the antennas, ground equipment, and any support structure. Wireless facilities may also be attached to the top of PUD transmission poles located within rights-of-way through single family zoned neighborhoods. The design standards for these facilities are found in ECDC 18.05.030.B (Attachment 4). The code requires that ground equipment be screened and that only wood poles may be used (unless otherwise required by the State Electrical Code). Currently, applicants for a wireless retrofit project must hold a neighborhood informational meeting and notify property owners within 300’ of the pole at least 10 days prior to the installation. Regarding height, the wording is tricky but it seems like an additional 15’ above the utility lines is allowed plus the height of the wireless antenna. There is no indication on what type of facility may be placed on top of a PUD pole in the r-o-w. Proposed changes 1) Move public meeting requirement prior to a wireless application being submitted rather than prior to installation. This allows public input up front when a provider could still incorporate changes to the design as opposed when the design has basically already been settled on. 2) Specify that only micro facilities may be located on PUD poles. As it is currently written, there does not appear to be a restriction on what can go on PUD poles located in a right-of-way since the r-o-w is unzoned. 3) Clarify how the height is determined. 4) Update the design review process from the ADB to staff. Staff still uses the specified design standards in 18.05.030. 5) Update the variance provision to reflect Title 20 changes. 6) Add design standards for retrofit appearance. Fiscal Impact Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item 7/22/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3009&mode=print&reloaded... Packet Page 97 of 383 Attachments Link: Council minutes excerpts 12/15/09 & 1/5/10 Link: Planning Board minutes excerpt 1/13/10 Link: ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Link: ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires - edited Link: Wireless rulings and case law Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item 7/22/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3009&mode=print&reloaded... Packet Page 98 of 383 P a c k e t P a g e 9 9 o f 3 8 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 0 o f 3 8 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 1 o f 3 8 3 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 2 o f 3 8 3 APPROVED JANUARY 27TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 13, 2010 Chair Bowman called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Bowman, Chair Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Cary Guenther John Reed Valerie Stewart Todd Cloutier STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reid READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIR BOWMAN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2009 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience desired to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. DISCUSSION ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES Mr. Chave advised that the City Council recently took actions that will have an impact on the Planning Board’s 2010 work program. The Board is required to review each one and provide recommendations back to the City Council. Interim Ordinance Amending Title 20 ECDC Review Criteria and Procedures. Mr. Chave announced that the City Council adopted an interim ordinance on January 5, 2010, that expands opportunities for closed record administrative appeals. Their intent is to revert back to the City Council appeal provisions that were in effect prior to adoption of the new Title 20 rules. He noted that there are some problems with the interim ordinance that need to be addressed, and staff also has some proposed changes to Title 20 that are mostly for clarification. Staff is recommending all of the amendments be considered by the Board at the same time. Chair Bowman expressed concern that the City Council is seeking to overturn their previous action to adopt the proposed amendments to Title 20. He observed that the Board spent a significant amount of time conducting public hearings and deliberating the proposed language that was just recently adopted. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council’s interim ordinance only applies to Type III-B Actions, making them Hearing Examiner decisions that are appealable to the City Packet Page 103 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 2 Council. The other changes he mentioned earlier would be brought forward by staff to improve the clarity of the ordinance. There are also some mistakes on the matrix that need to be corrected. Vice Chair Lovell observed that the City Council previously adopted changes to Title 20 based on advice from the City Attorney. Mr. Chave agreed but added that the City Attorney also prepared the interim ordinance in response to the City Council’s request. Because it was adopted by the City Council, the interim ordinance is now applicable. However, it will only be effective for six months. During that time period, the Board must review the interim ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not it should be made permanent. Chair Bowman recalled that the main purpose of having the Hearing Examiner make the final decision with no appeal to the City Council was to keep applications from becoming litigious as much as possible. Mr. Chave recalled that when the Board previously discussed amendments to Title 20, staff provided a matrix outlining the pros and cons of retaining the City Council’s ability to hear appeals. This same matrix would be furnished to the Board again as part of the staff report. Board Member Guenther inquired about the timeline for making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave said staff intends to bring back more specific information regarding the issue in early February, and a public hearing could be held in March. Again, he advised that it would be helpful if the Board were to review all of the proposed changes to Title 20 at the same time and not just address the interim ordinance. He reminded them that their recommendation does not have to agree with the City Council’s direction. Mr. Chave referred to the matrix that is contained in Title 20 and said staff would propose that “preliminary long plats” be moved from the Type III-B column to the Type III-A column. He explained that, historically, all short and long-plat decisions have been made by staff. However, an inadvertent change in the interim ordinance implies that final plats would require a Hearing Examiner decision, which would be appealable to the City Council. This has not been the case for a number of years. Staff will point this out to the City Council when they hold their hearing on the interim ordinance in February. They would also seek direction regarding the other proposed changes to the ordinance at that time. Interim Ordinance 3769 Defining Temporary Homeless Shelter and Identifying Zoning Districts Where Temporary Homeless Shelters are permitted. Mr. Chave reported that the City has received a few inquiries over the past few years from primarily churches and people affiliated with churches about temporary homeless shelters, which the current code does not address. He explained that because the City cannot prohibit these uses, it would be appropriate for the code to acknowledge them and provide at least minimal standards to employ. Vice Chair Lovell referred to Section 5 of the interim ordinance, which states that temporary homeless shelters shall be permitted as primary or secondary uses in all zoning districts where churches and local public facilities are permitted as primary uses. However, the use would require a “sponsor” which is defined as a community-based organization that is a public agency or non-profit corporation. He asked if the interim ordinance would require a non-profit organization to run a homeless shelter that is located in a City-owned facility. Mr. Chave answered that the shelter must be run by a community-based organization that is either public or private, and this would include the City. He noted that Seattle created a temporary homeless shelter several years ago as a public agency. Board Member Clarke inquired if City-owned parks could be used for temporary homeless shelters. Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that, as per the interim ordinance, temporary homeless shelters must be located in permanent buildings. Board Member Guenther summarized that while the City cannot prohibit temporary homeless shelters, they can define limitations about where they can be located and how they must operate. Mr. Chave agreed, as long as there is a nexus between the entity and the mission, the City cannot prohibit the use. Mr. Chave advised that prior to a public hearing on the interim ordinance, the Board would have a question and answer session with the City Attorney so they have a clear understanding of the City’s limitations with regard to regulating temporary homeless shelters. Packet Page 104 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 13, 2010 Page 3 The Regulation of Utility Poles. Mr. Chave advised that while the City Council has not passed an interim ordinance related to utility poles, they have asked the Planning Board to review the issue and provide a recommendation. He explained that new technologies are being employed by wireless service providers, and the City’s codes have not kept up with the changes. There are also issues related to replacement poles. Vice Chair Lovell said he read through all of the information provided by staff regarding the issue, and it appears the Board needs more information regarding the City’s authority to regulate utility poles before they can make a recommendation to the City Council. If a utility provider can prove they need the additional coverage, it appears the City cannot exclude utility poles in residential neighborhoods. He recalled the Board’s previous discussion about utility poles several years ago, which required them to address a number of technical issues, as well as the City’s authority to regulate their height, location, and type of installation. Mr. Chave said the City is limited in the amount of control they have because State and Federal regulations pre-empt the City’s code requirements. However, the City can restrict larger towers to just the commercial zones. He pointed out that, in recent years, many of the existing wooden telephone poles have been replaced with concrete and metal poles for a variety of reasons, and this is not something the City’s standards anticipated. In addition, there are new technologies that are used in place of the traditional, relatively small antennas. He cautioned that the City cannot regulate the health impacts associated with utility poles, and they must allow utility companies to provide adequate coverage. However, the City’s code can address issues such as size, location, and scale in relationship to the surrounding buildings. He observed that, until recently, utility companies had been placing their smaller antennas on existing utility poles, but newer technology now requires larger poles and a greater separation between antennas. Mr. Chave said that in addition to the issues of height and location, the Board will also address the issue of appearance. Replacing existing utility poles with poles that are slightly taller is not typically a problem. The significant concern is related to replacement poles that are much larger in bulk and constructed of concrete rather than wood. He pointed out that adequately addressing the issue will require a review of Title 18, which is related to Engineering and Public Works Projects. Board Member Stewart suggested the Board consider language that encourages utility companies to extend the existing poles rather than replace them whenever possible. She expressed her hope that when poles are removed, they are used somewhere else rather than wasted. Chair Bowman said City Council Member Wilson mentioned he would like to prohibit towers within five miles of all schools, which would mean the closest tower to Edmonds would be 7 miles away. Mr. Chave said the City cannot institute a rule that has the affect of prohibiting utility poles in the City. Chair Bowman asked if the City could require that the poles be hidden. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Mr. Chave advised that staff would conduct a study session with the Board prior to the public hearing regarding potential amendments to the utility pole regulations. At the public hearing, the Board would likely hear from the public and the utility industry. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that before the Board conducts a public hearing, they need to have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot regulate. Mr. Chave that staff would provide background information prior to the public hearing, and a representative from the City Attorney’s Office would be invited to provide legal information, as well. Representatives from the Engineering and Public Works Departments could also be invited to share their experience with utility poles in the rights-of-way. DISCUSSION ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 19, 2010 Chair Bowman referred to the emailed comments the Board received from Board Member Reed regarding the draft Planning Board/Citizens Economic Development Commission 2009 Annual Report to the City Council. Vice Chair Lovell advised that he attended a portion of the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Meeting that started an hour prior to the Board’s meeting. He reported that a subcommittee of the CEDC has produced a draft report that was distributed to the Board and CEDC Members. The Commission is currently discussing the draft, and the process is becoming very complicated as everyone tries to get their viewpoint included in the document. They have discussed the Packet Page 105 of 383 Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Sections: 20.50.000 Purpose. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. 20.50.080 Exemption. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. 20.50.000 Purpose. In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included in the Community Development Code to provide for a wide range of locations and options for wireless communication providers while minimizing the unsightly characteristics associated with wireless communication facilities and to encourage creative approaches in locating wireless communication facilities which will blend in with the surroundings of such facilities. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. A. Micro facilities are permitted in all zones. B. A micro facility shall be located on existing buildings, poles or other existing support structures. A micro facility may locate on buildings and structures; provided, that the interior wall or ceiling immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space. C. Antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which can be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel as viewed from any one point) are exempt from the height limitation of the zone in which they are located. Structures which are nonconforming with respect to height may be used for the placement of omni- directional antennas providing they do not extend more than six feet above the existing structure. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. D. The micro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. E. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. F. In single-family residential (RS) zones, micro facilities for a specific wireless provider shall be separated by a distance equal to or greater than 1,320 linear feet from other micro facilities of the same wireless provider. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Page 1 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 106 of 383 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. A. Mini facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. The mini facility may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The mini facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Mini facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones except as follows: Omni-directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 10 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 10 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing nonconforming building and blends in architecturally with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. A. Macro facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. Macro facilities may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The macro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Macro facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones, except as follows: Omni-directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 15 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 15 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing building and architecturally blends in with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. A. Monopole I facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 5. B. Monopole I facilities are permitted in business (BC, BD and BN) zones and certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) with a conditional use permit. C. Monopole I facilities are not permitted in residential zones (RS and RM), the commercial Page 2 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 107 of 383 waterfront (CW), open space (OS), public (P) zones, except when expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or up to four inches in diameter may be a component of a monopole I facility. Antennas which extend above the wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the monopole I wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole I shall be 60 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 75 feet (60 feet plus 15 feet). E. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted. Macro facilities are the largest wireless communication facilities allowed on monopole I. F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole I facilities shall be concealed, camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole I facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole I facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole I facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. [Ord. 3628 § 5, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. A. Monopole II facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 5; provided the wireless communications support structure shall be designed to accommodate two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Monopole II facilities which exceed 150 feet in height or and located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BC, BD and BN) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone, and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location of wireless communication facilities on an existing support structure shall be permitted. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a monopole II facility. Antennas which extend above the monopole II wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole II facility shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole II facility support structure shall be Page 3 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 108 of 383 concealed, screened, camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole II facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole II facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole II facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. In any case, if the monopole II facility is within 300 feet of any residentially zoned (RS or RM) lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Monopole II facilities shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. 3628 § 6, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. A. Lattice towers are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 5; provided the wireless communications support structure is built to accommodate the location of two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Lattice towers which exceed 150 feet in height or are located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or are located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BN, BD and BC) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted without an additional conditional use permit; provided there is not substantial change to the existing support structure. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a lattice tower. Antennas which extend above the lattice tower wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height (without a conditional use permit) for a lattice tower shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the lattice tower support structure shall be concealed, screened, camouflaged or placed underground. Lattice towers shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Lattice towers shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Lattice Towers adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to or greater than the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single- family lot line. In any case, if the lattice tower is within 300 feet of a single-family lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Lattice towers shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. 3628 § 7, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Page 4 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 109 of 383 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. In addition to the conditional use permit criteria specified in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, the following specific criteria shall be met before a conditional use permit can be granted: A. Visual Impact. Antennas may not extend more than 15 feet above their supporting structure, monopole lattice tower, building or other structure. 1. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area. 2. Accessory equipment facilities used to house wireless communications equipment should be located within buildings or placed underground when possible. When they cannot be located in buildings, equipment shelters or cabinets shall be screened and landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.12 ECDC. B. Noise. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in levels above 45 dB as measured from the nearest property line on which the attached wireless communication facility is located. C. Other – Application and Conditional Use Criteria – FCC Pre-emption. In any proceeding regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit under the terms of this chapter, federal law prohibits consideration of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emission. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.080 Exemption. The following are exempt from the requirement of a conditional use permit, and shall be considered a permitted use in all zones where wireless and attached wireless communications facilities are permitted: Minor modifications of existing wireless communications facilities and attached wireless communications facilities, whether emergency or routine, so long as there is little or no change in the visual appearance. Minor modifications are those modifications, including the addition of antennas, to conforming wireless and attached wireless communications facilities that meet the performance standards set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. A wireless communications facility or attached wireless communications facility shall be removed by the facility owner within six months of the date it ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Plate 1 Page 5 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 110 of 383 Plate 2 Page 6 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 111 of 383 Plate 3 Page 7 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 112 of 383 Plate 4 Page 8 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 113 of 383 Page 9 of 9Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/21/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.html Packet Page 114 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 1 18.05.000 Scope. A. This chapter shall be interpreted to require all new, or extended utilities to be underground, except when exempted by this section. 1. “Utilities” shall mean all equipment used to deliver services by a utility such as electricity, telephone or cable television. 1.2. “Common utilities” shall mean utilities which serve more than one lot or commercial development. 1.3. “Private utility services” shall mean the utilities which connect a lot or commercial development with common utilities. 1.4. “Utility” shall mean the person, agency, corporation or other organization providing utility service. 1.5. “Existing utility use” shall mean the existing utility service as judged in three categories: number of poles, number of lines and height of poles within the project area for which the permit is sought. 1.6. “New or extended utilities” shall mean only utilities which are being built or extended to serve a new commercial, industrial, or multifamily residential development which has not had that type of utility service, or to serve a new single-family residential subdivision. a. This definition shall not include: i. Temporary extensions of service for construction purposes; ii. Additions to any existing aboveground utility system where such additions are not for the purpose of serving new commercial development or a single-family residential subdivision; nor iii. Rebuilding or replacing existing common utilities; provided, that the rebuilt or replaced structures do not expand the existing utility’s use within the project area by 10 percent, except as provided in ECDC 18.05.030(B)(3) for wireless facilities. “Expansion” shall include the number and height of poles, as well as the number of wires or cable carried thereon. b. All utility services sought to be constructed as temporary services, additions or rebuilt or replaced service shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit by the community services director. Any utility service found to be a “new or extended” service or an “expanded” service shall be reviewed as herein provided. Chapter 18.05 UTILITY WIRES Sections: 18.05.000 Scope. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. 18.05.020 Cost. 18.05.030 Design standards. 18.05.040 Variances. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. Packet Page 115 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 2 7. “Multifamily residential” shall mean development intended for use as apartments, duplexes, condominiums, or planned residential development. 8. “Project area” shall mean the actual area in which the project is proposed and shall include all structures or facilities actually, physically impacted by the improvement as well as any necessary appurtenant or accessory structures. 9. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. B. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the underground requirement of ECDC 18.05.010, but are still subject to the design standards of ECDC 18.05.030. 1. Electric utility substations, pad-mounted transformers and switching facilities; 1.2. Electrical utilities of more than 55 kilovolts; 1.3. Communication utilities not located on or along a public street right-of-way or private access easement; 1.4. Street light poles; 1.5. Telephone pedestals and similar devices; 1.6. Police and fire sirens, traffic-control devices and other similar municipal equipment; 1.7. Communication antennas which meet current FCC requirements, if any. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. A. City-Wide Requirements. 1. All new or extended utilities shall be undergrounded. 1.2. Whenever an existing aboveground private utility service connecting to underground common utilities is rebuilt or relocated, it shall be put underground. All private utility services installed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be underground. B. Business and Commercial Areas – Additional Requirements. 1. Business and Commercial areas include all land in the BN, BC, CW and CG zone districts. 2. Whenever a building or commercial development in a business and commercial area has additions, alterations or repairs which exceed 50 percent of its value in a one-year period, its private utility service shall be put underground. C. Publicly Owned Facilities. Publicly owned facilities shall meet the requirements applicable to business and commercial areas. 18.05.020 Cost. The city shall not pay any of the cost of installing underground utilities, unless there is a contractual agreement between the city, the utility and/or the owners of the property to be served. If there is no contractual agreement, and the utility has no filed tariffs, rules or regulations, or published policies, any financing method not prohibited by state law may be used, including but not limited to the local improvement district and/or ULID methods. 18.05.030 Design standards. Packet Page 116 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 3 A. Underground Utilities. 1. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with all applicable national, state and city standards. 1.2. Where different utilities are planned or required in the same corridor, each utility shall make every effort to locate all the utilities in common joint trenches. B. Aboveground Utilities. 1. An application for a wireless facility on or atop of PUD pole shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits documentation Prior to submitting an application for a wireless facility on or atop a PUD pole within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood, the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. No application for a building permit or other construction permit shall be accepted by the City without submission of a copy of the required notice, a copy of the addresses of residents within 300 feet of the pole, and meeting notes from the gathering. 2. A micro facility (ECDC 20.50.010) may be located on or atop of a PUD pole. A maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the micro facility. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 4. The architectural design board shall review and make recommendations on all plans ofDesign review is required for aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review of the boardis conducted by staff as a Type I process and shall be limited to the following criteria: a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through said screening may be reserved by the utility. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located shall install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad transformers are exempt from this screening requirement. b. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a neat and uncluttered appearance. c. Micro facility antennas and appurtenances shall be painted with nonreflective Packet Page 117 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 4 colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. 2. Where the construction of any common or private utility service shall require a variance from some other provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, the architectural design board shall note the need for a variance and shall defer any decision or recommendation to the hearing examiner. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be utilized within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. PUD transmission poles are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 4. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities.No metal pole or tower shall be utilized in a single-family residential zone unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be utilized unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 5. At least 10 days prior to installation of a wireless facility on or atop a pole in a residential neighborhood, either the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. Failure to provide the notice and/or host the informational meeting shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.00. 18.05.040 Variances.* Applications for variances from the underground requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed by the community public works director (or his/her designee) services director as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). For the purposes of this chapter, the special circumstances necessary to justify a variance from the undergrounding provisions of this chapter shall be limited to technological impracticability of any required underground installation or to a finding that the cost of the underground installation is excessive in light of the benefits derived and outweighs the benefits to be gained by the public. Packet Page 118 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 5 *Code reviser’s note: Variance fee for underground wiring shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. The provisions of this chapter do not and shall not be interpreted to waive any right enjoyed by the city with respect to any franchisee, nor to waive the obligations created by any franchise. In the event that any provision of this chapter conflicts with any provision of a franchising agreement or ordinance, said franchise provision shall control. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. When a pole, tower or other facility is replaced, the owner of the facility shall have a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 30 days, to coordinate transfer of all existing utility lines, transformers, and equipment to the new pole. The owner of the facility shall provide written notice to transfer such utility lines, transformers and equipment to the new pole to other utilities using the pole. Written notice shall be provided to each utility utilizing the pole by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on or before the date the pole is to be replaced. The notice shall include the date of pole replacement and the city’s requirement that transfer of facilities be completed within 30 days. Failure to relocate a utility line, transformer or other equipment to the new facility within 30 days shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $200.00 per day. Each and every day which the utility fails to relocate its utility lines, transformers and/or equipment to the new pole shall be a separate violation. Failure to provide written notice as provided above shall be a civil violation punishable by a fine of up to $200.00. Each day on which notice is not given after pole replacement shall be a separate violation.. Packet Page 119 of 383 {ERZ771018.DOC;2\00006.900000\ } MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 2010 TO: Michael Clugston City of Edmonds Edmonds Planning Board FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney Elana R. Zana RE: Rules Related to Cellular Towers I. Introduction This memorandum details the current case law and FCC rulings regarding cellular tower siting. In the past few years, and most recently in 2009, there have been several cases concerning a city’s ability to regulate the construction of wireless communications facilities (i.e. cellular towers and antennas) (referred to in this memorandum as “WCF”). Though the courts and the FCC have not eliminated the ability of local governments to control the location and construction of WCF through the permitting process, the FCC declaratory ruling issued in November 2009 and recent case law serve as restrictive guidelines for cities issuing permits to wireless communications providers. II. FCC Declaratory Ruling On November 18th, 2009, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling (the “Ruling”) related to municipal zoning approvals of wireless towers and collocations. The Ruling contained three main components: 1. A municipality has 90 days for the review of collocation applications; 2. A municipality has 150 days for the review of siting applications other than collocations (however, Washington law requires siting applications to be reviewed in 120 days); and 3. A municipality may not deny a personal wireless service facility siting application because wireless services are available from another provider. Packet Page 120 of 383 City of Edmonds March 11, 2010 Page 2 {ERZ771018.DOC;2\00006.900000\ } 1. Timeframes Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”), cities are required to act “within a reasonable period of time” on applications for WCF. The Ruling defines what a reasonable period of time is, and declares that the failure of a city to act within the allotted timeframes presumptively constitutes a failure to act under the TCA. The Ruling does not prevent local governments from denying applications, but does require that decisions be made within the specified timeframes and that the denial cannot based on the availability of service from another carrier. If the municipality fails to act within the required timeframes then wireless service providers may seek judicial redress within thirty days after the deadline. The FCC notes however, that the failure of a local government to act within the timeframe does not, in and of itself, entitle the siting applicant to an injunction granting the application. In Washington, cities are required to act within 120 days of receipt of a complete application (RCW 36.70B.080). Additionally, cities must notify the applicant within 28 days of the receipt of the application if the application is complete or if the application is incomplete and requires additional items (RCW 36.70B.070). The Ruling acknowledges that incomplete applications may be submitted, and allows that the timeframes do not include the time the applicants take to respond to the requests for additional information. The creation of these timeframes does not prevent the wireless provider and the municipality from mutually agreeing to an extension. The thirty day time period in which a wireless provider may file is tolled by this mutual consent. In Washington, the wireless provider must wait until the lapse of the federal timelines before bringing a suit for failure to act (but may pursue any state remedies upon the lapse of the state timeframe). 2. Availability of Service by Another Provider The Ruling declares that a local government which denies an application for a WCF siting solely because one or more carriers are in the geographic vicinity is effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in violation of the TCA’s pro-competitive purpose. However, the Ruling specifically notes that “a decision to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application that is based on the availability of adequate collocation opportunities is not one based solely on the presence of other carriers,” and therefore is not affected by the Ruling. In Washington, cities should be aware of the 9th Circuit’s decisions in MetroPCS Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco1 when analyzing whether there is unreasonable discrimination among providers and T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes2 when denying an application based on the availability of feasible site alternatives. 1 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005). 2 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009). Packet Page 121 of 383 City of Edmonds March 11, 2010 Page 3 {ERZ771018.DOC;2\00006.900000\ } III. Case Law Decided in June of 2009, T-Mobile provides significant guidance regarding the ability of cities to deny WCF siting applications. Prior to reviewing the facts and rulings of the case, it is important to note the stated goal of Congress and the FCC is to encourage the expansion of wireless networks. Recognizing this goal, the T-Mobile case clarifies the grounds on which a city may deny a WCF permit and the obligations of the parties to determine if there are alternative sites for the WCF in order to remedy gaps in service by that provider. 1. A city may deny a WCF permit but must do so based on “substantial evidence.” The 9th Circuit in an earlier decision3 determined that in order for a wireless provider to succeed in challenging a denial of a WCF siting, the provider must show actual or effective prohibition rather than just the mere possibility of prohibition.4 Any decision to deny a WCF must be in writing and based on substantial evidence contained in the written record and in the context of the state and local law.5 A court will investigate whether there is evidentiary support for the city’s decision based on the city’s own ordinances; the provider has the burden of proving that the city did not have substantial evidence for its denial. In Sprint, the 9th Circuit specifically addressed that certain zoning requirements such as camouflage, modest setbacks, height of the proposed tower, proximity of tower to residential structures, the surrounding topography, and maintenance of the facility6 are reasonable conditions for the construction of WCF and are not an effective prohibition. In the alternative, ordinances that require that WCF facilities be underground when the provider can show evidence that in order to operate the WCF must be above ground would be an effective prohibition. It is important to note that the T-Mobile decision does not require that a city act favorably upon an incomplete or insufficient application. For example, if the location is acceptable to the city but the provider failed to comply with a setback or camouflage requirement this is not effective prohibition. The 9th Circuit does recognize that planning boards should be allowed to exercise discretion when evaluating and balancing the goals of providing services with valid public goals of safety and aesthetics.7 In addition, detailed application requirements and public hearings do not constitute effective prohibition (but keep in mind the time limitations described above). 3 Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2008) (overturning City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 The Sprint decision harmonized the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of “effective prohibition” in §§ 253(a) and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the TCA, requiring that a wireless provider contesting a city’s decision establish “either an outright prohibition or an effective prohibition on the provision of telecommunications services; a plaintiff’s showing that a locality could potentially prohibit the provision of telecommunications services is insufficient.” Sprint, 543 F.3d at 579. 5 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) 6 This list is not exclusive. 7 See Sprint, 543 F.3d at 580. Packet Page 122 of 383 City of Edmonds March 11, 2010 Page 4 {ERZ771018.DOC;2\00006.900000\ } Even if a city has substantial evidence to deny the application, the next step the city must take is to consider whether there are any alternative locations that are available and feasible and if not, then the denial of a permit may constitute an effective prohibition. 2. A city cannot prevent a wireless provider from closing a “significant gap” in service coverage. In MetroPCS, the 9th Circuit recognized that a city may violate the effective prohibition clause of the TCA if it prevented a provider from closing a “significant gap” in service coverage. The provider must show that there is a significant gap in service in that area and an inquiry into the feasibility of alternative locations. A significant gap in service exists whenever a provider is prevented from filling a significant gap in its own service coverage.8 Determination of the existence of a significant gap is fact specific.9 In addition, the showing of a gap in coverage does not equate to the showing of a significant gap in coverage, the TCA does not guarantee that there will not be some dead spots in coverage.10 Once a provider can show that there is a significant gap in its service coverage it must show that the “manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in services is the lease intrusive on the values the denial sought to serve.”11 Effectively, the provider must show a meaningful comparison of alternative sites which gives the providers an incentive to choose the best solution for the community rather than merely the last remaining solution after a series of application denials. If a city then chooses to deny the application the provider has the burden of showing the lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives. If a provider can make an initial showing of effective prohibition, meaning that it has identified the least intrusive site and that there are no other technologically feasible alternatives, the burden then shifts to the city denying the application. The city must then show that there are some potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives, which the provider has the opportunity to refute. The T-Mobile case specifically found that an in-home service technology is not relevant to a determination of the least intrusive means and therefore is not a viable option because it is not a global system for mobile communications but must be separately purchased by individual customers. Accordingly, this type of alternative (for T-Mobile this service is called Hot Spot@ Home) has no effect on the significant gap analysis. In T-Mobile the court ultimately found that the City of Anacortes could not show the existence of an available and technically feasible location and therefore the denial of T-Mobile’s application was effective prohibition of the service. 8 MetroPCS, 400 F.3d at 733. 9 Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 583 F.3d 716 (2009). 10 Id. at 727. 11 Id. at 734. Packet Page 123 of 383 City of Edmonds March 11, 2010 Page 5 {ERZ771018.DOC;2\00006.900000\ } 3. A city cannot discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Providers alleging unreasonable discrimination must show that they have been treated differently from other providers whose WCF’s are “similarly situated.” This standard analyzes whether the proposed WCF is similarly situated to that of a competitor in terms of the “structure, placement or cumulative impact.”12 Neither the 9th Circuit nor the FCC Ruling prohibit a denial based on zoning regulations that preserve the character of a neighborhood or avoid aesthetic impairment. A bona fide zoning concern, rather than the mere presence of other carriers, is acceptable and does not constitute discrimination. As an additional example, a decision to allow a large tower in a commercial district does not require that the planning board also grant an application from a competitor to construct a similarly large tower in a residential district. IV. Radio Frequency Emissions A concern often raised by citizens is the health and environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (“RF Emissions”) from the WCF. The TCA prohibits zoning decisions based on concerns over RF Emissions if the WCF complies with the FCC emissions requirements.13 A city cannot deny an application based on concerns over even indirect environmental effects of RF Emissions, which can include reduction in property values due to fears of harmful health effects.14 In order to deny a WCF application a city must show other legitimate concerns to support the denial. V. Conclusion Though the City has the ultimate authority to determine whether or not to grant a WCF application, it must bear in mind the above rules and guidance by the FCC and the courts. Restrictions on the construction of WCF must be on legitimate grounds, and not based on discriminatory practices or the effects of RF Emissions. In addition, the City must be aware of timing requirements prescribed by the State and the FCC. 12 Id. at 727. 13 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 14 See AT&T Wireless Services of Cal. V. City of Carlsbad, 308 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (S.D. Cal 2003). Packet Page 124 of 383 AI-3116 7.b. Continued discussion on wireless facilities regulations. Planning Board Agenda Date:06/09/2010 Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Continued discussion on wireless facilities regulations. Staff Recommendation Finalize discussion on proposed updates to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 in advance of public hearing on July 28. Previous Board Action Board discussed possible updates to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 on April 28, 2010 (Attachment 1). Narrative As was discussed at the April 28 meeting, the Board wanted additional work in the following areas: 1) Rewording ECDC 20.50 to include specific reference to co-location, prioritization of sites, and the like. These changes are proposed using the University Place reg as a template for those certain portions of text (Attachment 2). Attachment 3 is ECDC 20.50 indicating the proposed updates, clarfied to fit the ECDC. 2) Plate references in 20.50 needed clarification. Attachment 3 indicates the clarification and labelling. 3) Attachment 4 is a summary matrix that may provide clarification about the types of facilities allowed in ECDC 20.50.010 - 20.50.060. This figure could be included in ECDC 20.50 if the Board wants. While clarification of ECDC 20.50 regarding co-location and site selection will help to better define the City's expection for wireless facilities, the proposed clarifications to ECDC 18.05 need further review to ensure adequate criteria are established for PUD pole retrofits (Attachment 5). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attachment 1 - PB minutes 4-28-10 excerpt Link: Attachment 2 - University Place wireless code Link: Attachment 3 - ECDC 20.50 proposed updates Link: Attachment 4 - Draft 20.50 matrix Link: Attachment 5 - ECDC 18.05 proposed updates Page 1 of 1Print Agenda Item 7/22/2010http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3116&mode=print&reloaded... Packet Page 125 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Rutledge advised that Board Member Clarke was present at the City Council meeting to present the Board’s recommendation for naming the new park (Haines Wharf), and he heard the recommendation made by Council Member Plunkett. However, Mr. Clarke has not attended any of the last four Board Meetings to address his concerns. He suggested the Board should be concerned that Board Member Clarke has missed so many meetings. Unless he is ill, he should be attending the meetings on a regular basis. Vice Chair Lovell recalled that after the last meeting, he made it a point to meet with Mr. McIntosh to discuss Mr. Rutledge’s proposal, and Mr. McIntosh informed him that a letter of response had already been sent to Mr. Rutledge. Mr. McIntosh emphasized that the names and signs that were installed at both Hickman and Haines Wharf Parks are exactly what was recommended by the Board and approved by the City Council. There has been no official follow up action taken to erect additional signs at either park. The sign at Hickman Park collectively thanks those who were instrumental in the parks creation, but it does not name specific individuals. There is also an additional sign in the playground area commemorating J.P. Patches. Mr. Rutledge recalled that the City Council moved to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation to name the north park Haines Wharf Park and to have Dale Caryl and other individuals recognized in a different manner. Then Council Member Plunkett suggested that Former Council Member Peggy Olsen also be recognized. If an additional sign is going to be erected at Haines Wharf Park, he would also like an additional sign at Hickman park to recognize the individuals who were instrumental in the park’s creation. He said he has a list of over 60 names that were submitted as potential park names. Again, he requested that parks staff obtain a copy of the City Council recording and listen to exactly what was said. Vice Chair Lovell clarified that the names on Mr. Rutledge’s list are those submitted by citizens as potential park names. They were not intended to be a list of individuals whose names should appear on a park sign. Mr. Rutledge referred to the proposed amendments related to temporary emergency indoor shelter regulations and said he works with local food banks. He said he has forwarded information to the food banks and invited them to attend the Board’s upcoming public hearing on the matter. DISCUSSION ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (WCF) REGULATIONS Mr. Snyder reported that a number of citizens have approached the City Council in the past months raising concerns about what they felt were deficiencies in the City’s wireless facility regulations, and there have been several cases in the past few years concerning the City’s ability to regulate the construction of WCFs (cellular towers and antennas). He explained that although the courts and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have not eliminated the ability of local governments to control the location and construction of WCFs through the permitting process, the FCC’s declaratory ruling issued in November 2009 and recent case law serve as restrictive guidelines for cities issuing permits to wireless communication providers. Mr. Snyder briefly reviewed the concerns that have been raised by the citizens and explained whether or not the City would have the ability to address the concerns through changes to their permit requirements. Public Property Preference. The City has the ability to enact legislation that encourages wireless communication providers to place the facilities on public property whenever possible. However, the City cannot require them to do so. Use of Existing Structure. While the City has the ability to encourage co-location, they cannot require it. It is not possible to require one provider to lease space from another. The City of University Place has an ordinance that encourages wireless communication providers to use existing structures (co-locate) whenever possible. No conditional use permit is required for facilities that are co-located on existing sites. This provision makes it easier for providers to locate new equipment. Non-Conforming Uses/Modification of Existing Facilities. The City has a limited ability to regulate legal non- conforming structures. However, unless they are willing to pay a property owner, the non-conforming use can continue until modifications are proposed. Replacement Structures. Staff has provided some good suggestions to address replacement structures. Inadequate Notice Requirements. Citizens have recommended that the City’s broadest type of notice (area-wide notice to properties within 300 feet) should be required for WCF permits. While it is hard to argue against having more Packet Page 126 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2010 Page 3 public involvement, the question is how much is enough. Rather than expanding the notice requirement for just this one type of permit, it would be more appropriate, if the Board wants to go in that direction, to increase the City’s most broad notice requirement. He cautioned against creating varying notice requirements, depending on the type of application. Requiring Applicants to Prove a Facility is Needed. The FCC limits the City’s ability to require an applicant to prove a facility is needed. The City can require applicants to prove that additional coverage is needed, but they cannot require them to prove there are no other provider has coverage in the area. The fact that another provider already has a facility in the area is not relevant. However, the City can encourage co-location to address the concern. Fall Zone. The fall zone is regulated by the State Electrical Code. Tower Lighting. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulations that control when a light should be placed on top of a tower. Radiation. The FCC has determined that local governments cannot regulate WCFs based on radiation. Not in Single-Family Neighborhoods. The majority of Edmonds is zoned single-family residential. If WCFs are not allowed in single-family zones, companies would not be able to provide adequate coverage. In addition, excluding the facilities from residential zones would run a fowl of the FCC regulations. Mr. Snyder summarized that there is nothing wrong with the City’s current WCF Regulations. They meet FCC Guidelines and comply with State Law. The current regulations have been in place for 10 to 15 years, and staff is proposing some minor amendments to address the citizen concerns. However, the Board should keep in mind that the FCC Guidelines significantly limit the City’s ability to address citizen concerns through amendments. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City Council asked the Planning Board to re-examine the existing siting requirements for WCFs within the City of Edmonds. He explained that WCFs located in zoned areas are regulated in Chapter 20.50 (Attachment 3) and WCFs within the City rights-of-way are regulated in the Utility Wires Chapter within the Public Works Code found in Title 18.05 (Attachment 4). He referred the Board to the changes staff is currently proposing and reviewed each as follows: 1.Move the public meeting requirement to before a WCF application being submitted rather than prior to installation. The current code requires an applicant to hold a public meeting with surrounding property owners within 300 feet, but the meeting does not take place until later in the process when it is often too late for citizen comments to impact an applicant’s decision. Staff’s thought is that it would be more useful to have citizen input upfront before a permit has been applied for. 2.Specify that only micro facilities may be located on Public Utility District (PUD) poles. As currently written, there does not appear to be a restriction on what can go on PUD poles located in a right-of-way since the right-of-way is not zoned. As per the current language, it appears that almost any type of facility can be retrofitted onto a PUD pole. Staff is suggesting this be limited specifically to micro facilities, which are the only ones identified in Chapter 20.50 as being allowed in single-family zones. 3.Clarify how the height would be determined. The City’s current method for determining height is sketchy, and staff has attempted to update the language to provide clarify. 4.Update the design review process from the ADB to staff. In general, WCF applications would be Type I Administrative Permits, and staff would review the applications based on the design standards in Title 18.05.030. 5.Update the variance provision to reflect changes in Title 20. Title 18.05 talks about the variance provision, but it has not been updated to be consistent with recent changes to Title 20. 6.Add design standards for retrofit appearance. This amendment would provide general guidelines and examples of how a micro facility has to blend in with the pole or the background. Vice Chair Lovell cautioned that what really drives WCFs is technology and, to a certain extent, the market. Whatever changes the City makes to their WCF Regulations must be consistent with the FCC Guidelines, which address safety, performance, technology, etc. He cautioned that the more regulations the City has, the more difficult it will be for staff to implement the requirements. He expressed his opinion that if the current regulations work, they should not be dramatically changed. However, he agreed with staff’s 1st recommendation to change the language to address the issue of large pre-cast concrete towers being erected in residential neighborhood without any opportunity for surrounding property owners to comment. The earlier the public learns of a proposal, the better. He also agreed that the 6th recommendation would be Packet Page 127 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2010 Page 4 appropriate to address aesthetic issues and require the facility to blend in with the existing neighborhood. He recommended no further changes be made if the regulations meet State Law and FCC Guidelines. City Attorney Snyder explained that there are some things the City can encourage to help address citizen concerns. For example, they could do more to encourage the use of public property and co-location. He said it would be simple to implement a priority list that would require an applicant to first consider opportunities to locate within public property or to co-locate on an existing facility. Locating within single-family zones should be the last priority and only allowed when there are no other alternatives. Chair Bowman asked if there are incentives the City can offer to encourage providers to consider opportunities to co-locate or locate on public properties first. City Attorney Snyder answered that establishing a priority list and requiring an applicant to consider other alternatives before allowing a WCF in a single-family neighborhood would be helpful. Conditional use permits are currently required for WCFs, and perhaps it would be appropriate for the City to eliminate this requirement when a WCF is located on public property. This would make the permit process much simpler by eliminating the public hearing requirement. He summarized that the City could make it more difficult to put WCFs in residential zones and easier to put them on public property. Chair Bowman expressed his belief that in the future, fewer and fewer people will have land lines for their home telephone service. There will have to be adequate coverage in the residential neighborhoods to meet the needs of customers. A safety concern could arise if coverage is not available in the case of an emergency. City Attorney Snyder recalled that in previous years it was popular for local jurisdictions to require providers to camouflage the poles, and sometimes the treatment created obnoxious situations. He noted that most cities have taller buildings that can accommodate three-foot panels to provide coverage, but the City’s maximum 30-foot height limit makes this alternative difficult. He summarized that topography is a particular problem in Edmonds. Board Member Reed recalled that a few years ago, the Board reviewed an application for a large concrete tower that was proposed to be placed in a residential neighborhood. The surrounding property owners ended up working out a solution with the provider to address their concerns. The newest situation involves a proposal to place a very tall tower in a residential neighborhood, and the neighbors did not receive notice until 10 days before construction was scheduled. He expressed his belief that requiring earlier notice would be appropriate to allow the community to work with providers at the earliest point possible. City Attorney Snyder explained that there is an overlap between Chapter 20.50 and Title 18.05. The City has fairly good regulations for new facilities, but the requirements are less clear for proposals to locate on existing facilities. He suggested the citizens would prefer small WCFs on existing structures throughout the community rather than new, very large towers. He summarized that because of the City’s existing topography, it is difficult to provide service to all areas. Using existing utility poles prevents the need to further intrude on residential properties. Board Member Stewart asked if staff has considered giving encouragement in the language regarding the impact of WCFs under the Endangered Species Act, which speaks to the tower structures being in the way of flight patterns of endangered birds. In addition, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service published voluntary guidelines for the siting of towers, which address the potential impact on migratory birds. As a sustainability piece, it will be important to at least raise the issue to potential applicants. She said she likes the idea of co-location whenever possible. In the spirit of sustainability, it is important to keep in mind that large poles will remain into the future. She referred to a application checklist created by the City of Sammamish, which requires an applicant to consider environmentally sensitive areas when siting their facilities. Given that the City has so much natural area, she hopes they give an opportunity for potential service providers to do the right thing and perhaps even fill out an environmental assessment if necessary to make sure everything is mitigated appropriately. City Attorney Snyder explained that most utility structures fall below the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) thresholds, but many communities have added self-certification requirements to their application process to certify that a facility complies with all state and federal environmental laws and is properly located. Packet Page 128 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2010 Page 5 Board Member Reed referred to Chapter 20.50, which represents the City’s current code language for WCFs. He noted that the language references “General Commercial (CG) zones as shown on Plate 5” quite often, yet there is no Plate 5 in the code at this time. He said the only CG zones he knows of are those in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and along the Highway 99 Corridor. However, there is a currently an application to convert property near the waterfront to a CG zone. City Attorney Snyder agreed to check with the City Clerk to locate Plate 5. Board Member Johnson referred to Attachment 1 (City Council Minutes of December 15, 2009) in which Mike Cooper indicated that an existing wood utility pole in his neighborhood was going to be replaced with an 88-foot pole. She also referred to Plate 2 in Chapter 20.50, which illustrates a microcell and indicates the equipment would be placed on a wooden utility pole at the 40-foot level, with some additional antenna. She suggested that perhaps the illustration is out-of-date with current industry standards because of the most recent application that called for a microcell to be placed on a large concrete tower. City Attorney Snyder clarified that the recent application was for a pole within the public right-of-way, which was subject to the Utility Standards in Title 18.05 rather than Chapter 20.50. He clarified that the issue of wooden versus concrete poles has been addressed. Board Member Johnson said it has been previously stated that only one type of WCF, the microcell, would be allowed to locate in a single-family area. However, it appears that a monopole could be as close as 60 feet to the lot line of a residential home because of the fall zone. She expressed concern that the regulations that provide for safety within the fall zone give the impression that single-family zones are protected in some way, but that is not really the case. City Attorney Snyder said the City’s ability to regulate issues related to the fall zone are governed by the State Electrical Code, which focuses on the safety of the installation and maintenance of the facilities rather than what would happen if they were to fall down. Board Member Johnson referred to the memorandum from City Attorney Snyder regarding the rules related to WCFs. The memorandum referenced a 9th Circuit Court decision (Sprint) that said that certain zoning requirements such as camouflage, modest setbacks, height of the proposed tower, proximity of tower to residential structures, surrounding topography, and maintenance of the facility are reasonable conditions for the construction of a WCF and are not effective prohibitions. She asked if there is anything more the City can do to further regulate WCFs that has not already been done. City Attorney Snyder said this is a policy question the Board must address. They could decide to completely revise the WCF ordinance, perhaps using the sample ordinance from the City of University Place as a starting place. The University Place ordinance is a finely-tuned ordinance that offers a few more protections than the City’s current ordinance. It address issues such as camouflage and co-location and also encourages the use of public property. Another option is to incorporate some of the staff’s recommendations to tighten the City’s existing ordinance. They could also include amendments that encourage providers to co-locate and to first consider opportunities to place the facilities on public property. Many communities have found that screening and camouflage are things of the past, and it is better to encourage smaller scale facilities. Board Member Stewart suggested the Board follow the latter suggestion and focus on addressing the issues of co-location, establishing a priority list to encourage location on public property, and moving up the public meeting requirement. The remainder of the Board concurred. Chair Bowman asked if the City has the ability to determine the location of WCFs. City Attorney Snyder answered that the City can determine the location through an application process, but they cannot decide an application based on the location of a competitor’s facility. Each company has the right to have its own working network. Board Member Reed questioned if requiring a public meeting prior to an application would be too early. On the other hand, it is not appropriate for surrounding property owners to find out about a project just days before the installation is scheduled to occur. He suggested that perhaps there is some middle ground. City Attorney Snyder commented that perhaps establishing a priority list for potential locations may help address the problem. The reality is that once a provider has leased or negotiated a co-location agreement, the chance of moving the facility to address neighborhood concerns is slim. The best approach is to identify alternatives early in the process. In addition to an earlier public meeting to discuss alternatives, it would also be appropriate to require an applicant to focus on a priority list for location, starting with public property. The City could prohibit a WCF from encroaching upon a single-family neighborhood unless there are no other alternative locations. He cautioned, however, that the City must be careful with the pre-application meeting concept. State Law has extremely strong vesting requirements, and requiring an applicant to do something before filing an application and vesting a Packet Page 129 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2010 Page 6 permit would not be allowed. They must make sure the public meeting requirement is not tied to the vesting of the application. Board Member Reed said he would support Recommendation 3 if staff feels it is necessary to clarify how height is measured. He suggested that providing clarity would help both the utility provider and the public understand the rules. Board Member Johnson suggested that proximity of a WCF to a residential structure could be addressed in the zoning requirements. City Attorney Snyder clarified that if the Board wants to take this approach, they must restructure the entire ordinance to include a discretionary review process. He said that, typically, an ordinance of this type would prohibit structures of more than a certain height in single-family residential zones unless a provider can show there is a coverage issue. Implementing this concept would require a much more involved process. If that is what the Board wants to do, he suggested they use the University Place regulation as a starting point. At the request of the Board, Mr. Clugston agreed to forward a copy of the University Place Ordinance to each of the Board Members. Mr. Clugston agreed that the Board could do a total rewrite of Chapters 20.50 and 18.05 and perhaps combine the material into a single chapter. However, he recommended the Board focus on addressing the issue of co-location and establishing a priority list to require applicants to consider opportunities to location on public property first. They could also consider an amendment that would move the public meeting requirement to earlier in the process. The Board agreed this would be the best approach. Mr. Clugston indicated he would prepare code language for the Board’s review on June 9th in preparation for the public hearing that is scheduled for July 19th. He agreed to review the University Place Ordinance and incorporate the site selection and co-location criteria into the Chapter 20.50 language. Chair Bowman suggested the draft language also include incentives to encourage applicants to use small micro facilities as opposed to large monopoles. City Attorney Snyder referred to the Anacortes court case, which clarifies the grounds on which a city may deny a WCF permit and the obligations of the parties to determine if there are alternative sites. He pointed out that providers have engineers on staff to evaluate their coverage, file applications and provide scientific evidence to support their applications. The burden then shifts to the surrounding property owners to complete scientific studies and challenge the applications in a short period of time. While the City could impose a technical requirement, he questioned if citizens have enough money to acquire scientific information in a timely fashion to create a record that would support denial of an application. He suggested the citizens would benefit more by having clear priorities and encouraging public comments early enough that the provider can address the concerns as part of an application. DISCUSSION ON CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES City Attorney Snyder advised that civil enforcement provisions are common throughout the State. As per the City’s current code, when someone violates a code requirement, the typical route of enforcement is for the City to notify the individual of the issue and then give an opportunity for the person to correct the problem. If the problems is not corrected, the City sends out a notice of violation, and a hearing is scheduled before the Hearing Examiner. At the hearing, the Hearing Examiner can issue a continuing violation, which requires that the person either correct the violation or be fined each day the violation continues. He said the current provisions were adopted in the 1990s because they saved the City time and money as opposed to prosecuting the violation in municipal court. However, in a November 2009 Decision, Post versus Tacoma, the State Supreme Court determined that in order to impose a penalty, a local jurisdiction must provide an individual notice and opportunity for hearing for each and every penalty that is levied. Fines cannot accrue based on one notice and hearing. The proposed amendments would update the City’s civil enforcement procedures to be consistent with State Law. City Attorney Snyder referred to the court case, Reedy versus Thueson, in which Mr. Reedy feels that justice was not done to him in the code enforcement process. Since this court case, a number of changes were made to Title 18 to clarify the appeal route for all of the technical code provisions. City Attorney Snyder advised that he would prepare a draft ordinance for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting that incorporates the decision made by the State Supreme Court, and also attempt to make the language more user-friendly to address issues raised by Mr. Reedy. He suggested that Mr. Reedy may come before the Board to share his experience. He may also provide other recommendations for potential code amendments to address his concerns. Packet Page 130 of 383 Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Sections: 23.45.010 Purpose. 23.45.020 Definitions. 23.45.030 Exemptions. 23.45.040 Policy statement. 23.45.050 Application of this chapter to wireless facilities for governmental entities. 23.45.060 Recognition of industry site selection criteria. 23.45.070 Site selection criteria. 23.45.080 Priority of locations. 23.45.090 Siting priority on public property. 23.45.100 Required submittals and testing. 23.45.110 Co-location. 23.45.120 Design criteria. 23.45.130 Permits required. 23.45.140 Inspection requirements. 23.45.160 Non-use/abandonment. 23.45.170 Third party review. 23.45.180 Violation – Penalty. 23.45.010 Purpose. A. These standards were developed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to protect property values and minimize visual impact while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunications services in the city and providing for wireless communications necessary for governmental purposes. These standards were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this title are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This title shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. B. To the extent that any provision of this title is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance, this title shall control. Otherwise, this title shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the city. C. In reviewing any application to provide personal wireless service, to install personal wireless service facilities or to provide for wireless facilities necessary for governmental purposes, the city shall act within a reasonable period of time, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city shall approve, approve with condition, or deny the application in accordance with the time frames set forth in UPMC Title 22, Administration of Development Regulations, and in accordance with other applicable ordinances. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this title, the following terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them below: Page 1 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 131 of 383 “Abandonment” means: (1) to cease operation for a period of 60 or more consecutive days; (2) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by 75 percent for 60 or more consecutive days; (3) to relocate an antenna at a point less than 80 percent of the height of an antenna support structure; or (4) to reduce the number of transmissions from an antenna by 75 percent for 60 or more consecutive days. “Antenna” means any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, data, internet, or television communications through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves, and includes equipment attached to a tower or building for the purpose of providing personal wireless services, including unlicensed wireless telecommunications services, wireless telecommunications services utilizing frequencies authorized by the Federal Communications Commission for “cellular,” “enhanced specialized mobile radio” and “personal communications services,” telecommunications services, and its attendant base station. “Antenna height” means the vertical distance measured from the base of the antenna support structure at grade to the highest point of the structure even if said highest point is an antenna. Measurement of tower height shall include antenna, base pad, and other appurtenances and shall be measured from the finished grade of the parcel. If the support structure is on a sloped grade, then the average between the highest and lowest grades shall be used in calculating the antenna height. “Antenna support structure” means any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports a device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio frequency signals. “Applicant” means any provider or any person, partnership, or company who files an application for any permit necessary to install, maintain, or remove a personal wireless service facility within the city. “Balloon test” means a test for a reasonable period of time, not less than three consecutive workdays, whereby a balloon of sufficient size to replicate the size of the top of a proposed tower and antenna array is tethered to the ground at the location of the proposed base for a pending new tower application and the balloon is suspended at the height that replicates the height of the proposed tower and antenna array. No trees shall be removed to conduct the balloon test. “Camouflaged” means a personal wireless service facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole or tower, or a personal wireless service facility that is placed within an existing or proposed structure, or new structure, tower, or mount within trees so as to be significantly screened from view. “Cell site” or “site” means a tract or parcel of land that contains personal wireless service facilities including any antenna, support structure, accessory buildings, and parking, and may include other uses associated with and ancillary to personal wireless services. “City center area” means a circular area extending 700 feet in radius from the center of the intersection of 40th Street West and Bridgeport Way West, together with a rectangular area extending 450 feet east and west from the centerline of Bridgeport Way between 35th Street West and 44th Street West. “Co-location” means the use of a personal wireless service facility or cell site by more than one personal wireless service provider. “Conditional use permit” or “CUP” means a process and approval as described in UPMC Title 22, Administration of Development Regulations, and in the UPMC Title 19, Zoning. “COW” means “cell on wheels.” “Design” means the appearance of personal wireless service facilities, including Page 2 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 132 of 383 such features as their materials, colors, and shape. “EIA” means the Electronics Industry Association. “Equipment enclosure” means a structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning, backup power supplies and emergency generators. “FAA” means the Federal Aviation Administration. “FCC” means the Federal Communications Commission. “Governing authority” means the city council of the city of University Place. “Governmental entity” means the state of Washington, Pierce County, the city, municipally owned utilities, and special purpose districts including the school, fire and library districts. “Hearings examiner” means the duly appointed hearings examiner of the city. “Modification” means the changing of any portion of a personal wireless service facility from its description in a previously approved permit. Examples include, but are not limited to, changes in design. “Mount” means the structure or surface upon which personal wireless service facilities are mounted. There are three types of mounts: 1. Building Mounted. A personal wireless service facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building. 2. Ground Mounted. A personal wireless service facility mount fixed to the ground, such as a tower. 3. Structure Mounted. A personal wireless service facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, utility poles, and bridges. “Personal wireless service,” “personal wireless service facilities,” and “facilities” used in this title shall be defined in the same manner as in Title 47, United States Code, Section 332(c)(7)(C), as they may be amended now or in the future, and includes facilities for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for communication, cellular phone, personal communications services, enhanced specialized mobile radio, and any other wireless services licensed by the FCC and unlicensed wireless services. “Provider” means every corporation, company, association, joint stock company, firm, partnership, limited liability company, other entity and individual that provides personal wireless service over personal wireless service facilities. “Public facility permit” or “PFP” means a process and approval as described in UPMC Title 22, Administration of Development Regulations, and in the UPMC Title 19, Zoning. “Screening” means a personal wireless telecommunications facility such as a tower or mount placed amongst and adjacent to (within 20 feet) three or more trees at least 75 percent of the height of the facility. “Secondary use” means a use subordinate to the principle use of the property, such as commercial, residential, utilities, etc. “Security barrier” means a wall, fence, or berm that has the purpose of sealing a personal wireless service facility from unauthorized entry or trespass. “Tower” means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers, or monopole towers. The term encompasses personal wireless service facilities including radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, cellular telephone towers or personal communications services towers, alternative tower structures, and the like. “Unlicensed wireless services” means commercial mobile services that operate on Page 3 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 133 of 383 public frequencies and do not need an FCC license. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.030 Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones: A. Industrial processing equipment and scientific or medical equipment using frequencies regulated by the FCC. B. Antennas and related equipment no more than three feet in height that are being stored, shipped, or displayed for sale. C. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. D. Wireless radio utilized for temporary emergency communications in the event of a disaster. E. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations. F. Satellite dish antennas less than two meters in diameter, including direct to home satellite services, when used as a secondary use of the property. G. Routine maintenance or repair of a personal wireless service facility and related equipment (excluding structural work or changes in height or dimensions of antennas, towers, or buildings); provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter are maintained. H. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a personal wireless service facility until 30 days after the completion of such emergency activity. I. A COW or other temporary personal wireless telecommunications facility shall be permitted for a maximum of 90 days or during an emergency declared by the city. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.040 Policy statement. A. The city, with increasing frequency, has been confronted with requests to locate towers and antennas. The purpose of this chapter is to establish general guidelines for the siting of towers and antennas. The goals of this chapter are to: (i) enhance the ability of personal wireless service providers to provide such services throughout the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently; (ii) encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antenna in nonresidential areas; (iii) encourage personal wireless service providers to co-locate on new and existing tower sites; (iv) encourage personal wireless service providers to locate towers and antennas, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on city residents is minimal; (v) encourage personal wireless service providers to configure towers and antennas in a way that minimizes any significant adverse visual impact; and (vi) provide for the wireless communications needs of governmental entities. Accordingly, the city council finds that the promulgation of this chapter is warranted and necessary: 1. To manage the location of towers and antennas in the city; 2. To protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of towers; 3. To minimize adverse visual impacts of towers through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; 4. To accommodate an increased need for towers to serve the wireless communications needs of city residents; 5. To promote and encourage co-location on existing and new towers as an option rather than construction of additional single-use towers, and to reduce the Page 4 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 134 of 383 number of such structures needed in the future; 6. To consider the public health and safety of towers to the extent permitted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and 7. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through sound engineering practices and the proper siting of antenna support structures. B. New Uses. All new antennas shall comply with this chapter after the date of passage. C. Existing Uses. All towers and antennas existing on the date of passage of this chapter shall be allowed to continue as they presently exist, but will be considered nonconforming uses. Routine maintenance shall be permitted on existing towers and antennas. However, new construction other than routine maintenance on existing towers, antennas, buildings or other facilities shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.050 Application of this chapter to wireless facilities for governmental entities. All sections of this chapter, except UPMC 23.45.060, apply to the wireless communications facilities for governmental entities. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.060 Recognition of industry site selection criteria. In establishing a new site, the industry requires a location that is technically compatible with the established network. A general area is to be identified based upon engineering constraints and the desired area of service. Specific locations within that general area will be evaluated using the following criteria which are not listed in order of priority: A. Topography as it relates to line of sight transmissions for optimum efficiency in telephone service. B. Availability of road access. C. Availability of electric power. D. Availability of land based telephone lines or microwave link capability. E. Leasable lands, and landlords who want facilities to be located on their properties consistent with zoning regulations. F. Screening potential of existing vegetation, structures and topographic features. G. Zoning that will allow low power mobile radio service facilities. H. Compatibility with adjacent land uses. I. The least number of sites to cover the desired area. J. The greatest amount of coverage, consistent with physical requirements. K. Opportunities to mitigate possible visual impact. L. Availability of suitable existing structures for antenna mounting. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.070 Site selection criteria. A. Any applicant proposing to construct an antenna support structure, or mount an antenna on an existing structure, shall evaluate different sites to determine which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant’s local grid system. If the applicant proposes a site that does not provide the best opportunities for screening and camouflaging then the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best screened and camouflaged and why the the Page 5 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 135 of 383 antenna must be located at the proposed site. Further, the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that the height requested is the minimum height necessary to fulfill the site’s function within the grid system. B. Applications for necessary permits will only be processed when the applicant demonstrates either that it is an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider or that it has agreements with an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the support structure. C. Low power mobile radio service facilities shall be located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values. Facilities shall be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. D. In all zones, location and design of facilities shall consider the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood and the visual impact within the zone district. In all zones, towers shall be significantly screened by placing them in trees to the extent that it does not result in significant signal degradation. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.080 Priority of locations. The order of priorities for locating new personal wireless service facilities shall be as follows: A. Place antennas and towers on public property if practical. B. Place antennas on appropriate rights-of-way and existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers in the light industrial-business park, mixed use, mixed use-office, neighborhood commercial and commercial zones. C. Place antennas and towers in districts zoned light industrial-business park. D. Place antennas and towers in areas zoned mixed use-office, mixed use, neighborhood commercial, and commercial on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. E. Place antennas and towers on other nonresidential property. F. Place antennas on multifamily residential structures exceeding 30 feet in height. G. Place antennas and towers in the town center zone on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. H. Place antennas and towers in R1 and R2 residential zones or the MF multifamily zone (1) only if locations are not available on existing structures or in nonresidential districts; and (2) only on or in existing churches, parks, schools, gun clubs, cemeteries, utility facilities, or appropriate public facilities. 1. An applicant that wishes to locate a new antenna support structure in a residential zone shall demonstrate that a diligent effort has been made to locate the proposed communications facilities on a government facility, a private institutional structure, or other appropriate existing structures within a nonresidential zone, and that due to valid considerations including physical constraints, and economic or technological feasibility, no appropriate location is available. 2. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they: (i) have contacted the owners of structures in excess of 30 feet within a one-quarter mile radius of the site proposed and which from a location standpoint could provide part of a network for transmission of signals; (ii) have asked for permission to install the antenna on those structures; and (iii) were denied for reasons other than economic feasibility. 3. The information submitted by the applicant shall include (i) a map of the area to be served by the tower or antenna, (ii) its relationship to other cell sites in the applicant’s network, and (iii) an evaluation of existing buildings taller than 30 feet, within one-quarter mile of the proposed tower or antenna which from a location Page 6 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 136 of 383 standpoint could provide part of a network to provide transmission of signals. 4. A conditional use or public facility permit is required for all personal wireless facilities located in an R1, R2 or MF zone. (Ord. 384 § 1, 2003; Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.090 Siting priority on public property. A. Where public property is sought to be utilized by an applicant, priority for the use of city-owned land for wireless antennas and towers will be given to the following entities in descending order: 1. City of University Place; 2. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services, which are not part of the city of University Place and private entities with a public safety agreement with the city of University Place; 3. Other governmental entities, for uses which are not related to public safety; and 4. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), data, internet, paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. B. Minimum Requirements. The placement of personal wireless service facilities on city-owned property must comply with the following requirements: 1. The facilities will not interfere with the purpose for which the city-owned property is intended; 2. The facilities will have no significant adverse impact on surrounding private property; 3. The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance naming the city as loss payee and commit to a lease agreement that includes equitable compensation for the use of public land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The city shall establish fees after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the city, and other appropriate factors; 4. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the city to cover the costs of removing the facilities; 5. The antennas or towers will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in UPMC 23.45.080; 6. The lease shall provide that the applicant must agree that in the case of a declared emergency or documented threat to public health, safety or welfare and following reasonable notice the city may require the applicant to remove the facilities at the applicant’s expense; 7. The applicant must reimburse the city for any related costs that the city incurs because of the presence of the applicant’s facilities; 8. The applicant must obtain all necessary land use approvals; and 9. The applicant must cooperate with the city’s objective to encourage co- locations and thus limit the number of cell sites requested. C. Special Requirements for Parks. The use of city-owned parks for personal wireless service facilities brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of personal wireless service facilities in a park will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met: 1. The parks and recreation commission has reviewed and made a recommendation regarding proposed personal wireless service facilities to be located in the park and this recommendation must be forwarded to the city council for consideration; Page 7 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 137 of 383 2. In no case shall personal wireless service facilities be allowed in designated critical areas (except aquifer recharge areas) unless they are co-located on existing facilities; 3. Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks, visual impacts and disruption of normal public use shall be mitigated; 4. Personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial zone; 5. Personal wireless service facilities may be located in park maintenance facilities. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.100 Required submittals and testing. Required submittals include: A. Applications for conditional use permit, public facility permit, administrative use permit, or building permit. A balloon test is required for any wireless facility that needs a conditional use or public facility permit; B. The balloon test shall be conducted prior to the hearing on the permit application. The purpose of the balloon test is to enable the applicant, abutting and neighboring property owners, and the city to better understand the height and visual impact of the proposed tower and antenna array and to provide useful evidence for consideration before the hearings examiner on the permit application. A balloon test is also required when an application proposes to add 20 feet or more to the height of an existing wireless facility; C. Other related requests may include any combination of site plans, surveys, maps, technical reports, or written narratives necessary to convey the following information in addition to the requirements of UPMC Title 22, Administration of Development Regulations, and other applicable ordinances; D. If a balloon test is not required then a photo-simulation of the proposed facility from affected residential properties and public rights-of-way at varying distances must be provided. If a balloon test is required, then photos of the balloon test from six locations located approximately 300 feet from the base of the proposed tower and spaced evenly around the proposed tower shall be submitted within two weeks after the commencement of the balloon test; E. A site elevation and landscaping plan indicating the specific placement of the facility on the site, the location of existing structures, trees, and other significant site features, the type and location of plant materials used to screen the facility, and the proposed color(s) of the facility; F. A signed statement indicating that (1) the applicant and landowner agree they will diligently negotiate in good faith to facilitate co-location of additional personal wireless service facilities by other providers on the applicant’s structure or within the same site location, and (2) the applicant and/or landlord agree to remove the facility within 60 days after abandonment; G. Copies of any environmental documents required by any federal agency. These shall include the environmental assessment required by FCC Para. 1.1307, or, in the event that an FCC environmental assessment is not required, a statement that describes the specific factors that obviate the requirement for an environmental assessment; H. A site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed tower or antenna support structure and antenna, accessory buildings, fencing, landscaping, other on-site land uses and zoning, adjacent land uses and zoning, adjacent roadways, proposed means of access, setbacks from property lines, elevation Page 8 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 138 of 383 drawings of the proposed tower, and all other items required in this chapter; I. A current map and aerial showing the location of the proposed tower, a map showing the locations and service areas of other personal wireless service facilities operated by the applicant and those proposed by the applicant that are close enough to impact service within the city; J. Legal description of the parcel, if applicable; K. The approximate distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential unit, platted residentially zoned properties, and unplatted residentially zoned properties; L. A landscape plan showing specific landscape materials; M. Method of fencing, and finished color and, if applicable, the method of camouflage and illumination; N. A letter signed by the applicant stating the tower will comply with all FAA regulations and EIA standards and all other applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations; O. A statement by the applicant that the design of the tower will accommodate co- location of additional antennas for future users; P. The telecommunications company must demonstrate that it is licensed by the FCC if required to be licensed under FCC regulations; Q. The applicant, if not the telecommunications service provider, shall submit proof of lease agreements with an FCC licensed telecommunications provider if such telecommunications provider is required to be licensed by the FCC; and R. At the time of site selection, the applicant should demonstrate how the proposed site fits into its overall network within the city. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.110 Co-location. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers, co- location of personal wireless service facilities on existing or new towers is encouraged as follows: A. Proposed facilities may, and are encouraged to, co-locate onto existing towers. B. The conditional use or public facility permit requirement for a facility will be waived in nonresidential zones if the applicant locates the antenna on an existing structure or an existing tower unless additional height requires a conditional use permit. Any co-location must be accomplished in a manner consistent with the policy, site criteria, and landscape/screening provisions contained in this chapter. The applicant must submit detailed plans to the community development director for an administrative use permit to determine if the conditional use or public facility permit process and public hearing can be waived. No building permit will be issued until approval is granted by an administrative use permit or conditional use or public facility permit. C. The city may deny an application to construct new facilities if the applicant has not shown by substantial evidence that it has made a diligent effort to mount the facilities on an existing structure or tower. D. To reduce the number of antenna support structures needed in the city in the future, new proposed support structures shall be designed to accommodate antennas for more than one user, unless the applicant demonstrates why such design is not feasible for technical or physical reasons. E. Unless co-location is not feasible: (i) an applicant’s site plan shall reserve an area for other providers’ equipment near the base of the applicant’s tower. A first right-of-refusal (which is either executed or maintained while the providers personal Page 9 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 139 of 383 wireless facilities and services are in use) to lease the area at the base of the tower or mount for other providers will meet the reservation requirement; and (ii) the site plan for towers in excess of 100 feet above ground level must propose space for two comparable providers, while the site plan for towers 100 feet or less must propose space for one comparable provider. F. All personal wireless service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall cooperate in good faith to accommodate co-location with competitors. If a dispute arises about the feasibility of co-locating, the city manager may require a third party technical study, at the expense of either or both parties, to resolve the dispute. G. While co-location and the requirements herein are encouraged, co-location shall not take precedence over the construction of shorter towers with appropriate screening. (Ord. 423 § 111, 2004; Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.120 Design criteria. A. As provided above, new facilities shall be designed to accommodate co- location, unless the applicant demonstrates why such design is not feasible for economic, technical, or physical reasons. B. Facilities shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings and land uses in the zoning district and screened or otherwise integrated, through location and design, to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site. 1. Setback. A tower’s setback shall be measured from the base of the tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. In R1, R2 or multifamily zones or where a proposed tower is on property abutting a residential use, towers shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to 100 percent of tower height as measured from ground level. However, if there are unusual geographical limitations or if better screening can be achieved, setbacks may be reduced at the city’s discretion. All towers shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. When making a discretionary decision to reduce setbacks, considerations shall include by way of illustration and not limitation: a. Impact on adjacent properties; b. Alternative sites for personal wireless facilities; and c. The extent to which screening and camouflaging will mitigate the effects of the personal wireless facilities. 2. Right-of-Way Setback Exception. The setback requirement is waived if the antenna and antenna support structure are located in the city right-of-way provided antenna is attached to an existing utility pole and does not increase the height of the utility pole and/or extend above the utility pole by more than 10 feet. Wireless facilities attached to utility poles are only permitted in the light industrial-business park, mixed use, mixed use-office, neighborhood commercial and commercial zones subject to license or franchise agreements with the city. 3. Tower and Antenna Height. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the tower and antenna is the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need. No tower or antenna that is taller than this minimum height shall be approved. No tower or mount together with antenna shall exceed 60 feet in residential R1, R2 or multifamily zones or 110 feet in the light industrial-business park, commercial, neighborhood commercial, mixed use, mixed use-office and town center zones. Towers or mounts and antenna shall not exceed 60 feet in the city center area. 4. Tower Separation. In no case shall towers be located closer than 500 feet from another tower whether it is owned or utilized by applicant or another provider, Page 10 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 140 of 383 unless the city designates areas where multiple towers can be located in closer proximity. 5. View Corridors. Due consideration shall be given so that placement of towers, antennas, and personal wireless service facilities do not obstruct or significantly diminish views from public areas of Mt. Rainier, Puget Sound or the Olympic Mountains. 6. Color. Towers shall have a color generally matching the surroundings or background that minimizes their visibility, unless a different color is required by the FCC or FAA. 7. Signs. No signs, banners or similar devices or materials may be attached to the tower, antenna support structures or antennas. 8. Lights, Signals and Signs. No signals, lights, or signs shall be permitted on towers unless required by the FCC or the FAA. Should lighting be required, in cases where there are residents located within a distance that is 300 percent of the height of the tower, then dual mode lighting shall be requested from the FAA. 9. Fencing. A well-constructed wall or wooden fence not less than six feet in height from the finished grade shall be provided around each personal wireless service facility. Access to the tower shall be through a locked gate. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl, or wire fencing is prohibited unless it is fully screened from public view by a minimum eight-foot-wide landscaping strip. 10. Landscaping. a. Landscaping. Landscaping, as described herein, shall be required to buffer personal wireless service facilities as much as possible, to soften the appearance of the cell site. The city may permit any combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features instead of landscaping, if they achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping. If the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, landscaping shall not be required. b. Buffers. The visual impacts of a personal wireless service facility shall be mitigated through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower and ancillary structures. The following landscaping and buffering shall be required around the perimeter of the tower and accessory structures, except that the city may waive the standards for those sides of the facility that are not in public view. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Further, existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping requirements. i. A row of evergreen trees a minimum of six feet tall at planting a maximum of six feet apart shall be planted around the perimeter of the fence. ii. A continuous hedge at least 36 inches high at planting capable of growing to at least 48 inches in height within 18 months shall be planted in front of the tree line referenced above. iii. To guarantee required landscaping the applicant shall provide the city with an 18-month landscape maintenance guarantee in accordance with UPMC 19.25.230(B). iv. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level after the 18-month landscape guarantee period, the city after giving 30 days’ advance written notice may maintain or establish the landscaping and bill both the owner and lessee for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 11. Screening. Screening, camouflaging or otherwise integrating a telecommunications facility into existing structures on the site in order to make the facility as visually unobtrusive as possible shall take priority over increased height to Page 11 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 141 of 383 accommodate co-location. A personal wireless telecommunications facility shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing “character” (as defined in Chapter 19.10 UPMC) of the site so as to be visually unobtrusive or screened. To be considered screened, the tower or mount shall be placed amongst and adjacent to (within 20 feet) the drip line of three or more trees at least 75 percent of the height of the facility. To ensure the screening trees are preserved the following note shall be recorded on the property title: All trees within 50 feet of the telecommunications facility located on this property, which serve to screen the telecommunications facility, shall be retained for the life of the telecommunications facility. Screening trees may only be removed if deemed diseased or dangerous by a certified arborist. Before any trees can be removed a report from the certified arborist shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Unless approved by the City, only that portion of the tree required to remove the hazard can be removed. 12. Required Parking. If the cell site is fully automated, adequate parking shall be required for maintenance workers. If the site is not automated, arrangements for adequate off-street parking shall be made and documentation thereof provided to the city. Security fencing should be colored or should be of a design which blends into the “character” (as defined in Chapter 19.10 UPMC) of the existing environment. 13. Antenna Criteria. Antenna on or above a structure shall be subject to the following: a. The antenna shall be architecturally compatible with the building and wall on which it is mounted, and shall be designed and located so as to minimize any adverse aesthetic impact. b. The antenna shall be mounted on a wall of an existing building in a configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted unless it must be for technical reasons. In no event shall an antenna project more than 16 feet above the roof line including parapets. c. The antenna shall be constructed, painted, or fully screened to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the building and wall on which it is mounted. d. The antenna may be attached to an existing conforming mechanical equipment enclosure which projects above the roof of the building, but may not project any higher than the enclosure. e. If an accessory equipment shelter is present, it must blend with the surrounding buildings in architectural character and color. f. The antenna and any accessory buildings must be architecturally and visually (color, size, bulk) compatible with surrounding existing buildings, structures, vegetation, and uses. Such facilities will be considered architecturally and visually compatible if they are camouflaged to disguise the facility. g. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the site as much as possible. Existing vegetation should be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography of the site should be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site on the surrounding area. The effectiveness of visual mitigation techniques must be evaluated by the city, in the city’s sole discretion. h. On buildings 30 feet or less in height, the antenna may be mounted on the roof if the following additional criteria are satisfied: i. The city finds that it is not technically possible or aesthetically desirable to mount the antenna on a wall. Page 12 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 142 of 383 ii. No portion of the antenna, base station or screening causes the building to exceed the maximum height allowed in the zone. iii. Roof mounted antenna and related base stations are completely screened from view by materials that are consistent and compatible with the design, color, and materials of the building. iv. No portion of the antenna may exceed 16 feet above the height of the existing building. i. For antenna attached to the roof or sides of a building at least 30 feet in height, an existing tower, a water tank, or a similar structure, the antenna must be either: i. An omni-directional or whip antenna no more than seven inches in diameter and extending no more than 16 feet above the structure to which they are attached; or ii. A panel antenna no more than two feet wide and six feet long, extending above the structure to which they are attached by no more than 10 feet. iii. Antenna, antenna arrays, and support structures not on publicly- owned property shall not extend more than 16 feet above the highest point of the structure on which they are mounted. The antenna, antenna array, and their support structure shall be mounted so as to blend with the structure to which the antenna is attached. The antenna and its support structure shall be designed to withstand a wind force of 100 miles per hour without the use of supporting guy wires. The antenna, antenna array, and their support structure shall be a color that blends with the structure on which they are mounted. j. Guy Wires Restricted. No guy or other support wires shall be used in connection with such antenna, antenna array, or its support structure except when used to anchor the antenna, antenna array, or support structure to an existing building to which such antenna, antenna array, or support structure is attached. k. If a proposed antenna is located on a building or a lot subject to a land use permit, approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. l. No person shall locate an antenna or tower for wireless communications services upon any lot or parcel except as provided in this chapter. 14. Equipment Structures. a. Ground level equipment, buildings, and the tower base shall be screened from public view. The standards for the equipment buildings are as follows: i. The maximum floor area is 300 square feet and the maximum height is 12 feet. Except in unusual circumstances or for other public policy considerations, the equipment building may be located no more than 250 feet from the tower or antenna. Depending upon the aesthetics and other issues, the city, in its sole discretion, may approve multiple equipment structures or one or more larger structures. ii. Ground level buildings shall be screened from view by landscape plantings, fencing, or other appropriate means, as specified herein or in other city ordinances. iii. In instances where equipment buildings are located in residential zones, equipment buildings shall comply with setback requirements and shall be designed so as to conform in appearance with nearby residential structures. b. Roof Mounted. Equipment buildings mounted on a roof shall have a finish similar to the exterior building walls. Equipment for roof-mounted antenna may also be located within the building on which the antenna is mounted. c. Equipment buildings, antenna, and related equipment shall occupy no more than 25 percent of the total roof area of the building the facility is mounted on, Page 13 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 143 of 383 which may vary in the city’s sole discretion if co-location and an adequate screening structure is used. 15. Federal Requirements. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If those standards and regulations are changed, then personal wireless service providers governed by this chapter shall bring their towers and antennas into compliance with the revised standards and regulations within three months of their effective date or the timelines provided by the revised standards and regulations, whichever time period is longer. The revised standards and regulations are not retroactively applicable to existing providers, unless otherwise provided or permitted by federal law. Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance with the revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the city to remove a provider’s facilities at the provider’s expense. 16. Building Codes – Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a tower shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable city building codes and the applicable standards for towers that are published by the Electronic Industries Association (EIA), as amended from time to time. If, upon inspection, the city concludes that a tower fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall have 30 days to bring the tower into compliance with such standards. If the owner fails to bring its tower into compliance within 30 days, the city may remove the tower at the owner’s expense. 17. Structural Design. Towers shall be constructed to the EIA standards, which may be amended from time to time, and to all applicable construction/building codes. Further, any improvements or additions to existing towers shall require submission of site plans stamped by a professional engineer that demonstrates compliance with the EIA standards and all other good industry practices. The plans shall be submitted and reviewed at the time building permits are requested. No personal wireless service provider or lessee shall fail to assure that its antenna complies at all times with the current applicable FCC RF Emission standards. After installation, but prior to putting the antenna in service, each provider shall submit a certification by an independent professional engineer to that effect. In the event that an antenna is co-located with another antenna, the certification must provide assurances that FCC approved levels of electromagnetic radiation will not be exceeded by the co-location. 18. Antenna Support Structure Safety. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed antenna and support structure are safe and the surrounding areas will not be negatively affected by support structure failure, falling ice, or other debris or interference. All support structures shall be fitted with anti-climbing devices, as approved by the manufacturers. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.130 Permits required. In addition to the other provisions of this chapter, the following permits are required unless otherwise stated: A. An administrative use permit is required for a tower or antenna support structure together with antenna 60 feet or less in height in the light industrial-business park, mixed use, mixed use-office, town center, neighborhood commercial and commercial zones. Page 14 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 144 of 383 B. A conditional use or public facility permit is required for any tower, antenna support structure and/or antenna located in an R1 or R2, public facility or multifamily zone. C. A conditional use permit or public facility permit is required for a tower, antenna support structure and/or antenna more than 60 feet in height, in all other zones. D. Antennas mounted on existing structures in the light industrial-business park, commercial, neighborhood commercial, mixed use, mixed use-office and town center zones which will not exceed the maximum building height allowed in the zone do not require an administrative use permit but may be permitted following an administrative review and submittal of an affidavit of compliance, with this chapter and other city regulations. E. If a wireless facility is not greater than 1.5 cubic feet in size, has two or fewer antennas that are no more than two feet in length, and is attached to an existing electric, telephone or light pole at a height no lower than 15 feet above ground in nonresidential districts of the city, then only administrative use and building permit review are required. Such a facility shall not be subject to setbacks and screening requirements. F. A variance from the height limit may be granted if the applicant can show by evidence that the additional height is necessary to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and no other alternative is available. When granting a variance the examiner shall require that a significant portion of the of the tower and related facilities be screened by existing trees or existing structures. In the city center area, a variance may only be granted in extraordinary circumstances. 1. The purpose of this subsection is to provide a means of increasing the maximum height of tower and antenna in specific instances where the strict application of those limits would deprive a tower or antenna operator from achieving the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need. 2. The examiner shall have the authority to grant a variance from the maximum height allowed for tower or antenna when, in his/her opinion, the conditions as set forth in subsection (F)(3) of this section have been found to exist. In such cases a variance may be granted which is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. 3. Before a height variance can be granted, it shall be shown that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: a. That there is evidence that additional height is required to provide adequate service to the residents of the city and that no other alternative is available; b. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as shape, topography, location, or surroundings that prevent the operator from achieving the minimum height required to meet the proven communications need; c. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity; d. That any visual impacts will be mitigated to the greatest extent possible using camouflage or screening, including but not limited to strategic placement next to existing buildings or vegetation or incorporation with architectural features of existing buildings or structures; e. That the location of the tower and antenna has been chosen so as to minimize the visibility of the facility from residentially-zoned land and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views from public properties; and f. That the variance is the minimum necessary to grant relief to the applicant. Page 15 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 145 of 383 4. The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed variance meets all of the criteria in subsection (F)(3) of this section, decision criteria. 5. The examiner may approve an application for a variance with additional requirements above those specified in this title or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions. 6. The examiner shall deny a variance if the proposal does not meet or cannot be conditioned or modified to meet subsection (F)(3) of this section. G. Project permit review procedures are specified in UPMC Title 22, Administration of Development Regulations. The following table specifies the permits required for the various types of personal wireless service facilities that meet the standards of this chapter. Permit Table1 Notes: 1 Right-of-way and site development permits may also be required depending on type and location of facilities. 2 A public facility permit is required in public facility zones. 3 Towers must be located in a nonresidential zone. 4 In residential zones. 5 Towers must be located on nonresidential property. 6 If additional height above 60 feet is proposed, a conditional use or public facility permit is required. Type of Use Conditional Use2 Administrative Use Over Counter Variance Towers < 60 Feet3 X Towers > 60 Feet X X4 Towers > 110 Feet3 X X Towers in R1, R2, and MF Zones5 X Existing Structure Mounted X6 Building Mounted X Co- Location X Tower Modification X6 X7 Page 16 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 146 of 383 7 For towers in excess of 110 feet in nonresidential zones. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.140 Inspection requirements. Each year after a facility becomes operational, the facility operator shall conduct a safety inspection in accordance with the EIA and FCC standards and within 60 days of the inspection file a report with the city. Submission of a copy of FCC required, and duly filed, safety inspection report, or the facility operator’s maintenance reports for the prior 12 months in the event no FCC report is required for such year, shall satisfy the requirements of this section. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.160 Non-use/abandonment. A. Abandonment. No less than 30 days prior to the date that a personal wireless service provider plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a facility, the provider must notify the city of University Place by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operation. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give notice, the facility shall be considered abandoned upon the city’s discovery of discontinuation of operation. Upon such abandonment, the provider shall have 60 days or additional period of time determined in the reasonable discretion of the city within which to: 1. Reactivate the use of the facility or transfer the facility to another provider who makes actual use of the facility; or 2. In the event that abandonment as defined in this chapter occurs due to relocation of an antenna at a lower point on the antenna support structure, reduction in the effective radiated power of the antenna or reduction in the number of transmissions from the antennas, the operator of the tower shall have six months from the date of effective abandonment to co-locate another service on the tower. If another service provider is not added to the tower, then the operator shall promptly dismantle and remove the portion of the tower that exceeds the minimum height required to function satisfactorily. Notwithstanding the foregoing, changes which are made to personal wireless facilities which do not diminish their essential role in providing a total system shall not constitute abandonment. However, in the event that there is a physical reduction in height of substantially all of the providers towers in the city or surrounding area then all of the towers within the city shall similarly be reduced in height. 3. Dismantle and remove facility. If the tower, antenna, foundation, and facility are not removed within the 60-day time period or additional period of time allowed by the city, the city may remove such tower, antenna, foundation, and related facility at the provider’s expense. If there are two or more providers co-locating on a facility, except as provided for in the paragraph above, this provision shall not become effective until all providers cease using the facility. B. At the earlier of 60 days from the date of abandonment without reactivating or upon completion of dismantling and removal, city approval for the facility shall automatically expire. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.170 Third party review. A. Personal wireless service providers use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of their services and low power mobile radio service facilities, Page 17 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 147 of 383 such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, topographic constraints that affect signal paths, etc. In certain instances, a third party expert may need to review the technical data submitted by a provider. The city may require a technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the provider. B. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the provider and the city, or, at the discretion of the city, with a provision for the provider and interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review its qualifications. The expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of technical aspects of the facilities or a review of the providers’ methodology and equipment used and not a subjective review of the site that was selected by a provider. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the provider’s application. The expert review shall address the following: 1. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; 2. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; 3. The validity of conclusions reached; and 4. Any specific technical issues designated by the city. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). 23.45.180 Violation – Penalty. A. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for a period of up to 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each day during which an offense occurs. B. In addition to receiving any monetary remuneration, the city shall have the right to seek injunctive relief for any and all violations of this chapter, for relief under Chapter 1.20 UPMC and all other remedies provided at law or in equity. (Ord. 360 § 1, 2002). This page of the University Place Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 559, passed September 28, 2009. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the University Place Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.cityofup.com Telephone number: (253) 566-5656 Code Publishing Company Page 18 of 18Chapter 23.45 PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 4/27/2010http://www.mrsc.org/mc/universityplace/UniversityPlace23/UniversityPlace2345.html Packet Page 148 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 1 Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Sections: 20.50.000 Purpose. 20.50.002 Site selection criteria. 20.50.004 Priority locations. 20.50.006 Siting priority on public property. 20.50.008 Co-location. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. 20.50.080 Exemption. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. 20.50.000 Purpose. In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included in the Community Development Code to provide for a wide range of locations and options for wireless communication providers while minimizing the unsightly characteristics associated with wireless communication facilities and to encourage creative approaches in locating wireless communication facilities which will blend in with the surroundings of such facilities. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.002 Site selection criteria. A. Any applicant proposing to construct an antenna support structure, or mount an antenna on an existing structure, shall evaluate different sites to determine which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant’s local grid system. If the applicant proposes a site that does not provide the best opportunities for screening and camouflaging then the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best screened and camouflaged and why the antenna must be located at the proposed site. Further, the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that the height requested is the minimum height necessary to fulfill the site’s function within the grid system. B. Applications for necessary permits will only be processed when the applicant demonstrates either that it is an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider or that it has agreements with an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the support structure. C. Low power mobile radio service facilities shall be located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values. Facilities shall be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. D. In all zones, location and design of facilities shall consider the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood and the visual impact within the zone district. In all zones, towers shall be significantly screened by placing them amongst trees to the extent that it does not result in significant signal degradation. 20.50.004 Priority of locations. The order of priorities for locating new personal wireless service facilities shall be as follows: A. Place antennas and towers on public property if practical. B. Place antennas in appropriate rights-of-way and on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers in the business and commercial zones. Packet Page 149 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 2 C. Place antennas and towers in the general commercial zones on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. D. Place antennas and towers in other business or commercial zones on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. E. Place antennas and towers on other nonresidential property. F. Place antennas on multifamily residential structures exceeding 30 feet in height. G. Place antennas in residential (R) zones or multifamily (MF) zones (1) only if locations are not available on existing structures or in nonresidential districts; and (2) only on or in existing churches, parks, schools, cemeteries, utility facilities, or appropriate public facilities. 20.50.006 Siting priority on public property. A. Where public property is sought to be utilized by an applicant, priority for the use of city-owned land for wireless antennas and towers will be given to the following entities in descending order: 1. City of Edmonds; 2. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services, which are not part of the city of Edmonds and private entities with a public safety agreement with the city of Edmonds; 3. Other governmental entities, for uses which are not related to public safety; and 4. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), data, internet, paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. B. Minimum Requirements. The placement of personal wireless service facilities on city-owned property must comply with the following requirements and those in ECDC 18.05: 1. The facilities will not interfere with the purpose for which the city-owned property is intended; 2. The facilities will have no significant adverse impact on surrounding private property; 3. The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance naming the city as loss payee and commit to a lease agreement that includes equitable compensation for the use of public land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The city shall establish fees after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the city, and other appropriate factors; 4. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the city to cover the costs of removing the facilities; 5. The antennas or towers will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in ECDC 20.50.004; 6. The lease shall provide that the applicant must agree that in the case of a declared emergency or documented threat to public health, safety or welfare and following reasonable notice the city may require the applicant to remove the facilities at the applicant’s expense; 7. The applicant must reimburse the city for any related costs that the city incurs because of the presence of the applicant’s facilities; 8. The applicant must obtain all necessary City approvals and permits; and 9. The applicant must cooperate with the city’s objective to encourage co-locations and thus limit the number of cell sites requested. C. Special Requirements for Parks. The use of city-owned parks for personal wireless service facilities Packet Page 150 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 3 brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of personal wireless service facilities in a park will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met: 1. The parks and recreation department has reviewed and made a recommendation regarding proposed personal wireless service facilities to be located in the park and this recommendation must be forwarded to the city council for consideration; 2. In no case shall personal wireless service facilities be allowed in designated critical areas unless they are co-located on existing facilities; 3. Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks, visual impacts and disruption of normal public use shall be mitigated; 4. Personal wireless service facilities may be located in park maintenance facilities. 20.50.008 Co-location. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers, co-location of personal wireless service facilities on existing or new towers is encouraged as follows: A. Proposed facilities may, and are encouraged to, co-locate onto existing support structures. B. The city may deny an application to construct new facilities if the applicant has not shown by substantial evidence that it has made a diligent effort to mount the facilities on an existing structure or tower. C. To reduce the number of antenna support structures needed in the city in the future, new proposed support structures shall be designed to accommodate antennas for more than one user, unless the applicant demonstrates why such design is not feasible for technical or physical reasons. D. Unless co-location is not feasible: (i) an applicant’s site plan shall reserve an area for other providers’ equipment near the base of the applicant’s tower. A first right-of-refusal (which is either executed or maintained while the providers personal wireless facilities and services are in use) to lease the area at the base of the tower or mount for other providers will meet the reservation requirement; and (ii) the site plan for towers in excess of 60 feet above ground level must propose space for at least two comparable providers, while the site plan for towers 60 feet or less must propose space for at least one comparable provider. E. All personal wireless service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall cooperate in good faith to accommodate co-location with competitors. If a dispute arises about the feasibility of co-locating, the City may require a third party technical study, at the expense of either or both parties, to resolve the dispute. F. While co-location and the requirements herein are encouraged, co-location shall not take precedence over the construction of shorter towers with appropriate screening. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. A. Micro facilities are permitted in all zones (plates 1 and 2). B. A micro facility shall be located on existing buildings, poles or other existing support structures. A micro facility may locate on buildings and structures; provided, that the interior wall or ceiling immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space. C. Antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which can be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel as viewed from any one point) are exempt from the height limitation of the zone in which they are located. Structures which are nonconforming with respect to height may be used for the placement of omnidirectional antennas providing they do not extend more than six feet above the existing structure. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure Packet Page 151 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 4 shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. D. The micro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. E. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. F. In single-family residential (RS) zones, micro facilities for a specific wireless provider shall be separated by a distance equal to or greater than 1,320 linear feet from other micro facilities of the same wireless provider. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Packet Page 152 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 5 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. A. Mini facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. The mini facility may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The mini facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Mini facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones except as follows: Omni- directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 10 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 10 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing nonconforming building and blends in architecturally with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. A. Macro facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. Macro facilities may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The macro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Macro facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones, except as follows: Omni-directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 15 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 15 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing building and architecturally blends in with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. A. Monopole I facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 53. B. Monopole I facilities are permitted in business (BC, BD and BN) zones and certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) with a conditional use permit. Packet Page 153 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 6 C. Monopole I facilities are not permitted in residential zones (RS and RM), the commercial waterfront (CW), open space (OS), public (P) zones, except when expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or up to four inches in diameter may be a component of a monopole I facility. Antennas which extend above the wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the monopole I wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole I shall be 60 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 75 feet (60 feet plus 15 feet). E. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted. Macro facilities are the largest wireless communication facilities allowed on monopole I. F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole I facilities shall be concealed, camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole I facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole I facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole I facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. [Ord. 3628 § 5, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. A. Monopole II facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 54; provided the wireless communications support structure shall be designed to accommodate two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Monopole II facilities which exceed 150 feet in height or and located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BC, BD and BN) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone, and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location of wireless communication facilities on an existing support structure shall be permitted. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a monopole II facility. Antennas which extend above the monopole II wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole II facility shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole II facility support structure shall be concealed, screened, Packet Page 154 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 7 camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole II facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole II facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole II facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. In any case, if the monopole II facility is within 300 feet of any residentially zoned (RS or RM) lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Monopole II facilities shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. 3628 § 6, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. A. Lattice towers are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 5; provided the wireless communications support structure is built to accommodate the location of two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Lattice towers which exceed 150 feet in height or are located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or are located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BN, BD and BC) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted without an additional conditional use permit; provided there is not substantial change to the existing support structure. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a lattice tower. Antennas which extend above the lattice tower wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height (without a conditional use permit) for a lattice tower shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the lattice tower support structure shall be concealed, screened, camouflaged or placed underground. Lattice towers shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Lattice towers shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Lattice Towers adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to or greater than the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. In any case, if the lattice tower is within 300 feet of a single-family lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Lattice towers shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. Packet Page 155 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 8 3628 § 7, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. In addition to the conditional use permit criteria specified in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, the following specific criteria shall be met before a conditional use permit can be granted: A. Visual Impact. Antennas may not extend more than 15 feet above their supporting structure, monopole lattice tower, building or other structure. 1. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area. 1.2. Accessory equipment facilities used to house wireless communications equipment should be located within buildings or placed underground when possible. When they cannot be located in buildings, equipment shelters or cabinets shall be screened and landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.132 ECDC. B. Noise. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in levels above 45 dB as measured from the nearest property line on which the attached wireless communication facility is located. C. Other – Application and Conditional Use Criteria – FCC Pre-emption. In any proceeding regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit under the terms of this chapter, federal law prohibits consideration of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emission. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.080 Exemption. The following are exempt from the requirement of a conditional use permit, and shall be considered a permitted use in all zones where wireless and attached wireless communications facilities are permitted: Minor modifications of existing wireless communications facilities and attached wireless communications facilities, whether emergency or routine, so long as there is little or no change in the visual appearance. Minor modifications are those modifications, including the addition of antennas, to conforming wireless and attached wireless communications facilities that meet the performance standards set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. A wireless communications facility or attached wireless communications facility shall be removed by the facility owner within six months of the date it ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Packet Page 156 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 9 Plate 1 Plate 2 Packet Page 157 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 10 Plate 3 Plate 4 Packet Page 158 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 11 Plate 5 Packet Page 159 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 6-9-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10.doc 12 Packet Page 160 of 383 TYPE LOCATION DESIGN REVIEW SIZE Micro All zones, cannot be located immediately adjacent to residential space Exempt from design review – all code requirements verified with Building or Engineering permit 4’ and <580 in2 in aggregate OR 6’ if omni-directional Mini All except RS, cannot be located immediately adjacent to residential space Exempt from design review – all code requirements verified with Building or Engineering permit 10’ if omni-directional Macro All except RS, cannot be located immediately adjacent to residential space Exempt from design review – all code requirements verified with Building or Engineering permit 15’ if omni-directional Monopole 1 CG/CG2 only; BN/BC/BD and certain public sites* with CU ADB review Pole <= 60’; antenna 15’ OR <= 4” in diameter; pole must be set back one pole length from nearest single-family lot line; co- location permitted Monopole 2 CG/CG2 only; if >150’ AND within 300’ of RS/RM OR in certain public sites* with CU ADB review Pole <=150’; antenna 15’; pole must be set back one pole length from nearest RS/RM zoned lot (may be closer with CU); co- location permitted Lattice tower CG/CG2 only; if >150’ AND within 300’ of RS/RM OR in certain public sites* with CU ADB review Tower <=150’; antenna 15’; pole must be set back one pole length from nearest RS/RM zoned lot (may be closer with CU); co- location without additional CU * - Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6 Packet Page 161 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 1 18.05.000 Scope. A. This chapter shall be interpreted to require all new, or extended utilities to be underground, except when exempted by this section. 1. “Utilities” shall mean all equipment used to deliver services by a utility such as electricity, telephone or cable television. 1.2. “Common utilities” shall mean utilities which serve more than one lot or commercial development. 1.3. “Private utility services” shall mean the utilities which connect a lot or commercial development with common utilities. 1.4. “Utility” shall mean the person, agency, corporation or other organization providing utility service. 1.5. “Existing utility use” shall mean the existing utility service as judged in three categories: number of poles, number of lines and height of poles within the project area for which the permit is sought. 1.6. “New or extended utilities” shall mean only utilities which are being built or extended to serve a new commercial, industrial, or multifamily residential development which has not had that type of utility service, or to serve a new single-family residential subdivision. a. This definition shall not include: i. Temporary extensions of service for construction purposes; ii. Additions to any existing aboveground utility system where such additions are not for the purpose of serving new commercial development or a single-family residential subdivision; nor iii. Rebuilding or replacing existing common utilities; provided, that the rebuilt or replaced structures do not expand the existing utility’s use within the project area by 10 percent, except as provided in ECDC 18.05.030(B)(3) for wireless facilities. “Expansion” shall include the number and height of poles, as well as the number of wires or cable carried thereon. b. All utility services sought to be constructed as temporary services, additions or rebuilt or replaced service shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit by the community services director. Any utility service found to be a “new or extended” service or an “expanded” service shall be reviewed as herein provided. Chapter 18.05 UTILITY WIRES Sections: 18.05.000 Scope. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. 18.05.020 Cost. 18.05.030 Design standards. 18.05.040 Variances. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. Packet Page 162 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 2 7. “Multifamily residential” shall mean development intended for use as apartments, duplexes, condominiums, or planned residential development. 8. “Project area” shall mean the actual area in which the project is proposed and shall include all structures or facilities actually, physically impacted by the improvement as well as any necessary appurtenant or accessory structures. 9. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. B. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the underground requirement of ECDC 18.05.010, but are still subject to the design standards of ECDC 18.05.030. 1. Electric utility substations, pad-mounted transformers and switching facilities; 1.2. Electrical utilities of more than 55 kilovolts; 1.3. Communication utilities not located on or along a public street right-of-way or private access easement; 1.4. Street light poles; 1.5. Telephone pedestals and similar devices; 1.6. Police and fire sirens, traffic-control devices and other similar municipal equipment; 1.7. Communication antennas which meet current FCC requirements, if any. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. A. City-Wide Requirements. 1. All new or extended utilities shall be undergrounded. 1.2. Whenever an existing aboveground private utility service connecting to underground common utilities is rebuilt or relocated, it shall be put underground. All private utility services installed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be underground. B. Business and Commercial Areas – Additional Requirements. 1. Business and Commercial areas include all land in the BN, BC, CW and CG zone districts. 2. Whenever a building or commercial development in a business and commercial area has additions, alterations or repairs which exceed 50 percent of its value in a one-year period, its private utility service shall be put underground. C. Publicly Owned Facilities. Publicly owned facilities shall meet the requirements applicable to business and commercial areas. 18.05.020 Cost. The city shall not pay any of the cost of installing underground utilities, unless there is a contractual agreement between the city, the utility and/or the owners of the property to be served. If there is no contractual agreement, and the utility has no filed tariffs, rules or regulations, or published policies, any financing method not prohibited by state law may be used, including but not limited to the local improvement district and/or ULID methods. 18.05.030 Design standards. Packet Page 163 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 3 A. Underground Utilities. 1. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with all applicable national, state and city standards. 1.2. Where different utilities are planned or required in the same corridor, each utility shall make every effort to locate all the utilities in common joint trenches. B. Aboveground Utilities. 1. An application for a wireless facility on or atop of PUD pole shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits documentation Prior to submitting an application for a wireless facility on or atop a PUD pole within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood, the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. No application for a building permit or other construction permit shall be accepted by the City without submission of a copy of the required notice, a copy of the addresses of residents within 300 feet of the pole, and meeting notes from the gathering. 2. A micro facility (ECDC 20.50.010) may be located on or atop of a PUD pole. A maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the micro facility. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 4. The architectural design board shall review and make recommendations on all plans ofDesign review is required for aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review of the boardis conducted by staff as a Type I process and shall be limited to the following criteria: a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through said screening may be reserved by the utility. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located shall install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad transformers are exempt from this screening requirement. b. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a neat and uncluttered appearance. c. Micro facility antennas and appurtenances shall be painted with nonreflective Packet Page 164 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 4 colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. 2. Where the construction of any common or private utility service shall require a variance from some other provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, the architectural design board shall note the need for a variance and shall defer any decision or recommendation to the hearing examiner. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be utilized within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. PUD transmission poles are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 4. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities.No metal pole or tower shall be utilized in a single-family residential zone unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be utilized unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 5. At least 10 days prior to installation of a wireless facility on or atop a pole in a residential neighborhood, either the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. Failure to provide the notice and/or host the informational meeting shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.00. 18.05.040 Variances.* Applications for variances from the underground requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed by the community public works director (or his/her designee) services director as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). For the purposes of this chapter, the special circumstances necessary to justify a variance from the undergrounding provisions of this chapter shall be limited to technological impracticability of any required underground installation or to a finding that the cost of the underground installation is excessive in light of the benefits derived and outweighs the benefits to be gained by the public. Packet Page 165 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 5 *Code reviser’s note: Variance fee for underground wiring shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. The provisions of this chapter do not and shall not be interpreted to waive any right enjoyed by the city with respect to any franchisee, nor to waive the obligations created by any franchise. In the event that any provision of this chapter conflicts with any provision of a franchising agreement or ordinance, said franchise provision shall control. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. When a pole, tower or other facility is replaced, the owner of the facility shall have a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 30 days, to coordinate transfer of all existing utility lines, transformers, and equipment to the new pole. The owner of the facility shall provide written notice to transfer such utility lines, transformers and equipment to the new pole to other utilities using the pole. Written notice shall be provided to each utility utilizing the pole by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on or before the date the pole is to be replaced. The notice shall include the date of pole replacement and the city’s requirement that transfer of facilities be completed within 30 days. Failure to relocate a utility line, transformer or other equipment to the new facility within 30 days shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $200.00 per day. Each and every day which the utility fails to relocate its utility lines, transformers and/or equipment to the new pole shall be a separate violation. Failure to provide written notice as provided above shall be a civil violation punishable by a fine of up to $200.00. Each day on which notice is not given after pole replacement shall be a separate violation.. Packet Page 166 of 383 AI-3227 Item #: 6. b. Planning Board Agenda Date: 07/28/2010 Public hearing on proposed amendments to wireless facilities regulations (ECDC 18.05 and 20.50) Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Public hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for the regulation of wireless telecommunication facilities. Staff Recommendation Recommend to City Council for a public hearing Previous Board Action The Planning Board reviewed proposed revisions at meetings on April 28 (Attachments 3 & 4) and June 9, 2010 (Attachments 5 & 6). Narrative The Council asked the Planning Board to review and strengthen siting requirements for wireless facilities on utility poles located in the unzoned right-of-way. These installations are regulated in ECDC 18.05 – Utility Wires – and the proposed changes which the Board has reviewed are located in Attachment 1. During review of ECDC 18.05, it became evident that there were opportunities to tighten the siting requirements for wireless facilities on zoned parcels as well. These installations are regulated in ECDC 20.50 - Wireless Communication Facilities; changes to ECDC 20.50 are included Attachment 2. While the City cannot regulate wireless facilities on the basis of health effects, there are a variety of changes proposed to both chapters which tighten siting and aesthetic review criteria. Proposed changes to ECDC 18.05 include: 1) Requiring evidence of a public meeting as part of a complete retrofit permit application 2) Specifying that only micro facilities may be installed as PUD pole retrofits 3) Clarifying how retrofit height is determined 4) Updating the design review process from the ADB to staff, while still using the design standards in 18.05.030 5) Updating the variance provision to reflect Title 20 changes 6) Including additional design standards for retrofit appearance Proposed changes to ECDC 20.50 include: Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3227&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 167 of 383 1) Inclusion of four new sections – Site selection criteria, Priority locations, Siting priority on public property, and Co-location. These sections were modeled after provisions in the City of University Place’s code that specifically encourage co-location of providers on existing support structures as well as setting forth a prioritization standard indicating where the City prefers wireless facilities be located. Siting wireless facilities on single family residential zoned parcels is the location of last resort (ECDC 20.50.004.H) and can only occur as provided for in an engineering analysis of coverage gaps. 2) Updating standards for micro, mini and macro facilities to clarify location requirements on nonconforming structures. 3) Updating internal references for consistency Attachments Attachment 1 - 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7/28/10 Attachment 2 - 20.50 Wireless Communication Facilities edited 7/28/10 Attachment 3 - 4/28/10 PB agenda memo Attachment 4 - 4/28/10 PB minutes excerpt Attachment 5 - 6/9/10 PB agenda memo Attachment 6 - 6/9/10 PB minutes excerpt Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3227&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 168 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7-28-10.docECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 1 18.05.000 Scope. A. This chapter shall be interpreted to require all new, or extended utilities to be underground, except when exempted by this section. 1. “Utilities” shall mean all equipment used to deliver services by a utility such as electricity, telephone or cable television. 1.2. “Common utilities” shall mean utilities which serve more than one lot or commercial development. 1.3. “Private utility services” shall mean the utilities which connect a lot or commercial development with common utilities. 1.4. “Utility” shall mean the person, agency, corporation or other organization providing utility service. 1.5. “Existing utility use” shall mean the existing utility service as judged in three categories: number of poles, number of lines and height of poles within the project area for which the permit is sought. 1.6. “New or extended utilities” shall mean only utilities which are being built or extended to serve a new commercial, industrial, or multifamily residential development which has not had that type of utility service, or to serve a new single-family residential subdivision. a. This definition shall not include: i. Temporary extensions of service for construction purposes; ii. Additions to any existing aboveground utility system where such additions are not for the purpose of serving new commercial development or a single-family residential subdivision; nor iii. Rebuilding or replacing existing common utilities; provided, that the rebuilt or replaced structures do not expand the existing utility’s use within the project area by 10 percent, except as provided in ECDC 18.05.030(B)(3) for wireless facilities. “Expansion” shall include the number and height of poles, as well as the number of wires or cable carried thereon. b. All utility services sought to be constructed as temporary services, additions or rebuilt or replaced service shall be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit by the community services director. Any utility service found to be a “new or extended” service or an “expanded” service shall be reviewed as herein provided. Chapter 18.05 UTILITY WIRES Sections: 18.05.000 Scope. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. 18.05.020 Cost. 18.05.030 Design standards. 18.05.040 Variances. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. Packet Page 169 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7-28-10.docECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 2 7. “Multifamily residential” shall mean development intended for use as apartments, duplexes, condominiums, or planned residential development. 8. “Project area” shall mean the actual area in which the project is proposed and shall include all structures or facilities actually, physically impacted by the improvement as well as any necessary appurtenant or accessory structures. 9. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. B. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the underground requirement of ECDC 18.05.010, but are still subject to the design standards of ECDC 18.05.030. 1. Electric utility substations, pad-mounted transformers and switching facilities; 1.2. Electrical utilities of more than 55 kilovolts; 1.3. Communication utilities not located on or along a public street right-of-way or private access easement; 1.4. Street light poles; 1.5. Telephone pedestals and similar devices; 1.6. Police and fire sirens, traffic-control devices and other similar municipal equipment; 1.7. Communication antennas which meet current FCC requirements, if any. 18.05.010 Underground requirements. A. City-Wide Requirements. 1. All new or extended utilities shall be undergrounded. 1.2. Whenever an existing aboveground private utility service connecting to underground common utilities is rebuilt or relocated, it shall be put underground. All private utility services installed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be underground. B. Business and Commercial Areas – Additional Requirements. 1. Business and Commercial areas include all land in the BN, BC, CW and CG zone districts. 2. Whenever a building or commercial development in a business and commercial area has additions, alterations or repairs which exceed 50 percent of its value in a one-year period, its private utility service shall be put underground. C. Publicly Owned Facilities. Publicly owned facilities shall meet the requirements applicable to business and commercial areas. 18.05.020 Cost. The city shall not pay any of the cost of installing underground utilities, unless there is a contractual agreement between the city, the utility and/or the owners of the property to be served. If there is no contractual agreement, and the utility has no filed tariffs, rules or regulations, or published policies, any financing method not prohibited by state law may be used, including but not limited to the local improvement district and/or ULID methods. 18.05.030 Design standards. Packet Page 170 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7-28-10.docECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 3 A. Underground Utilities. 1. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with all applicable national, state and city standards. 1.2. Where different utilities are planned or required in the same corridor, each utility shall make every effort to locate all the utilities in common joint trenches. B. Aboveground Utilities. 1. When proposing to install a wireless facility on or atop of PUD pole within the right-of- way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood, the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. An application for a wireless facility on or atop of PUD pole shall not be considered complete unless the applicant submits documentation Prior to submitting an application for a wireless facility on or atop a PUD pole within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood, the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. No application for a building permit or other construction permit shall be acceptedconsidered complete by the City without submission of unless accompanied by a copy of the required notice, a copy of the addresses of residents within 300 feet of the pole, and meeting notes from the gathering. 2. A micro facility (ECDC 20.50.010) may be located on or atop of a PUD pole. A maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the micro facility. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 4. The architectural design board shall review and make recommendations on all plans ofDesign review is required for aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review of the boardis conducted by staff as a Type I process and shall be limited to the following criteria: a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through said screening may be reserved by the utility. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located shall install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad Packet Page 171 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7-28-10.docECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 4 transformers are exempt from this screening requirement. b. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a neat and uncluttered appearance. c. Micro facility antennas and appurtenances shall be painted with nonreflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. 2. Where the construction of any common or private utility service shall require a variance from some other provision of the Edmonds Community Development Code, the architectural design board shall note the need for a variance and shall defer any decision or recommendation to the hearing examiner. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be utilized within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. PUD transmission poles are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 4. A PUD transmission pole may be extended or replaced with a new pole that is increased in height to allow one wireless carrier to mount antennas on an existing structure. The new pole height may be increased by no more than the sum of the height of the wireless antennas plus 15 feet of vertical separation from the power lines. The 15-foot vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission line and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities.No metal pole or tower shall be utilized in a single-family residential zone unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be utilized unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 5. At least 10 days prior to installation of a wireless facility on or atop a pole in a residential neighborhood, either the utility that owns the pole or the utility installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. Failure to provide the notice and/or host the informational meeting shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.00. 18.05.040 Variances.* Applications for variances from the underground requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed by the community public works director (or his/her designee) services director as a Type II Packet Page 172 of 383 ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 7-28-10.docECDC 18.05 Utility Wires edited 4-22-10.doc 5 development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). For the purposes of this chapter, the special circumstances necessary to justify a variance from the undergrounding provisions of this chapter shall be limited to technological impracticability of any required underground installation or to a finding that the cost of the underground installation is excessive in light of the benefits derived and outweighs the benefits to be gained by the public. *Code reviser’s note: Variance fee for underground wiring shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. 18.05.050 Existing city franchises not affected. The provisions of this chapter do not and shall not be interpreted to waive any right enjoyed by the city with respect to any franchisee, nor to waive the obligations created by any franchise. In the event that any provision of this chapter conflicts with any provision of a franchising agreement or ordinance, said franchise provision shall control. 18.05.060 Coordination of facility replacement. When a pole, tower or other facility is replaced, the owner of the facility shall have a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 30 days, to coordinate transfer of all existing utility lines, transformers, and equipment to the new pole. The owner of the facility shall provide written notice to transfer such utility lines, transformers and equipment to the new pole to other utilities using the pole. Written notice shall be provided to each utility utilizing the pole by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on or before the date the pole is to be replaced. The notice shall include the date of pole replacement and the city’s requirement that transfer of facilities be completed within 30 days. Failure to relocate a utility line, transformer or other equipment to the new facility within 30 days shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $200.00 per day. Each and every day which the utility fails to relocate its utility lines, transformers and/or equipment to the new pole shall be a separate violation. Failure to provide written notice as provided above shall be a civil violation punishable by a fine of up to $200.00. Each day on which notice is not given after pole replacement shall be a separate violation.. Packet Page 173 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 1 Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Sections: 20.50.000 Purpose. 20.50.002 Site selection criteria. 20.50.004 Priority locations. 20.50.006 Siting priority on public property. 20.50.008 Co-location. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. 20.50.080 Exemption. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. 20.50.000 Purpose. In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included in the Community Development Code to provide for a wide range of locations and options for wireless communication providers while minimizing the unsightly characteristics associated with wireless communication facilities, and to encourageing creative approaches in locating wireless communication facilities which will blend in with the surroundings of such facilities, and minimizing environmental and wildlife impacts to the extent provided by Federal law. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.002 Site selection criteria. A. Any applicant proposing to construct an antenna support structure, or mount an antenna on an existing structure, shall evaluate different sites to determine which site will provide the best screening and camouflaging while providing adequate service to satisfy its function in the applicant’s local grid system. If the applicant proposes a site that does not provide the best opportunities for screening and camouflaging then the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence why the facility cannot be located at the site where it can be best screened and camouflaged and why the antenna must be located at the proposed site. Further, the applicant must demonstrate by engineering evidence that the height requested is the minimum height necessary to fulfill the site’s function within the grid system. B. Applications for necessary permits will only be processed when the applicant demonstrates either that it is an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider or that it has agreements with an FCC-licensed telecommunications provider for use or lease of the support structure. C. Low power mobile radio service facilities shall be located and designed to minimize any significant adverse impact on residential property values. Facilities shall be placed in locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. D. In all zones, location and design of facilities shall consider the impact of the facility on the surrounding neighborhood and the visual impact within the zone district. In all zones, towers shall be significantly screened by placing them amongst trees to the extent that it does not result in significant signal degradation. 20.50.004 Priority of locations. The order of priorities for locating new personal wireless service facilities shall be as follows: A. Place antennas and towers on public property if practical. Packet Page 174 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 2 B. Place antennas in appropriate rights-of-way and on existing structures, such as buildings, towers, water towers in the business and commercial zones. C. Place antennas and towers in the general commercial zones on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. D. Place antennas and towers in other business or commercial zones on properties which do not adjoin or adversely impact residential neighborhoods. E. Place antennas and towers on other nonresidential property. F. Place antennas on multifamily residential structures exceeding 30 feet in height. G. Place antennas in single family residential (RS) zones or multi-family residential (MFRM) zones (1) only if locations are not available on existing structures or in nonresidential districts; and (2) only on or in existing churches, parks, schools, cemeteries, utility facilities, or appropriate public facilities. H. Wireless facilities may be located in single family residential (RS) zones provided there are no alternative locations in zones other than single family residential that provide adequate coverage to the full extent required under federal law and as described in an engineering report. 20.50.006 Siting priority on public property. A. Where public property is sought to be utilized by an applicant, priority for the use of city-owned land for wireless antennas and towers will be given to the following entities in descending order: 1. City of Edmonds; 2. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire and ambulance services, which are not part of the city of Edmonds and private entities with a public safety agreement with the city of Edmonds; 3. Other governmental entities, for uses which are not related to public safety; and 4. Entities providing licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), data, internet, paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. B. Minimum Requirements. The placement of personal wireless service facilities on city-owned property must comply with the following requirements and those in ECDC 18.05: 1. The facilities will not interfere with the purpose for which the city-owned property is intended; 2. The facilities will have no significant adverse impact on surrounding private property; 3. The applicant is willing to obtain adequate liability insurance naming the city as loss payee and commit to a lease agreement that includes equitable compensation for the use of public land and other necessary provisions and safeguards. The city shall establish fees after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses, risks to the city, and other appropriate factors; 4. The applicant will submit a letter of credit, performance bond, or other security acceptable to the city to cover the costs of removing the facilities; 5. The antennas or towers will not interfere with other users who have a higher priority as discussed in ECDC 20.50.004; 6. The lease shall provide that the applicant must agree that in the case of a declared emergency or documented threat to public health, safety or welfare and following reasonable notice the city may require the applicant to remove the facilities at the applicant’s expense; 7. The applicant must reimburse the city for any related costs that the city incurs because of the Packet Page 175 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 3 presence of the applicant’s facilities; 8. The applicant must obtain all necessary City approvals and permits; and 9. The applicant must cooperate with the city’s objective to encourage co-locations and thus limit the number of cell sites requested. C. Special Requirements for Parks. The use of city-owned parks for personal wireless service facilities brings with it special concerns due to the unique nature of these sites. The placement of personal wireless service facilities in a park will be allowed only when the following additional requirements are met: 1. The parks and recreation department has reviewed and made a recommendation regarding proposed personal wireless service facilities to be located in the park and this recommendation must be forwarded to the city council for consideration; 2. In no case shall personal wireless service facilities be allowed in designated critical areas unless they are co-located on existing facilities; 3. Before personal wireless service facilities may be located in public parks, visual impacts and disruption of normal public use shall be mitigated; 4. Personal wireless service facilities may be located in park maintenance facilities. 20.50.008 Co-location. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers, co-location of personal wireless service facilities on existing or new towers is encouraged as follows: A. Proposed facilities may, and are encouraged to, co-locate onto existing support structures. B. The city may deny an application to construct new facilities if the applicant has not shown by substantial evidence that it has made a diligent effort to mount the facilities on an existing structure or tower. C. To reduce the number of antenna support structures needed in the city in the future, new proposed support structures shall be designed to accommodate antennas for more than one user, unless the applicant demonstrates why such design is not feasible for technical or physical reasons. D. Unless co-location is not feasible: (i) an applicant’s site plan shall reserve an area for other providers’ equipment near the base of the applicant’s tower. A first right-of-refusal (which is either executed or maintained while the providers personal wireless facilities and services are in use) to lease the area at the base of the tower or mount for other providers will meet the reservation requirement; and (ii) the site plan for towers in excess of 60 feet above ground level must propose space for at least two comparable providers, while the site plan for towers 60 feet or less must propose space for at least one comparable provider. E. All personal wireless service providers or lessees or agents thereof shall cooperate in good faith to accommodate co-location with competitors. If a dispute arises about the feasibility of co-locating, the City may require a third party technical study, at the expense of either or both parties, to resolve the dispute. F. While co-location and the requirements herein are encouraged, co-location shall not take precedence over the construction of shorter towers with appropriate screening. 20.50.010 Development standards for micro facilities. A. Micro facilities are permitted in all zones (plates 1 and 2). B. A micro facility shall be located on existing buildings, poles or other existing support structures. A micro facility may locate on buildings and structures; provided, that the interior wall or ceiling immediately adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space. Packet Page 176 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 4 C. Antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which can be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel as viewed from any one point) are exempt from the height limitation of the zone in which they are located. Structures which are nonconforming with respect to height may be used for the placement of omnidirectional antennas providing they do not extend more than six feet above the existing structure. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure; provided, however, that where a nonconforming structure has existing, nonconforming roof top equipment or other permitted exceptions to height limitations such as a chimney, panel antennas may be located on such existing nonconforming or permitted structures to the height thereof. D. The micro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. E. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. F. In single-family residential (RS) zones, micro facilities for a specific wireless provider shall be separated by a distance equal to or greater than 1,320 linear feet from other micro facilities of the same wireless provider. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Packet Page 177 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 5 20.50.020 Development standards for mini facilities. A. Mini facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. The mini facility may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The mini facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Mini facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones except as follows: Omni- directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 10 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 10 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing nonconforming building and blends in architecturally with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure; provided, however, that where a nonconforming structure has existing, nonconforming roof top equipment or other permitted exceptions to height limitations such as a chimney, panel antennas may be located on such existing nonconforming or permitted structures to the height thereof. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.030 Development standards for macro facilities. A. Macro facilities are permitted in all zones except single-family residential (RS) zones. B. Macro facilities may be located on buildings and structures; provided, that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not a designated residential space. C. The macro facility shall be exempt from review by the architectural design board if the antenna and related components are the same color as the existing building, pole or support structure on which it is proposed to be located. D. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronic equipment shall be contained wholly within a building or structure, or otherwise appropriately concealed, camouflaged or located underground. E. Macro facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones, except as follows: Omni-directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 15 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 15 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas may exceed the height limitation if affixed to the side of an existing building and architecturally blends in with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure; provided, however, that where a nonconforming structure has existing, nonconforming roof top equipment or other permitted exceptions to height limitations such as a chimney, panel antennas may be located on such existing nonconforming or permitted structures to the height thereof. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.040 Development standards for monopole I. Packet Page 178 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 6 A. Monopole I facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 53. B. Monopole I facilities are permitted in business (BC, BD and BN) zones and certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) with a conditional use permit. C. Monopole I facilities are not permitted in residential zones (RS and RM), the commercial waterfront (CW), open space (OS), public (P) zones, except when expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or up to four inches in diameter may be a component of a monopole I facility. Antennas which extend above the wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the monopole I wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height for a monopole I shall be 60 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 75 feet (60 feet plus 15 feet). E. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted. Macro facilities are the largest wireless communication facilities allowed on monopole I. F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole I facilities shall be concealed, camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole I facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole I facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole I facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. [Ord. 3628 § 5, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.050 Development standards for monopole II. A. Monopole II facilities are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 54; provided the wireless communications support structure shall be designed to accommodate two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Monopole II facilities which exceed 150 feet in height or and located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BC, BD and BN) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone, and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location of wireless communication facilities on an existing support structure shall be permitted. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a monopole II facility. Antennas which extend above the monopole II wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the Packet Page 179 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 7 maximum height for a monopole II facility shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the monopole II facility support structure shall be concealed, screened, camouflaged or placed underground. Monopole II facilities shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Monopole II facilities shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. H. Monopole II facilities adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. In any case, if the monopole II facility is within 300 feet of any residentially zoned (RS or RM) lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Monopole II facilities shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. 3628 § 6, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.060 Development standards for lattice towers. A. Lattice towers are only permitted in the general commercial (CG) zones shown on plate 5; provided the wireless communications support structure is built to accommodate the location of two or more wireless communications facilities. B. Lattice towers which exceed 150 feet in height or are located within 300 feet of a residential (RS or RM) zone or are located in certain public and open space sites (i.e., Woodway High School, Edmonds High School, and Five Corners Water Tank/Fire Station 6) shall require a conditional use permit. C. Monopole II facilities are not permitted in residential (RS and RM) zones, business (BN, BD and BC) zones, commercial waterfront (CW) zone, open space (OS) zone and public (P) zone, except where expressly provided for in this chapter. D. Co-location on an existing support structure shall be permitted without an additional conditional use permit; provided there is not substantial change to the existing support structure. E. Macro facilities are the largest permitted wireless communication facilities allowed on a lattice tower. Antennas which extend above the lattice tower wireless communications support structure shall not be calculated as part of the height of the wireless communications support structure. For example, the maximum height (without a conditional use permit) for a lattice tower shall be 150 feet and the maximum height of antennas which may be installed on the support structure could be 15 feet, making the maximum permitted height of the support structure and antennas 165 feet (150 feet plus 15 feet). F. The shelter or cabinet used to house radio electronics equipment and the associated cabling connecting the equipment shelter or cabinet to the lattice tower support structure shall be concealed, screened, camouflaged or placed underground. Lattice towers shall be subject to review by the architectural design board using the procedures and review criteria specified in Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter. G. Lattice towers shall be landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Page 180 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 8 H. Lattice Towers adjacent to a single-family zone shall be set back a distance equal to or greater than the height of the wireless communication support structure from the nearest single-family lot line. In any case, if the lattice tower is within 300 feet of a single-family lot, a conditional use permit will be required. I. Lattice towers shall be separated from each other by a distance equal or greater than 1,320 feet. [Ord. 3628 § 7, 2007; Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.070 Additional conditional use permit criteria for monopole I, monopole II and lattice tower. In addition to the conditional use permit criteria specified in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, the following specific criteria shall be met before a conditional use permit can be granted: A. Visual Impact. Antennas may not extend more than 15 feet above their supporting structure, monopole lattice tower, building or other structure. 1. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses and the zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment. Wireless communication towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area. 1.2. Accessory equipment facilities used to house wireless communications equipment should be located within buildings or placed underground when possible. When they cannot be located in buildings, equipment shelters or cabinets shall be screened and landscaped in conformance with Chapter 20.132 ECDC. B. Noise. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in levels above 45 dB as measured from the nearest property line on which the attached wireless communication facility is located. C. Other – Application and Conditional Use Criteria – FCC Pre-emption. In any proceeding regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit under the terms of this chapter, federal law prohibits consideration of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission regulations concerning such emission. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.080 Exemption. The following are exempt from the requirement of a conditional use permit, and shall be considered a permitted use in all zones where wireless and attached wireless communications facilities are permitted: Minor modifications of existing wireless communications facilities and attached wireless communications facilities, whether emergency or routine, so long as there is little or no change in the visual appearance. Minor modifications are those modifications, including the addition of antennas, to conforming wireless and attached wireless communications facilities that meet the performance standards set forth in this chapter. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. 20.50.090 Obsolescence. A wireless communications facility or attached wireless communications facility shall be removed by the facility owner within six months of the date it ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair. [Ord. 3099 § 1, 1996]. Packet Page 181 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 9 Packet Page 182 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 10 Plate 1 Plate 2 Packet Page 183 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 11 Plate 3 Plate 4 Packet Page 184 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 12 Plate 5 Packet Page 185 of 383 ECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities edited 7-28-10.docECDC 20.50 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - 6/9/10 7/28/10.doc 13 Packet Page 186 of 383 AI-3325 Item #: 7. a. Planning Board Agenda Date: 09/08/2010 Work session regarding updating City's wireless facilities code (ECDC 18.05 and 20.50) Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Further discussion on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless telecommunication facilities. Staff Recommendation Discuss additional changes to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 and determine date for a public hearing. Previous Board Action Discussed code updates at meetings in April and June 2010. Held public hearing on July 28 but received sufficient new information that a recommendation to Council was withheld so an additional work session could be held and additional changes considered - see Attachment 1. Narrative At the public hearing on July 28, Richard Busch, the attorney representing AT&T Wireless and president of the Northwest Wireless Association, provided a general presentation regarding how cell sites are selected – Attachment 2. He also suggested a possible change to ECDC 20.50.030 that would permit larger macro facilities than are currently allowed. Discussion of this provision would seem appropriate given the definition of ‘macro facility’ and the intent to provide additional opportunities for co-location. Several members of the public were present at the July 28 public hearing to specifically discuss the Clearwire installation on 96th Avenue West. The applicable documents are included as Attachment 3. This installation was approved, as noted, in February 2010. Given that the City must provide locations for wireless facilities to locate and that health impacts cannot be regulated, the Board should consider whether there are any additional design standards that could minimize the visual impact of such a facility than currently exist in the code. Attachment 4 is a summary handout from the PCIA describing the new review timelines municipalities must adhere to for co-located wireless facilities. The FCC has mandated that there is a 90-day review requirement for co-located wireless facilities – this is less than the 120-day review period required by regulatory reform for land use permits but co-located facilities would only require simply a building or engineering permit. New monopoles or lattice towers will still require a conditional use permit per ECDC 20.05. Additional changes have also been proposed to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 in Attachment 5. As you know, what was originally anticipated as a few minor tweaks to enhance 18.05 has evolved to include a broader review of 20.50. Since the chapter is more than 15 years old, a wider-ranging update seems appropriate given changes that have taken place with technology and our understanding of wireless siting needs. The outcome of the 9/8 work session may result in additional updates, those will be included in the subsequent public hearing draft. Changes to the July 2010 draft include: 1) Chapter-specific definitions which were located in Title 21 will now be included in Chapter 20.50 for ease of reference. 2) Plates 1-5 at the end of 20.50 are proposed to be eliminated. The code defines and describes the particular structures shown in the Plates and so it is uncertain what additional value they provide. 3) SEPA requirements are specifically referenced. 4) ADB review had not been required if a facility met the requirements of the code in ECDC 20.50. However, staff has to review either a building or engineering permit to ensure the code requirements are in fact being met so it is proposed that each type of facility undergo a Type I staff design review to align the design review with the new permit typing standards of ECDC 20.01. 5) Sections ECDC 20.50.010.B, 20.50.020.B and 20.50.030.B are proposed to be eliminated. The particular sections don’t provide any additional detail regarding where micro, mini and macro facilities can be placed and include a reference to not allowing facilities adjacent to residential space. This could be construed as an attempt to regulate wireless facilities on the basis of health impacts and so may not be in compliance with federal siting standards. 6) Possible alternative site selection criteria, priority location, and co-location language is included in 20.50.002, 20.50.004, and 20.50.008. Language from Issaquah’s regulation is included in 20.50.002 which provides context for a provider’s location decision and requires a demonstration of need. Third party review is also discussed. Options for prioritization of locations emphasizing co-location from Mr. Busch’s July presentation are included in 20.50.004. Finally, alternative co-location language from Issaquah is included as an option in 20.50.008. 7) In addition to the possible changes to ECDC 20.50.008 described above, it is proposed that those design standards located in ECDC 18.05 be moved to ECDC 20.50 (they are shown in 20.50.008 in the September draft). The design standards currently in 18.05 describe replacement of utility poles specifically for installation (co-location) of wireless facilities. It seems appropriate to gather all applicable design standards for wireless facilities in one portion of the code. Chapter 18.05 would still be referenced since an engineering permit is required to install a pole retrofit but the required standards for such a project would be included with the Wireless Communications Facilities chapter rather than Utility Lines. 8) Federal regulations stipulate a 90-day review timeline for co-located facilities. Regulatory reform requires a 120-day review for land use permits. The timeline for review for conditional use permits for monopoles or lattice towers will remain 120 days but new section ECDC 20.50.100 specifically identifies the 90-day review period for reviews of co-location projects requiring a building or engineering permit. 9) Review and update the zone districts where monopoles and lattice towers are permitted and conditionally permitted. For example, monopole 1 are currently conditionally permitted in the BD zones. Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3325&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 187 of 383 Attachments Attachment 1 - July 28 PB minutes Attachment 2 - Richard Busch 7/28 presentation Attachment 3 - Clearwire permit on 96th Ave W Attachment 4 - PCIA review timeline handout Attachment 5 - ECDC 20.50 Sept 2010 revision Attachment 6 - ECDC 18.05 Sept 2010 revision Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3325&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 188 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 4 Board Member Lovell recalled that the City Attorney made a very strong recommendation that these types of decisions should not be made by the City Council. While he is very sensitive to the comments made tonight, including those related to the new structure of the City Council and their capabilities, he would ask that, at a minimum, they recommend the City Council once again consider the advice of the City Attorney regarding appeals. Board Member Clarke said he has watched a neighborhood go through the appeal process at the Superior Court level, and it is a costly and time-consuming effort. It is also very unfair to the common citizens who feel they have been wronged. He suggested that sometimes the balance needs to tip to the individual property owners. They are talking about property rights, land use issues, quality of life, and protection of neighborhoods. He recalled Vice Chair Reed’s earlier comment that the cost of each hearing before the City Council is not significant. He suggested that sometimes they need to err on the side of protecting the taxpayers and allowing their voice to be heard without spending a huge amount of money. He agreed it would be helpful for the City Attorney to once again share his thoughts at the City Council’s hearing regarding the proposed amendments. Board Member Johnson said she would like to know more about the legal risks that City Attorney Snyder has talked about previously, as well as experiences of other jurisdictions that have gone through the process. She suggested the Board recommend the City Council pursue this information in a construction way. Chair Lovell agreed the Board could recommend the City Council research the issue further before rendering a final decision. VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD ATTACHMENT 3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AFFIRMING ALL OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: THAT THEY AFFIRM THE INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2010, WHICH REINSTATED THE CITY COUNCIL’S ROLE IN APPEALS. THE “DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT” BE ELIMINATED FROM THE TYPE III-B COLUMN IN THE MATRIX (ECDC 20.01.003.A). BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Clarke said is interesting to observe that someone could run for City Council and lose by popular vote, but still be appointed by the current City Council to fill vacant positions. He suggested that democracy is fickle, and sometimes the public speaks out of both sides of their mouth. He agreed this is not a clear issue, but the Board has tried to give their best perspective. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO AND CHAIR LOVELL ABSTAINING. Vice Chair Reed suggested that when the Board’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council, it should be accompanied with a suggestion that rather than moving through the issue quickly, the Council should carefully consider the new information provided to the Board, as well as the comments made by Board Member Johnson that they explore all the implications as part of an on-going process for dealing with land use issues. Mr. Clugston said that based on further research, staff would make the appropriate language adjustments related to “single-document” submittals before the proposal is submitted to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES Mr. Clugston summarized that the City Council asked the Planning Board to review and strengthen siting requirements for wireless facilities on utility poles located in unzoned rights-of-way. However, in the Board’s previous discussions in April and June it became apparent that there were opportunities to tighten the siting requirements for wireless facilities on zoned parcels, as well. He reminded the Board of the City Attorney’s counsel that the City cannot regulate wireless facilities on the basis of health effects. However, there are a variety of changes proposed to both chapters to tighten siting and aesthetic Packet Page 189 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 5 review criteria. He reminded the Board that they previously discussed six proposed changes to ECDC 18.05 and three to ECDC 20.50. He specifically noted that four new sections have been proposed: site selection criteria ECDC 220.50.002), priority locations (ECDC 20.50.004), siting priority on public property (ECDC 20.50.006, and co-location (ECDC 20.50.008). He explained that the intent was to encourage co-location of providers on existing support structures, as well as setting forth a prioritization standard indicating where the City prefers wireless facilities to be located. He noted that, as proposed, siting wireless facilities on single-family residential zoned parcels would be the location of last resort and could only occur as provided for in an engineering analysis of coverage gaps (ECDC 20.50.004.H). He advised that, as per the City Attorney’s recommendation, the standards for micro (ECDC 20.50.010), mini (ECDC 20.50.020) and macro (ECDC 20.50.030) facilities were updated to clarify location requirements on non-conforming structures. As per previous discussions, he recalled that siting small panels on existing structures, particularly in RM zones, is something the City wants to encourage. He recalled that at their last discussion, Board Member Stewart asked staff to include language in ECDC 20.50.000 to address environmental impacts. He noted that the latest draft adds the phrase “and minimize environmental and wildlife impacts to the extent provided by Federal law.” At Board Member Clarke’s request, Mr. Clugston shared the City’s current definition for “PUD Transmission Poles as “poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines.” (see ECDC 18.05.000A.9). Board Member Clarke also requested a definition for “light standard” or “light pole,” and pointed out that there are wireless facilities located on light standards within the City. He noted the proposed language does not address these situations. He asked if the City has standards for radio cameras. Mr. Chave answered that because stop light cameras are located within City rights-of-way, City approval would be required, but there are no regulations for cameras located on private properties. Chair Lovell asked if all the changes referenced in the June 9th Planning Board minutes were incorporated into the current draft. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively and referred the Board to Attachment 2. Chair Lovell briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Richard J. Busch, Busch Law Firm, PLLC, Issaquah, Washington, said he was present on behalf of AT&T Wireless to talk about their existing facility at 546 Alder Street that is located on top of the Commodore Condominiums. He said he was also present as the president of the Northwest Wireless Association, which is a non-profit business association serving the wireless industry. They travel to various jurisdictions in the area to share ideas for designing wireless codes. He explained that it is difficult to draft a code that addresses all issues yet remains consistent. Mr. Busch advised that AT&T has been unable to locate a permit for their wireless facility that is currently located on top of the Commodore Condominiums, and staff cannot find a permit, either. Staff has requested that AT&T submit an application that indicates the facility is compliant with current code requirements. As part of their application, AT&T filed a request for a code interpretation. He explained that if the code is interpreted the way AT&T believes it should be, the site and design would be compliant with the City’s current code or could be brought into compliance. He commented that a representative from AT&T was to have attended the Board’s July 9th public hearing to share their recommendations, but there was confusion about the hearing date. He apologized for coming to the Board at this late time with comments and recommendations for changes. He shared a PowerPoint presentation with the Board and emphasized his belief that new technology will continue to catch on, users will want to make a receive calls where they are, additional antennas will be needed in order to provide this service, and the antennas must be visible in order to provide the best coverage. He suggested that design of future cell sites will depend upon coverage objectives; usage volumes; height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions; height of antennas relative to obstructions; number of technologies/antennas/cables installed at site, antenna distance from pole, and co-location on existing sites. He explained that any time one of the factors is changed, the design of the site must be changed, as well. Mr. Busch shared examples of wireless facilities that were designed to integrate well onto existing sites. He explained that characteristics of well-designed sites include: existing infrastructure or less obvious new sites, antennas mounted close to the support structure, colors that are the same as the infrastructure or surroundings, replacement diameters that are at least two times less than the original structure, and replacement structure heights that are equal to the separation requirement plus the height of the antenna arrays. Packet Page 190 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Busch referred to the current AT&T facility that is located on top of the Commodore Condominiums. He explained that the antenna is 7 feet tall and is located at the center of the roof. No one has complained about the antenna, which has been in place for approximately three years. However, it is not consistent with the City’s current code because it is too tall. He expressed his belief that this is the type of integrated facility the City should encourage, since it is less obtrusive than a 30- foot extension on an existing utility pole. He said he understands that views are important in Edmonds, and he suggested that existing roof tops are the best place for wireless facilities to provide the necessary coverage. He specifically referred to diagrams in the current and proposed code that provide examples of less-intrusive types of facilities. One specifically calls out rooftop-mounted panel antennas as something that is desirable in the City. Therefore, he recommended the language in ECDC 20.50.030.E be changed to read: “Macro facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones, except as follows: Omni-directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 15 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 15 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas with an area of not more than 580 square inches each may exceed the height limitation by 7 feet, or if affixed to the side of an existing building and architecturally blends in with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure; provided, however, that where . . . .” Mr. Busch explained that if the proposed change is approved, AT&T would have the ability to modify the facility to be code compliant. He further recommended that this same language be applied to the development standards for micro facilities (ECDC 20.50.010.C) and mini facilities (ECDC 20.50.020.E). This would allow micro, macro and mini facilities to extend above a rooftop in any zone except single-family residential. He suggested that rooftop-mounted equipment would likely be more favorable to citizens than facilities mounted on PUD poles. Next, Mr. Busch referred to the proposed new language for ECDC 20.50.004, which provides an order of priority for locating new personal wireless service facilities. He suggested that rather than a sequence of priorities, the categories could be lumped together into an equal hierarchy starting with co-location on existing infrastructure. He expressed his belief that co-location is the least obtrusive option in most all cases. He recommended the following prioritization: 1. Co-location without any increase in height for the structure. 2. Co-location where additional height is necessary. 3. A new structure as a replacement for an existing structure. 4. A new structure all together. Mr. Busch referred to staff’s earlier remark that the City cannot regulate wireless facilities based on health issues. He referred to proposed language that prohibits antennas adjacent to dwelling spaces. He said his understanding is that the City wants to keep the antennas away from residential areas for health reasons, and this requirement would violate the Telecommunications Act. Board Member Johnson referred to ECDC 20.50.020.B, which states that mini facilities may be located on buildings and structures; provided that the immediate interior wall or ceiling adjacent to the facility is not designated residential space.” She recalled that this requirement was intended to address the fall line. Mr. Busch said if that is the City’s intent, they could require the facilities to be setback from residential dwellings by a certain distance. However, if the purpose of the language is to keep antennas away from residential dwellings, the requirement could be contrary to the Telecommunications Act. He noted that the same language is used in ECDC 20.50.010.B and ECDC 20.50.030.B. Board Member Clarke asked how long Mr. Busch has worked in the wireless communications field. Mr. Busch answered that he has been doing this work since 1986. Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Busch if he anticipates that future changes in technology will result in a need for more flexible codes because the facilities will need to be taller and larger, or will technology be such that the facilities may be smaller and less intrusive. Mr. Busch said he believes there will be more and more devices and more people will use them for their home phones. Customers will demand capacity and antennas that are located nearby. He anticipates the height of the new facilities will come down and they will be integrated into the residential communities on existing power poles or another type of less-intrusive structure. Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Busch to share how he anticipates the growing demand for coverage would be accommodated when there are no places to co-locate in public spaces. Mr. Busch said it is difficult to provide good coverage in Edmonds because of the topography and because the majority of the City is zoned and developed as residential. The neighborhoods will have to accommodate structures Packet Page 191 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 7 where the various facilities can be co-located. Carriers will look hard to put the facilities on existing structures rather than installing new ones. Board Member Clarke asked if it is standard practice for providers to paint structures so they do not reflect light, or if this something the City’s code should address. Mr. Busch suggested that language could be added to the City’s code to allow staff to use their discretion to address the issue. He noted that different neighborhoods have different preferences. However, his personal opinion is that the facilities should be painted a dark color so they do not reflect sunlight. Chair Lovell requested Mr. Busch submit his entire PowerPoint presentation to staff to become part of the public record. Mark Cooper, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 50 years and has seen and experienced many changes both within the City and surrounding areas. He has no expectation that life in Edmonds will stay the same forever. Situations change, and technology, when applied in its proper place, can benefit everyone. However, when used and applied improperly it can create numerous problems that future generations are left to deal with. He said he could cite numerous examples within the very recent history of the City where the use of technology, without realizing its potential impact, is being dealt with today. He stressed how the choice to install any type of wireless communication antenna within a residential zone is a mistake and the wrong direction for the City. He said he has voiced his concerns to the City Council and Mayor over the last year, and he feels many other citizens feel strongly regarding the matter, as well. He invited Planning Board Members to drive down 96th Avenue, which is currently staked out as the future site of a new wireless facility. As a result of the new facility, his neighbor would have a 12’ x 6’ vault grate in her front yard. He explained that the PUD cannot install the pole in their initial location because the conduits are too big and would encroach into the neighbor’s driveway. In order to relocate the pole, they need an easement from him to provide for the guy wires for the additional height of the pole. The initial easement request on his property was to be 5’ by 40’. He said he refused the PUD’s first request. He pointed out that the microwave antenna that will be installed on the pole has not been brought up at any public meeting, and the issue has not been resolved as part of the permit process. No one in the neighborhood is a Clearwire customer, and he does not believe there is a need or a situation of last resort for the pole to be located where it is currently proposed. Pat Meeker, Edmonds, said she was pleased to see that the proposed language would make residential zones the very last choice for wireless facilities. She questioned why wireless facilities should even be allowed in totally residential neighborhoods. She asked how the Board members would like a similar facility installed in their own neighborhoods. She cautioned that is what could happen if they are allowed in residential zones. She summarized that she supports all of the comments made by Mr. Cooper. She suggested there would have been additional neighbors in attendance if they had known about the hearing. Nick Byer, Edmonds, said he concurs with Mr. Cooper’s comments, as well. He referred to Board Member Clarke’s earlier question about whether new technology would result in smaller facilities. He pointed out that an 11’ by 7’ vault is being constructed in his neighbor’s yard, not to mention a new tower. This is new technology, and it is not getting smaller in size. He summarized that when it comes to coverage, he gets fine coverage from his T-Mobile phone with an antenna at the QFC. He referred to the list of priorities for location and suggested that it would be easy for carriers to skip to the last priority and place a new structure in a residential area as long as they can provide a study to support their proposal. He suggested the proposed language is too vague. Joe Van Mieghem, Edmonds, said he lives in the neighborhood where Clearwire is proposing to install a new wireless facility. He noted that he and his wife have two small children, and they moved to Edmonds to raise their family. When Clearwire announced to the neighborhood that they were going to start the planning phase, the neighborhood came together to voice their concerns. At the neighborhood meeting where the representative from Clearwire announced the plan, everyone in the neighborhood voiced that they were adamantly against it. Even though there is a demand for cell phones and various internet services, it is important to note that the cell phone businesses are very successful right now. The carriers need to be more sensitive to the citizens. While the carriers are putting pressure on the City to allow more facilities, they must consider the community’s concerns, as well. He suggested they slow the process down and consider opportunities to place the facilities on commercial properties. He expressed concern that a significant wireless facility is going to be located in a single-family residential neighborhood. He questioned how the carrier got to the “last resort location.” Packet Page 192 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 8 Tom Myers, Edmonds, said he is Mr. Van Mieghem’s neighbor, and he also has small children. He said he, too, is concerned about how a carrier can get from the top priority all the way to a single-family residential zone. He noted there are antennas in a variety of locations surrounding his neighborhood (a water tower about six blocks away from his home and several antennas located 100 yards south of his home on Edmonds Way). With the proximity of existing facilities, he questioned the need to use a single-family zone for another one. He suggested the proposed criteria be changed to clearly disclose how a carrier would get to the “last resort location.” He encouraged the Board Members to drive down 96th Avenue West and view the area that has been staked out for the new facility. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell inquired if staff is aware of the project that is moving forward on 96th Avenue West. Mr. Clugston said he is aware of the proposal, but he has not personally visited the site. He clarified that ECDC 18.05 deals with facilities that are placed on PUD poles or possibly light standards. These structures are located within the unzoned rights-of-way. In the priority of location section (ECDC 20.50.004) the first choice would be to place antennas and towers on public properties, and the second choice would be within public rights-of-way and on existing structures. Mr. Clugston acknowledged that the Board received a lot of new information from participants in the public hearing, and staff has not had time to review the proposed language submitted by Mr. Busch. He recommended the Board postpone their recommendation to allow time to adequately consider all of the public comments, as well as the option of allowing wireless facilities to be co-located on light standards in addition to PUD poles. He concluded that staff does not believe the current draft language completely addresses all of the new information and issues presented by the public. Chair Lovell agreed it would be appropriate for the Board to consider potential revisions given the new information provided by the public. He noted that while the neighbors on 96th Avenue West have drawings of Clearwire’s project, neither Mr. Chave nor Mr. Clugston have reviewed the documents. He cautioned that if the Board does not discuss the neighborhood’s concerns prior to their recommendation the City Council, they will present their same issues at the City Council’s hearing. Mr. Clugston referred to ECDC 18.05.030.B.2 and noted that as currently written, only micro facilities can be located on top of PUD poles. However, there has been a request that the Board also considering allowing macro and mini facilities. He added that ECDC 18.05.030.B.3 indicates that when pole replacement occurs in rights-of-way adjacent to single-family zoned neighborhoods, the new poles must be wooden rather than metal. Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that State law requires the City to approve a proposed location if it is determined necessary. He asked how wireless carriers negotiate with private property owners for the necessary easements. Do the carriers have the right to locate wherever the study shows is the best location, and the property owners must accommodate the facility. Mr. Chave emphasized that the industry prefers to co-locate. If there is already a place for a carrier to co-locate, it is reasonable to assume their request would be approved. He reminded the Board that it is difficult to provide adequate service to all areas in Edmonds because of the topography and tall trees that exist. The City is in a difficult position. They cannot regulate based on health concerns and they cannot prohibit facilities because there has to be coverage. All the City can address is prioritization and aesthetics. The points about co-location are well taken and staff will review the language. In the past the City has tried to discourage very large towers in residential zones and encourage co-location on existing facilities in public areas. However, over the past few years, the PUD has started putting up very large poles in place of existing utility poles, and changes were subsequently made in ECDC 18.05 to require that the replacement poles must be similar in size and scale to the existing poles. Chair Lovell suggested that sometimes engineers tend to exaggerate in terms of what they can and cannot do in order to advantage another factor such as cost. He suggested it is fine for the City to regulate location based on aesthetics, co- location, prioritization of location, etc. However, as a viable community, they must force the engineers to come forward with the truth and the best solution for everyone involved. Board Member Clarke advised that he lives in a heavily concentrated residential area that has poor cell phone service. To be competitive in today’s world, it is important to be able to communicate around the clock anywhere you are located. Providers are trying to eliminate those areas where service is not adequate. The Board should be forward thinking as they Packet Page 193 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2010 Page 9 review how the proposed language will impact the people who live and work from their homes. At the same time, they need to protect the neighborhoods. He said he does not see a need for the Board to rush their recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Johnson thanked the citizens who live on 96th Avenue West for bringing their issues to the Board’s attention. She also thanked Mr. Busch for his constructive comments, which included: The code should address light standards, as well as utility poles. The coloring should generally be the same as the structure, building or existing rooftop. Macro and mini facilities should be allowed on rooftops up to seven feet. (see his recommended language on a Page 6). Co-location should be the first consideration in the prioritization of sites. The language proposed in ECDC 20.50.010.B, ECDC 20.50.020.B and ECDC 20.50.030.B may be inconsistent with FCC requirements if it is based on health reasons. She noted the Board did not discuss this language based on health reasons. Their concerns were related to aesthetics. Vice Chair Reed recalled that a few years ago, Barbara Tipton and others from her neighborhood were present to talk about a similar issue. They ended up working out a solution with the PUD. He asked if the neighborhood on 96th Avenue West has had an opportunity to meet with representatives of Clearwire. He observed that the Board must balance wireless technology and neighborhood protection. At a future workshop, he would like more input from AT&T’s representation, but also from Clearwire. He felt it would be helpful for the public to participate in the discussion, as well. The Board agreed to schedule a continued discussion on September 8th, with an additional public hearing to follow. They further agreed they would like more information from Mr. Busch, as well as input from the public. Board Member Stewart said it would be helpful for staff to provide a map of the City indicating the locations of existing wireless facilities. She suggested it would also be appropriate to invite representatives from other carriers to share their thoughts about what the future holds and what would be ideal for them. The code language needs to balance the needs of the carriers and the residential neighborhoods. Chair Lovell said he would try to invite an electrical engineer who is familiar with wireless facilities to attend their September 8th discussion. Mr. Chave invited the members of the audience to sign up on the paper at the back of the room so staff could notify them of future Board discussions and the public hearing. UPDATE OF MOST RECENT ACTIVITIES OF THE EDMONDS CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CEDC) Board Member Johnson reported on her attendance at the July 21st CEDC meeting at which Mr. Chave made a presentation regarding a potential project in conjunction with the University of Washington Green Futures Lab to come up with a special district plan for the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers. She referred to a document that was distributed at the CEDC meeting and noted that staff also provided a copy for each of the Board Members. Also at the meeting, Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, presented a proposed strategic planning process initiative. She asked that staff forward copies of this information to the Board, as well. Representatives from the Stevens/Swedish Hospital transition team were also present at the meeting to provide an update regarding the transition plan. They will also provide an update to the City Council on August 3rd. It was announced that the 1st Annual Edmonds International Film Festival will be held October 20th through 24th. For the past few years, the event has been held in Sandpoint, Idaho, but has now been moved to Edmonds. Chair Lovell said he also attended the CEDC’s July 21st meeting. He explained that the special district plan for the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers would be done by a consortium of University of Washington graduate students, professors, and some staff members. Mr. Chave added that the project would be conducted through a series of classes and students would be enlisted to do the project starting in the fall through the middle of 2011. Once they have completed their recognizance work, they plan to conduct design charettes to engage the community in the process. The goal is to come up with a vision for what the community would like to see happen in these two commercial centers. The end result would be a template that could be used in other neighborhood planning efforts in the future. Mr. Chave advised that the CEDC members were very excited about the planning project for the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers, and they have put out a strong endorsement to the City Council. The City’s Development Services Packet Page 194 of 383 Bold StatementsBold Statements Bold StatementsBold Statements I think these things are going to catch on . . . Bold StatementsBold Statements I think these things are going to catch on . . . 80% penetration rate Bold StatementsBold Statements I think these things are going to catch on . . . 80% penetration rate Users want to make and receive calls where they are Bold StatementsBold Statements I think these things are going to catch on . . . 80% penetration rate Users want to make and receive calls where they are Need antennas in order to make and receive calls Bold StatementsBold Statements I think these things are going to catch on . . . 80% penetration rate Users want to make and receive calls where they are Need antennas in order to make and receive calls Antennas (or screening) must be visible Packet Page 195 of 383 Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Height of antennas relative to obstructions (higher = fewer) Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Height of antennas relative to obstructions (higher = fewer) Number of technologies/antennas/cables installed at site Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Height of antennas relative to obstructions (higher = fewer) Number of technologies/antennas/cables installed at site Antenna distance from pole Packet Page 196 of 383 Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Height of antennas relative to obstructions (higher = fewer) Number of technologies/antennas/cables installed at site Antenna distance from pole Collocation – existing sites; space on new sites Design of Cell SitesDesign of Cell Sites It depends. Some factors: Coverage objectives Usage volumes Height of trees, buildings, hills and other obstructions Height of antennas relative to obstructions (higher = fewer) Number of technologies/antennas/cables installed at site Antenna distance from pole Collocation – existing sites; space on new sites Like a balloon: push on one part; affects the other parts Examples of Integrated SitesExamples of Integrated Sites Packet Page 197 of 383 Packet Page 198 of 383 Characteristics:Characteristics: Existing infrastructure or less obvious new sites Antennas mounted close to support structure Color same as infrastructure or surroundings Replacements: Diameter 2x (or less) than original Height of replacement structure = separation requirement plus height of antenna arrays Requested Change to CodeRequested Change to Code EMC Section 20.50.030 Macro Facility E. Macro facilities shall comply with the height limitation specified for all zones, except as follows: Omni- directional antennas may exceed the height limitation by 15 feet, or, in the case of nonconforming structures, the antennas may extend 15 feet above the existing structure. Panel antennas with an area of not more than 580 square inches each may exceed the height limitation by 7 feet, or if affixed to the side of an existing building and architecturally blends in with the building. Placement of an antenna on a nonconforming structure shall not be considered to be an expansion of the nonconforming structure; provided, however, that where . . . . Packet Page 199 of 383 Packet Page 200 of 383 Packet Page 201 of 383 Packet Page 202 of 383 Packet Page 203 of 383 Packet Page 204 of 383 Packet Page 205 of 383 Packet Page 206 of 383 What the FCC’s action does: • Gives jurisdictions 90 days to act on an application to collocate wireless facilities on existing structures. • Gives jurisdictions 150 days to act on all other applications to site wireless facilities. • Allows jurisdictions to freeze the time frames while an applicant gathers any requested additional information needed to complete an application if the jurisdiction notifies an applicant within 30 days of filing that the application is incomplete. • Clarifies that a jurisdiction may not deny an application for a wireless facility on the basis that a different carrier is already serving that area. What the FCC’s action does not do: • Preempt local zoning decisions. A jurisdiction has final say on whether a wireless facility siting application is approved or denied. The FCC specified only the timeframe in which that decision must occur. • Grant the application if the jurisdiction exceeds these time frames. If a jurisdiction takes longer than the prescribed time frames to act on an application for wireless facility siting, the applicant may bring the matter to court within 30 days. The court then decides if the extended review period was reasonable under the circumstances. • Prevent applicants and jurisdictions from mutually agreeing on extended timelines. Other important information about the FCC’s action: • The applications that fall under the FCC’s definition of “collocation” may differ from those in local regulations. Parties are advised to consult with local experts/attorneys to determine the application type and appropriate time frame. • State or local law may prescribe shorter timelines for action. If so, those shorter time frames are still in effect. • The FCC’s action is effective November 18, 2009. To view the FCC’s decision in its entirety, please visit www.pcia.com/shotclock. PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association advocates balanced approaches to the siting and regulation of wireless facilities. We invite you to contact us to learn how we may serve as a resource for your wireless infrastructure needs. Mike Saperstein Director of Government Affairs (703) 535-7401 Sapersteinm@pcia.com www.pcia.com The Significance of the FCC’s ‘Shot Clock’ on Wireless Facility Siting The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted time frames for local jurisdictions to act on applications to site wireless communication facilities. Packet Page 207 of 383 AI-3439 Item #: 7. a. Planning Board Agenda Date: 10/13/2010 Continued Discussion on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless telecommunication Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston, AICP Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Continued Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) chapters 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless telecommunication facilities (File No. AMD20100004) Staff Recommendation Previous Board Action The Board has reviewed updates on 4/28, 6/9, 7/28 and 9/8. Narrative Since the last meeting on September 8, members were going to take a driving tour to see the Edmonds cell sites for themselves. A powerpoint presentation will be reviewed at the 10/13 meeting to facilitate additional discussion regarding the Edmonds sites. Additional slides of examples from other municipalities will be reviewed as well for additional context when considering the categorization handout provided by Rich Busch on 9/8. Attachment 1 - Minutes from 9/8 Attachment 2 - Categorization handout Attachment 3 - Powerpoint slides Attachment 4 - Distributed antenna systems handouts Input received on 10/13 will be incorporated into an updated draft reg for review on 10/27. Attachments Attachment 1 - Minutes excerpt from 9-8 Attachment 2 - Busch matrix Attachment 3 - Cell site slides Attachment 4 - Articles on distributed antenna systems Page 1 of 1Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3439&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 208 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 4 would be funded by the proposed TBD fee. Maps would also be provided to identify the location of each of the proposed projects. Board Member Clarke said it is important to clearly communicate to the public the impacts of rejecting or approving the new TBD fee. Mr. Williams pointed out that Board Member Johnson is a member of the committee that was formed to prepare a Pro statement about Proposition 1 (TBD fee) for the November voter’s pamphlet. A committee was also formed prepare a statement for the voter’s pamphlet opposed to Proposition 1. The City cannot get involved in campaign efforts either way. However, staff can provide effective factual information upon request. They can also attend meetings when invited to deliver factual information about proposals on the ballot or about transportation in general, but they cannot recommend that voters should accept or reject a proposal. The public has the ability to do whatever they want to convince voters to take a certain action. Board Member Clarke suggested that rather than campaigning for or against the proposal, it is important to help the public understand how critical the issue is. They must have a clear understanding of the consequences of their vote. He suggested that the public be invited to provide comments at the public hearing regarding Proposition 1, since it is major part of the CIP and CFP funding proposal. Mr. Williams agreed it would be appropriate for staff to present factual information regarding the proposed TBD fee prior to the public hearing, and this would set the stage for the Board to discuss the issue in more detail. However, he emphasized that staff and elected officials are limited to just providing factual information related to ballot issues. He said he held a transportation forum in the City of Bremerton, inviting people to comment on transportation issues, but only 14 people attended the meeting. Board Member Clarke suggested the City invite THE BEACON to write an article to help the public understand the issues. Rather than merely going through the required public hearing process, the Board should look for opportunities to make their public hearings more effective. Mr. Williams commented that the future looks rather bleak based on existing transportation funding sources. He pointed out that, other than one stimulus project last year, the City has not done a single paving project since 2006. It doesn’t take a lot to figure out that the street system will only get worse, but it is difficult to get this message to the people who need to hear it. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that when they reviewed the Transportation Improvement Plan earlier in the year, staff provided quite a bit of information about what projects could be funded if the TBD fee were raised to a certain level. He noted that the voters pamphlet that is published for the November election would include a brief statement about Proposition 1. Board Member Johnson also pointed out that a table was provided on Page 3 of the draft CIP showing what projects would be done if the new TBD fee is approved. She suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to highlight this information at the public hearing. She said that while they may not get a lot of citizens to attend their hearing, the same presentation would be made before the City Council, and the Board has an opportunity to highlight and explain certain things. She observed that City Council hearings typically draw more people and they are also broadcast on Channel 21. Board Member Cloutier suggested that when staff presents the CFP to the City Council on September 21st, they could invite the public to attend the Board’s public hearing on September 22nd. Chair Lovell noted that the CIP identifies $11 million over the next six years for the Edmonds Cross Project. However, there is speculation that this project may never happen. Mr. English said he would invite Mr. Clifton, Community Services Director, to the public hearing to provide more information about the Edmonds Crossing Project. Vice Chair Reed asked if Mr. McIntosh would be present at the September 22nd public hearing, and Mr. McIntosh answered affirmatively. Board Member Johnson noted that some of the projects in the CFP are beyond the 6-year period of time but could be done earlier if funding becomes available. For example, the Boys and Girls Club Project is budgeted for $5 million in 2017 and beyond. She questioned what it would take to complete the ADA improvements prior to 2017. She also noted that $1 million is budgeted in 2017 and beyond for creating an arts center. She questioned if there are opportunities to pursue this project prior to the scheduled date using leased space in a vacant building rather than building a separate new arts center. Mr. English agreed to forward Board Member Johnson’s questions to Jim Stevens, Facilities Manager, and Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Manager. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES Packet Page 209 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board received a lot of information at the July 28th public hearing, and they agreed to continue their discussion on September 8th. At the hearing, Richard Busch, the attorney representing AT&T Wireless and president of the Northwest Wireless Association, provided a general presentation regarding how cell sites are selected. He also suggested possible changes. He announced that Mr. Busch was present to provide additional information as requested by the Board. Chair Lovell cautioned that, although the Board heard from citizens regarding a Clearwire installation on 96th Avenue, they should keep in mind that the proposed amendments would not be applicable to current projects. The Board should also keep in mind that the City cannot regulate wireless facilities on the basis of public health and safety. They must also adhere to the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulations, which require the City to allow wireless companies to provide adequate coverage to their customers. Richard Busch, Attorney and President of the Northwest Wireless Association, Issaquah, said he represents AT&T on a proposed wireless project in Edmonds. He expressed his belief that wireless technology will continue to become more popular, and people will desire to have quality wireless service. The City must balance this need with the need to protect residential communities. He recalled that he provided photographs at the July 28th hearing of well-integrated wireless facilities that most people would not be concerned about. When determining what types of facilities should be allowed in the City and where, he suggested the Board start by identifying those types that would be appropriate in all locations, those that may be okay but with additional scrutiny, and those that should only be allowed as a last resort. They should discuss the various types of technology and identify the impacts each type would have on the community. This information will allow the Board to develop a hierarchy approach for locating wireless facilities in the future. He suggested they divide the technology into the following three categories: Technologies appropriate for all locations. These types should be allowed as permitted uses with design review. The industry should be encouraged to install these types of facilities so a lengthy review process should not be required. This category could include co-locating on an existing monopole and rooftop installation in multi-family and commercial zones. Rather than requiring a provider to go down a priority list, outright permitting certain types of facilities would encourage carriers to design facilities that are consistent. This reduces carrier costs and makes it easier for staff to implement the code. Technologies that are acceptable but require closer scrutiny. These types are more likely to be located in or near residential zones and could be permitted with an administrative conditional use permit and design review. People are demanding more and more data in the residential areas, and over time, carriers will likely need to put more capacity into neighborhoods. It will be critical to come up with a process that balances the carriers’ needs with what the community is willing to accept. Carriers should be encouraged to look at existing infrastructure first. Technologies that should only be allowed as a last resort. While the Telecommunication Act may require the City to allow monopoles in residential zones, the City could restrict this type unless there are no other options. These types could require a formal public hearing and City Council approval. Mr. Busch recommended that, regardless of the City’s approach for regulating the location of wireless facilities, they should incorporate an administrative waiver provision that allows staff to make decisions that make sense. He shared a recent situation in which a hearing examiner had no option but to require a carrier to put landscaping around a communication site that was located in the middle of a forested area because it was a code requirement. Staff should have the ability to waive a requirement when it makes common sense to do so and all of the community goals would be protected. Mr. Busch summarized that he was not present to tell the Board what the code requirements should be, but to help them discuss what is important to their community. He advised that he could provide a copy of the Personal Communication Industry Association’s (PCIA) draft code, which the Board could use as a model. However, changes would be needed to address the specific needs of the City. Board Member Johnson observed that communication devices are getting smaller and better. She asked if the wireless facilities are also getting smaller in design. Mr. Busch agreed that newer technology is getting smaller, but carriers must Packet Page 210 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 6 continue to provide service for the older technology. In order to serve all customers, multiple transmitters are often required. These can be placed all inside of one large shroud, which means the facilities would not be smaller, or more small antennas could be used. Board Member Johnson noted that some antennas are visible from the street and cannot be equated with attractiveness. She asked if there is scientific information to support why an antenna has to be located in a particular place on a roof. Mr. Busch answered that there is science behind antenna location, but some judgment is also involved. Radio frequency engineers look at where additional capacity is needed and the existing topography. Other factors (i.e. willing landlords, visual impact, and code requirements) are also considered. Board Member Johnson asked if the City’s current code requires that rooftop mounted wireless facilities be screened so they are not visible from the street. Mr. Busch answered that the industry prefers to place antennas on flat roofs rather than pitched roofs, and they are typically painted to match the roof. While they are usually still visible from the street, they are not obvious. He added that rooftop antennas can be screened with materials that are radio frequency transparent, but screening panels are often more visible than the antennas themselves. Board Member Johnson recalled that at the last meeting a number of citizens from the community called attention to the Clearwire installation that is taking place on 96th Avenue. She asked why the technology could not have been located on the taller Public Utility District (PUD) poles that already exist in the neighborhood. Mr. Busch answered that the taller PUD poles are likely high-voltage transmission lines that are taller and have conductors installed near the top. Because of separation requirements, carriers must co-locate at 10 to 15 feet either above or below the conductors. While the industry does not prohibit wireless facilities above the conductors, the technology can only be installed when the power is off. Therefore, it is not likely that carriers will propose equipment above the conductors, and the area below the conductors may not be high enough to provide the desired coverage. Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Busch how communities in Europe have regulated wireless equipment so it blends in with the historic areas. Mr. Busch said he recently viewed a video that shows the facilities being located on the top or side of multi-family and commercial structures, but he doubts they would allow the facilities to be placed on historic churches, etc. Board Member Clarke asked how wireless facilities are regulated amongst the historic buildings in downtown Boston. Mr. Busch said it is common to have rooftop installations that are painted to match the buildings. It is not likely that a monopole would be located in downtown Boston, but they can be found along the freeways. Even in downtown Seattle, there are numerous antennas located on rooftops. He cautioned that it would be a mistake for Edmonds to mimic either Seattle or Portland because their existing development is very different. They do not have tall buildings. Board Member Clarke expressed concern about how the rooftop antennas would be viewed from properties located uphill. Mr. Busch agreed that the antennas would be visible, and that is why it is important to work with the industry to make sure they are integrated as much as possible. Antennas cannot be totally hidden from view, but they can be made less obvious. The reality is that transmission and distribution poles tend to blend in over time. Board Member Johnson suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to participate in an educational tour of the various wireless facilities that exist in Edmonds. Mr. Busch agreed that would be appropriate, and he suggested the Board focus on rooftop and wall-mounted installations given the City’s topography. Board Member Clarke said his office is located at the corner of Third Avenue and Main Street, and he has noticed there are multiple rooftop antennas located on his building. He questioned how these installations could be done so they are less visually intrusive. Mr. Busch said there are ways to screen the equipment using materials that are radio frequency transparent, but the Board needs to ask which is less intrusive; the antennas or the screening. He commented that once a provider finds a willing landlord and the City has approved the site, other providers will likely want to co-locate on the same structure. He expressed his belief that it is better to have multiple antennas on one building than antennas on every building in the downtown. Board Member Cloutier said he supports a hierarchy approach similar to the one described by Mr. Busch. He expressed his belief that if the City identifies the types of facilities that have the least impact and allows them outright, the industry would fall in line because it would be less costly and time consuming for them to obtain the necessary permits. This approach would also meet the City’s desire to encourage co-location and reduce the staff time required to review applications. Mr. Packet Page 211 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 7 Chave pointed out that this has largely been the City’s approach for some time. Board Member Cloutier agreed with Board Member Johnson that a tour of existing facilities would be helpful. However, the Board does not have the expertise to divide the various types of facilities into categories. This work must be done by staff. Board Member Clarke said he supports the hierarchy approach, and he also agreed with Mr. Busch that the code should include a provision that allows the staff to make decisions based on common sense. Board Member Johnson referred to her recent visit to the neighborhood on 96th Avenue West where the Clearwire facility is being installed and said she can understand why the neighbors are concerned. They already have more overhead wires than most neighborhoods, and there are two facilities (school and church) nearby that could have been considered had the applicant been required to use a hierarchy approach. She suggested this is a perfect case study. Board Member Cloutier said that while the City cannot regulate wireless facilities based on health and safety issues, the neighbors’ concerns were related to the scale of the project. As requested by the Board, Mr. Clugston provided a map of the existing wireless facilities in the City, which total 20 (4 utility poles, 7 monopoles and 10 building mounted). He also referred to the updated language for ECDC 20.50 and noted that a number of changes (see Staff Report) have been made since the last time the Board reviewed the document. He observed that what was originally anticipated to be a few minor tweaks to enhance 18.05 has evolved to include a broader review of 20.50. However, staff believes this review is appropriate given the changes that have taken place with technology and the City’s understanding of wireless siting needs. After further discussion, the Board requested that staff provide them with a list and map of the existing wireless facilities. Each of the facilities should be clearly labeled with their correct technical names, and a brief description should be provided, as well. The Board Members would conduct self-guided tours prior to the next meeting. As they tour the sites, the Board Members could make a rough list of which category each would fall under. It was also suggested that staff provide the Board with pictures to illustrate the various types of equipment that should be encouraged and discouraged in the City. Board Member Stewart suggested that the list of existing facilities should also be published on the City’s website for the public’s information. Staff would provide additional notification to the individuals who signed up during the July 28th public hearing. Board Member Clarke observed that there is only one wireless facility in his area, which explains why he cannot get cell phone service inside his home. He asked if the providers have decided not to add additional facilities in this location because there is not enough population density or if the City’s code prevents additional facilities. Mr. Chave answered that the existing wireless communication regulations have been in place since 1996, so there is nothing to prevent a provider from placing additional facilities in Mr. Clarke’s neighborhood. Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide the Board with information about how many wireless facilities are located in the Town of Woodway. Board Member Stewart said it would also be helpful to know how many companies are represented in the various wireless facilities that currently exist in Edmonds. This information may be helpful to encourage co-location. Board Member Johnson advised that the FCC licenses for each of the existing facilities is available on line, and there is also information available about the permits, themselves. Board Member Clarke observed that quick-serve restaurants like to locate within close proximity to each other. He asked if the same would be true for the wireless industry, or do they try to block each other out once a location has been established. Mr. Busch said the two concepts are unrelated. The FCC quickly realized that communities would not tolerate numerous carriers with their own structures, so they began encouraging co-location. All providers now have co-location staff to facilitate this process. While it is helpful to see where the facilities are located on the map prepared by Mr. Clugston, the carriers already know this information. Board Member Clarke asked if the City could require a provider to co-locate on an existing facility rather than create a new one. Mr. Busch answered that the City cannot prohibit a new facility as long as the provider can show there are no other alternatives. He expressed his belief that encouraging co-location is appropriate, but it may not work in all situations. Board Member Clarke asked if the code could give a carrier the right to expand an existing facility to accommodate a new carrier. Packet Page 212 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Busch suggested that rather than creating new language to address this issue, the City could reference the FCC’s programmatic agreement, which allows a carrier to extend the height of a tower by 20% or up to 20 feet, but only once. Chair Lovell noted that a public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for October 13th, which would not allow enough time for the Board to complete their self-guided tour and for staff to prepare draft language to incorporate Mr. Busch’s recommendation. He expressed his belief that the changes made by staff are appropriate and address the Board’s desire to place more emphasis on the need to prioritize location options. The current draft language makes it clear that the City does not encourage large facilities in residential neighborhoods. Beyond that, he suggested it is not reasonable to expect the Board and/or City Council to come up with specific technical guidelines for each type of wireless facility that might be proposed in Edmonds. He recommended the Board provide their final comments to staff so that the draft language can be updated and presented for public hearing on October 13th. Board Member Johnson agreed that the latest draft document reflects the Board’s thinking as of July 28th. However, it is intended to be a working document, and it may be appropriate to invite staff to fold Mr. Busch’s recommendation into the draft language before it is presented for public hearing. She invited Mr. Clugston to share his thoughts on how the Board should move forward. Mr. Clugston answered that perhaps the current draft language in ECDC 20.50.002 addresses the site selection criteria satisfactorily, but he would like to review it one more time to make sure. He suggested that he may be able to make the site selection criteria clearer using the template provided by Mr. Busch. He reminded the Board that the intent of the proposed amendments is to make the regulations as clear and useful as possible. He suggested the Board continue their discussion to the next meeting. Board Member Cloutier agreed with Chair Lovell that the existing proposed language works, but they should take every opportunity to make it even better. He noted that the proposed language does not address the idea of offering incentives to providers to encourage certain types of installations. Vice Chair Reed noted that one of staff’s recommended changes is to remove the illustrations. He said he likes illustrations because they help the public understand the various types of facilities. However, he agreed that they should be updated to ensure they are consistent with current technology. Mr. Chave explained that if illustrations are included in the code, then they must be updated whenever technology changes, which is frequently. Vice Chair Reed asked what the review process would be for large facilities. Mr. Clugston said that, as proposed, design review would be required for any type of installation, but monopoles and lattice towers would require a conditional use permit and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner (See ECDC 20.50.040). Board Member Clarke pointed out that ECDC 20.50.040.B references Woodway High School and Edmonds High School. These references should be changed to Old Woodway High School and Edmonds/Woodway High School since that is what they are called today. Board Member Clarke observed that there is no time constraint regarding this issue. Mr. Clugston agreed and said the City Council asked the Board to review the existing regulations to make sure they adequately protect the community. Board Member Clarke suggested it would be appropriate to postpone the public hearing so the Board has ample time to accomplish their goals. The more the Board can understand the issues, the better they can represent the proposed amendments to the citizens. He said he would like the City to publish a notice in THE EDMONDS BEACON inviting citizens to provide input. The notice should describe the Board’s process and indicate how the public can obtain more information. Mr. Clugston agreed that the Board could direct staff to go beyond the City’s traditional methods for notifying the public, but he did not anticipate this would result in significantly more public participation. It is difficult to get citizens to participate in the public process until a proposal directly impacts them. Vice Chair Reed said that most people do not even see the Planning Board meeting notices that are published in THE EDMONDS BEACON. He suggested it may be appropriate to have a regular Planning Board section that identifies issues that are coming before the Board. In addition, notice of Planning Board hearings could also be published on MyEdmondsNews.com. Board Member Cloutier added that the editor of MyEdmondsNews.com would be likely willing to publish an article that is written by a Planning Board member. Packet Page 213 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2010 Page 9 The Board agreed to continue their discussion to the October 13th meeting, at which time staff would provide updated draft language related to site selection criteria, etc. They agreed to tentatively schedule a public hearing for November 10th. Mr. Clugston agreed to provide information related to the self-guided tour on September 22nd. Board Member Clarke inquired if the existing draft language addresses the concept of allowing staff the ability to make common sense decisions. Mr. Clugston answered that, at this time, the draft language is fairly prescriptive and does not allow a lot of flexibility. There is some question as to how much flexibility the City Council would be willing to give staff. He expressed his belief that an administrative waiver would not necessarily solve issues related to changing technology that does not meet code requirements. Mr. Busch pointed out that the terms “mini,” and “macro” are no longer applicable because technology has changed. In addition, the code references an aggregate antenna size of 584 inches, but he is unclear about what that means. He summarized that the language should be tweaked to reflect current technology and staff should be allowed some flexibility when they are talking about something that is just a small degree over what the code allows. Mr. Clugston agreed to review the definition section and make the appropriate adjustments. DISCUSSION ON INTERIOR LOT LINES OVERLAPPING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) PERIMETER BUFFERS Vice Chair Reed announced that the City Council adopted an interim ordinance in April of 2010 that included a provision related to interior lot lines in PRD’s. The interim ordinance was due to expire in October. At the last City Council Meeting, Mr. Chave recommended the City Council extend the interim ordinance. He explained that the Board was in the process of reviewing the subdivision regulations and would take PRD’s into account as part of that process. The City Council voted to extend the interim ordinance, but they decided that the Board should consider the PRD issue as a separate item. He referred to the interim ordinance, which provides new language for ECDC 20.35.050.C.2. He explained that the Board’s responsibility is to review the language found in the interim ordinance and make a recommendation about whether or not it should be made permanent. Mr. Chave advised that staff would bring this item before the Board for additional discussion prior to the public hearing that is tentatively scheduled for October 27th. Staff would also provide a sketch to describe the language better. Mr. Clugston reported that staff would present the first draft of the subdivision regulations to the Board on October 13th, and a discussion regarding the PRD issue could be added to the agenda as a separate agenda item. UPDATE ON SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS Board Member Cloutier reported that the Board’s work on sustainability indicators is moving forward parallel to the efforts of the Mayors Climate Protection Committee, starting with building energy and focusing on natural gas because the Snohomish County Public Utility District is unable to provide accurate consumption data at this time. The Climate Protection Committee has developed a sample webpage, and they are hoping to have it completed by October 10th. He was tasked with providing data, and he created a spreadsheet that enables staff to type in the numbers and everything else would be automated. He agreed to forward a copy of the graphs and tables to each of the Board Members. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA No comments were made regarding the revised Extended Agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Johnson announced that the Cascade Land Conservancy would meet on September 9th at 7:00 p.m. at the Point Edwards Club House. There will be featured speakers on the subject of “Complete Streets,” which is a new nationwide Packet Page 214 of 383 LOCATION OF FACILITY Zone Street Type Adjacent Uses • Single Family Residential • Multi-Family Residential • Mixed Use • Business • Strip Mall • Industrial • Public Facility • Park • Open Space • Residential • Arterial • Through Street • Rural • Highway Packet Page 215 of 383 TYPE OF FACILITY Support Structure Antenna Configuration Equipment Cabinets Coaxial Cables Existing Structures • Monopoles • Transmission poles • Distribution poles • Water Tanks/Towers • Street Lights • Light Poles • Building walls • Building rooftops • Billboards Replacement Structures • Transmission Poles • Distribution Poles • Street Lights • Light Poles New Structures • Monopoles • Top Hat • Close Mount • Flush Mount • Canister Mount • Wall Mount • Roof Mount • Screened/Shroud • Ground • Underground • Pole Mount • Rooftop • Fenced • Landscaped Stealth Structures • Trees • Artwork • Chimneys • Shroud • Internal • Flush Mount • Shrouded • Paint to match • Combination Packet Page 216 of 383 HEIRARCHY 1. “I Don’t Have a Problem with That” Permitted use, subject to design standards 2. “That’s OK, but I Want a Closer Look at It” Administrative Conditional use 3. “Last Resort” Conditional use, with hearing ALLOW APPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE Administrative Waiver – Common sense exceptions, site by site, as long as community’s goals are protected Packet Page 217 of 383 1 What is in Edmonds? • Noncamouflaged – monopoles, retrofits on utility poles and buildings • Camouflaged Packet Page 218 of 383 2 Packet Page 219 of 383 3 Packet Page 220 of 383 4 Packet Page 221 of 383 5 What is “out there”? • Noncamouflaged • Camouflaged • Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) • Cells-on-wheels (COWs) Copyright © 2009 CellularPCS.com. Used with permission. Packet Page 222 of 383 6 Packet Page 223 of 383 7 Packet Page 224 of 383 8 Packet Page 225 of 383 9 546 Alder St. Packet Page 226 of 383 10 546 Alder Tube and Panel Packet Page 227 of 383 Published on FierceWireless (http://www.fiercewireless.com) Distributed antenna systems: From niche to necessity By Phil Goldstein Created Mar 4 2010 - 9:56am Over the past few years, distributed antenna systems have quietly emerged as a powerful tool for wireless carriers looking to bolster their coverage and boost their capacity--key concerns in the age of smartphones and 3G. [1]DAS technologies can be used for indoor locations--mainly to boost signal coverage in large buildings and at stadiums and shopping malls--as well as for outdoor purposes. Essentially, DAS is a collection of small antennas spread over a specific geographic area and connected by fiber back to a central location or power source, usually a base station. The benefits of DAS are two-fold: The technology allows carriers to fill in coverage gaps and dead spots in their macro network; and, by breaking down the macro cell site into smaller pieces, it helps add much-needed capacity to operators' networks. "It's used to fill in gaps where the big cells may not reach, but going forward it will probably replace a lot of big cells in a lot of situations where they need high capacity," said Allen Nogee, an analyst at In-Stat. "It's getting to be more about capacity." A growing market "Up until the last couple of years, it had been a niche market," said Dave Cutrer, the CEO of NextG, an outdoor DAS provider. "Carriers would use it solve specific problems." [2]The technology behind DAS is not new, and carriers have been using it for years. But lately, due to subscribers' skyrocketing mobile data demands, operators have turned to DAS as a much- needed boost to capacity. Nogee said today there are eight or nine major players in the DAS market, including ADC, NextG, Newpath Networks and larger tower companies such as American Tower and Crown Castle. They're all trying to meet the needs of carriers that want to get their signal closer to where users actually are, he said. PCIA's Connie Durcsak said DAS is primarily used as a surgical Page 1 of 2Distributed antenna systems: From niche to necessity 10/5/2010http://www.fiercewireless.com/node/59880/print Packet Page 228 of 383 solution to enhance coverage in a specific area. But engineering the network to enhance capacity is becoming just as important. "It has really evolved from a deployment need to an engineering need," said Durcsak, who is executive director of the DAS Forum within PCIA, a wireless infrastructure industry trade group. The DAS market is still nascent, and there are no precise figures on how large it is. Durcsak said PCIA does not keep track of exact figures because it's difficult to track the differences between indoor and outdoor DAS systems. However, she added that the industry has "probably evolved exponentially." Cutrer of NextG said the outdoor DAS market is probably a $500 million market. Tony Lefebvre, ADC's director of product management for outdoor DAS products, said the market is probably between $400 million and $450 million for outdoor DAS...Continued [3] [4]Next page [5] Source URL: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity/2010-03-04 Links: [1] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity-page-2/2010- 03-04 [2] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity-page-2/2010- 03-04 [3] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity-page-2/2010- 03-04 [4] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity-page-2/2010- 03-04 [5] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/distributed-antenna-systems-niche-necessity-page-2/2010- 03-04 Page 2 of 2Distributed antenna systems: From niche to necessity 10/5/2010http://www.fiercewireless.com/node/59880/print Packet Page 229 of 383 dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,2872935.story Daily Pilot Cell towers get poor reception from community Growth in cell phone services leads to more towers going up in natural areas residents want to keep preserved. By Mike Reicher, mike.reicher@latimes.com 9:16 PM PDT, July 24, 2010 CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK — He fought powerful interests: Caltrans, Orange County, the state parks system and the Irvine Co., all in the name of ocean views. Dale Ghere, then a high school biology teacher, spent the late 1990s eradicating a towering brush from swaths of Crystal Cove State Park. The saltbrush was blocking views — not from his home — but from Coast Highway, where he rode his bike each day. Everything was clear until May, when a cell phone company stuck a pole next to the state-owned highway. It was not one of those lunar rover-looking towers, but a slender, 30-foot tall pole. Still, Ghere — and a few others — were surprised to see it: The company didn't announce it publically, nor did it apply for a California Coastal Commission permit or inform the state parks it was erecting the pole. "They just don't get it. People have been working for four decades to get this park developed," Ghere said, agitated. "For me it's just one more little chink, just one more little thing that gets in the way of the open space." The Crystal Cove case, similar ones in nearby Laguna Beach, and a tense application process in Newport Beach all point to how mobile carriers are aggressively expanding their coverage with a new technology — distributed antenna systems, or DAS. Providers are hurrying to install these small, nimble antennas as customers demand more service. But their explosive growth has led to clashes between the companies that install the equipment, local officials who haven't dealt with the new technology and residents who are caught in the middle. "You have technology that evolves really fast, and you've got existing law that's designed for the tall cell towers," said UCLA law professor Jerry Kang, who specializes in technology and communications policy. "Entrepreneurs push the edges, and then the law comes in and says, wait, this is not what we expected." In the past two years, the number of "nodes" in the U.S. has roughly doubled, to about 20,000, according to Joe Madden of Mobile Experts, a Silicon Valley research firm that specializes in DAS and other mobile technologies. Just five years ago, there were close to none. DAS companies carefully calculate risk when entering a new market. If the permitting process through the city or county is too cumbersome, they might apply for permits and sue if denied. Or they might install equipment without approvals usually required for cell towers. advertisement Page 1 of 5Cell towers get poor reception from community - Daily Pilot 10/5/2010http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,3681468,print.story Packet Page 230 of 383 San Jose-based NextG Networks, the company that built near Crystal Cove, obtained a permit from Caltrans to install equipment in the highway's right-of-way. That surprised Todd Lewis, the Crystal Cove superintendent. When they discovered the pole, he and other officials demanded the crews stop work. "It goes directly against what the park stands for, which is preservation of the natural environment," he said at a Newport Beach City Council hearing earlier this month. NextG had proposed a number of antennas in Newport Beach, and the council denied most of their applications (some Newport Beach officials expect a lawsuit). At another location, park officials found a NextG antenna (attached to an existing pole) that they say was installed on park land without their permission. NextG contends it was on Orange County land and they didn't need a permit from the county. Park officials demanded NextG take down the equipment, especially since that section of Crystal Cove is being converted to underground utilities. NextG removed the antenna, and has also agreed to apply for a Coastal Commission permit for its new pole along Coast Highway, which it offered to move to the inland side of the road. "If a city's process is not unreasonable, we will typically take the path of least resistance," said Patti Ringo, the West region director of municipal relations for ExteNet Systems, one of the largest DAS companies. "It's a heck of a lot better than spending two years in court." But court has been a popular choice. Los Angeles County, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Davis and many other municipalities across the state and nation have fought DAS companies. Cities have spent millions of dollars in legal fees. And they've often lost. A typical scenario goes like this: a mobile carrier, such as AT&T, Verizon or MetroPCS, will hire a DAS company to help expand into a new area or to bolster coverage in an existing one. The DAS company applies to a city for permits to install antennas in the public right-of-way. The antennas are about two feet long and come with a box about the size of a gym locker, all mounted to a new or existing pole. These nodes are connected by fiber optic wires. Next, the city might deny the application, saying the antennas and poles have to look a certain way or they must be in a certain place. At this point, the DAS company argues it should be treated like other public utilities (electric, cable or phone companies) that can often bypass local planning review. In court, judges cite a patchwork of state and federal laws and often agree with the DAS group. SPEED VS. COMMUNITY REVIEW The rush to cover spotty cell zones such as Crystal Cove and Laguna Beach, places of natural beauty that also see a demand for phone service from drivers and visitors, prompts much of the conflict. NextG also installed an antenna and equipment near Rose Mallett's Laguna Beach home. Her front porch overlooks a row of homes and, past the roofs and under utility wires, you can clearly see a stretch of the Pacific. That was until crews hung a black box from a low utility wire. As Mallett, 60, rocked in her hammock, Page 2 of 5Cell towers get poor reception from community - Daily Pilot 10/5/2010http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,3681468,print.story Packet Page 231 of 383 she couldn't get it out of her line of sight. Enraged, she called the city. What she found out surprised her even more: The company installed it without a city permit. In many places DAS companies are able to proliferate quickly. Unlike large towers on another party's land, which could require a lengthy planning review, DAS nodes might only require a procedural encroachment permit to build in the public right-of-way. The California Public Utilities Commission gives a DAS company the ability to build there when it grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity. "It's pretty clear that the PUC didn't envision that this is what they were going to install," said Kang from UCLA. "The technology ran in a different direction from what the permission meant to be." NextG ran afoul of the PUC in 2009 when it dug into the public right-of-way without a full certificate, and the commission fined it $200,000. Since then, NextG has obtained the necessary PUC approvals to build in the rights-of-way. Speediness makes DAS sexy in the eyes of cell carriers, who can often deploy a network in a city in less than six weeks, a fraction of time required for approval of the larger and more conspicuous towers. After an installation, a mobile provider would typically buy the nodes or lease space on the network. "One of reasons the DAS market has grown so quickly is because you can act quickly," Madden from Mobile Experts said. "Time to market is a big factor for these companies." NextG rushed to install the equipment by Mallett's Laguna Beach house because the permitting process was taking too long and a competitor had already installed nodes, a company representative said at a planning commission hearing. "Just the idea that they came in without permission," Mallett said. "It was just business for them. They didn't care about how it affected us." CONSUMER DEMAND One of the biggest forces behind the DAS push is the surge in smartphone use and the demand for more data capacity. An FCC report anticipates that North American mobile customers will use 40 times more data in 2014 than they did in 2009. Both the California PUC and the FCC have initiatives to expand broadband access. Major financiers see the potential and have backed DAS companies, including Soros Fund Management and Madison Dearborn Partners, a private equity firm. "I don't think your average wireless user understands why it's so important to have wireless infrastructure," said Mike Saperstein, the director of government affairs at PCIA, the wireless infrastructure association. "The infrastructure needed is just like electricity and railroads of yesterday." COMMUNITY OPPOSITION Residents usually try to block installations with complaints about health, lower property values and aesthetics. But compared with the large cell towers, the nodes create a much softer impact, on all three fronts. Ultimately, it requires many more antennas to cover the same area as a tower, so the complaints Page 3 of 5Cell towers get poor reception from community - Daily Pilot 10/5/2010http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,3681468,print.story Packet Page 232 of 383 can add up. In Laguna Beach, a city of nine square miles, NextG anticipates it will install 50 nodes. "It's the proliferation of 48, 50 sites, and then the next company want to come in and do the same thing," Laguna Beach Planning Commissioner Robert Whalen said at a recent hearing. As a general defense, representatives from NextG and ExteNet say that they have approval from the PUC to place equipment in the right-of-way, the health risks are minimal, and that they usually go through the municipal approvals process. Also, they say cell phone subscribers may benefit from better mobile service. DAS was created around 2005 to fill in areas with hills and canyons, where traditional cell towers cannot reach. It has since been used in stadiums, subways and resorts (called indoor DAS). Mobile carriers sometimes install their own DAS systems. "We really view ourselves as a member of the community, and we're committed to open processes," said Ken Muche, a spokesman for Verizon. "We expect the same from those we do businesses with as well." In Irvine, Seattle-based NewPath Networks applied for permits to build 23 antennas in the Turtle Rock neighborhood, a small manicured hamlet with rolling hills and carefully-planned streets. Residents protested. Eventually, the city denied the applications and NewPath sued Irvine in 2006. After a series of rulings, the case is now set for trial in September in Judge James Selna's U.S. District courtroom in Santa Ana. If health concerns ever arise in a case, DAS companies, courts and cities have an easy reply. The FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that local governments can't deny a cell antenna application based on radiation fears. DAS antennas generally emit radio frequency energy well below the maximum amount permitted by the FCC. While some studies point to cancer risk from these levels of RF energy, most scientists have found the levels safe. Besides that basic health issue, cities are generally confused about how they can or cannot regulate DAS. Most ask for proof of a "significant gap" in coverage. Others try to get screens to hide the antennas. At a July meeting, one of the Laguna Beach planning commissioners suggested that NextG hire local artists to paint the boxes. "This is an arts community, and I think it's time cell companies and their installers think outside the box," Commissioner Linda Dietrich said. CONFLICTING REGULATIONS City officials are often unsure which laws apply to DAS companies because courts have sometimes contradicted themselves on the rights of local jurisdictions to regulate cellular antennas. Page 4 of 5Cell towers get poor reception from community - Daily Pilot 10/5/2010http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,3681468,print.story Packet Page 233 of 383 In 2008 the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of San Diego County's zoning ordinance. The ruling didn't deal directly with DAS nodes, but it said cities can, within reason, require cell companies to adhere to aesthetic and other zoning standards. That overturned a series of previous rulings. Federal courts elsewhere have ruled in favor of cell companies. "One of the reasons they have these lawsuits is that the municipalities are not always clear on the DAS companies' rights," said Julian Quattlebaum, a Los Angeles Attorney who is representing NewPath in the lawsuit against Irvine. "They treat it as any other zoning, but it's not." City of Davis officials started a fight when they rescinded permits granted to NewPath in December. The company had applied for permits to install 24 antennas on new or existing poles. Davis officials say NewPath representatives convinced them they didn't have to go through the planning review process. "There was confusion about what laws they fell under, what regulations they fell under," said Kelly Stachowicz, assistant city manager in Davis. "We issued the permits believing we had no other option." But when residents complained last November about crews installing 40-foot poles in front of their homes, the city told NewPath it had to undergo a full review. Now, gaping holes dot Davis where the city demanded NewPath stop construction. The two parties plan to meet in court. One of the points Davis is challenging involves environmental review of DAS networks. The California PUC has given cities full authority to scrutinize large cell towers under the California Environmental Quality Act, but the PUC generally gives DAS antennas an exemption. The PUC is also scheduled to rule on some of these matters by August. The complicated state, federal and local laws boggle many involved with DAS, especially local officials. STREAMLINED PROCESS Some cities have let DAS companies pass through with relative ease. In both Palos Verdes Estates and Del Mar, NextG obtained right-of-way agreements and had little trouble attaching equipment to utility poles, the Palos Verdes Estates city manager Joe Hoefgen said. He also served as assistant city manager in Del Mar. "But they were a lot more visible than people thought it would be," Hoefgen said of Palos Verdes Estates. DAS equipment was often the lowest on the utility poles and in residents' line of sight, he said. Some people are willing to live with the intrusion. "I'm surprised they did it without a Coastal Commission permit," said Scott Bassett, 23, a cashier at the Crystal Cove Shake Shack restaurant, "but I'm not going to complain if they're going to give us better cell service." Page 5 of 5Cell towers get poor reception from community - Daily Pilot 10/5/2010http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0725-cell-20100724,0,3681468,print.story Packet Page 234 of 383 AI-3522 Item #: 7. a. Planning Board Agenda Date: 11/10/2010 Discussion on ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 definitions and processes for regulations of wireless fac Staff Lead/Author:Michael Clugston, AICP Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Continued discussion on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulations of wireless communication facilities. (File No. AMD20100004). Staff Recommendation Previous Board Action The Board has been working on this project since April 2010 and has held multiple meetings on the topic in that time. At the October 13th meeting, Edmonds' existing cell sites were reviewed and discussed and a revised location framework was provided for discussion by Rich Busch (Attachments 1 and 2). Narrative As has been discussed previously, federal regulations prohibit local municipalities from excluding wireless communications facilities outright and facilities cannot be regulated on the basis of health impacts if they meet federal criteria for radio frequency emissions. That being the case, municipalities like Edmonds can regulate the location of different types of facilities and their appearance. To date, the Board has looked at updating the City's current regulations in ECDC 18.05 and 20.50. The initial goal was to provide some additional criteria for siting and visual impact. However, it became clear after a number of meetings and visiting cell sites around Edmonds, that the current regulations were largely outdated and a new starting point was needed. As part of the process, a new framework was offered to categorize wireless facilities (Attachment 2). This framework encourages co-location of wireless facilities on existing structures and buildings as the first siting option and steps through different siting options with the last option being the installation of a new monopole, if allowed in the zone. Additional design standards for the facilities including the antennas, coax cables and conduit, and equipment cabinets were also discussed. Using the new framework and reviewing a number of regulations from local jurisdictions, staff has prepared a new working draft regulation which attempts to incorporate these ideas (Attachment 3). The following sections are included: 20.50.010 Purpose - updates existing 20.50.020 Applicability - new 20.50.030 Exemption - updates existing 20.50.040 Prohibitions - new 20.50.050 General siting criteria - new 20.50.060 Permit requirements - new 20.50.070 Application requirements - new 20.50.080 Review timeframes - new 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.110 Ground-mounted facility standards - new 20.50.120 Temporary facilities - new 20.50.130 Modification - new 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use - updates existing 20.50.150 Maintenance - new A number of these are new sections to the ECDC and fill gaps in the existing code. For example, "Prohibitions" would disallow the use of guyed and lattice towers anywhere in the City. In addition, monopoles Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3522&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 235 of 383 would not be allowed in residential zones, within rights-of-way, in public and open space zones, or in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. However, "Prohibitions" does not mean that wireless antennas themselves are disallowed in those areas, rather the certain support structures that hold them up are not allowed. Use of existing tall structures in residential areas, such as utility poles within the City's rights-of-way, is still allowed but there are additional design standards proposed for that type of installation to minimize their visual impact. Site selection preferences and other criteria are included in "General siting criteria". Various permit types are summarized in "Permit requirements". The siting framework discussed on October 13 (Attachment 2) is proposed to be condensed into three types: building- , structure- , and ground mounted facilities. It may be that additional types are needed or that the proposed types be further refined. 'Structure mounted' currently has the utility pole retrofit code changes already discussed for ECDC 18.05 but this will need to be better incorporated into the new draft in the future. Finally, some important points will need to be resolved: 1) The current code allows for whip antennas to exceed height by between 6' and 15' regardless of whether they are on a conforming or nonconforming building (ECDC 20.50.010 - .030). Should antennas attached to buildings be allowed extra height above the maximum height of the zone? If so, how much? Should the same apply to nonconforming buildings? Should only whip antennas be allowed the exemption and not panel or dish antennas? What about a 'top hat' installation like at 546 Alder St.? 2) Camouflage. Should building mounted antennas be camouflaged with screening or simply painted to match or some combination depending on whether the antenna is flush-mounted to a wall or placed on top of the building? If extra height is allowed, should the facility be camouflaged with a structure or painted to match the background on which it will be viewed? 3) Integrating requirements for utility pole retrofits (ECDC 18.05) will require additional work with the Engineering Division. There are specific permitting and license requirements for right-of-way work that need to be addressed. That work will appear in a future update. Attachments Attachment 1 - Excerpt PB minutes 10/13/10 Attachment 2 - Busch Integrated Site Table Attachment 3 - Wireless code draft 11-10-10 Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3522&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 236 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 7 agreed that the content of the sign should not be limited, as long as the total sign area remains small. Mr. Chave agreed that it would be easy to enforce this type of regulation. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that it is not within the Board’s purview to recommend approval of changes in the permit fee structure. Mr. Chave agreed but added that the Board could certainly forward a recommendation to the City Council that they consider a change if they believe it is appropriate. Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.8 related to parking and storing of commercial vehicles. She asked if this provision would speak to Board Member Clarke’s previously-mentioned concern about large vehicles parking on the street in his neighborhood. Mr. Thies pointed out that large vehicles are not allowed to park on the streets in residential neighborhoods between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. However, residents are allowed to park one large vehicle in their driveway. Board Member Cloutier questioned the difference between a 10,000 pound commercial vehicle and a very large recreational vehicle. Mr. Thies said the issue is usually related to signage. Only large vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are regulated as such. Board Member Johnson referred to Section 20.20.010.A.9, which limits a home occupation to no more than one customer per hour. She recalled that her music lessons were only ½ hour long, which means her teacher could teach two students in one hour. She suggested that if the regulation is not going to be enforced, they should explain the guideline differently. Perhaps they should allow two customers per hour, except for urban farming and art home occupations. Board Member Cloutier said another option would be to allow only one customer at a time. Mr. Chave explained that engineering standards estimate that single-family dwelling units generate approximately 10 trips per day, so a limit of one customer per hour would not be out of line with what currently takes place in single-family neighborhoods. However, two or three customers per hour could generate more than the neighborhood residents are willing to tolerate. He said he anticipates that customers for urban farms and art studios would likely come from pass-by traffic. He said one option is to allow a few more vehicles per hour if a home occupation is located on an arterial where there is already a higher level of traffic. However, allowing two or more vehicles per hour on a cul-de-sac would create a noticeable impact. Board Member Johnson questioned if it would be appropriate to regulate the number of customers per day rather than per hour. Mr. Chave cautioned against making the requirements too complicated. Vice Chair Reed suggested it would be more appropriate to regulate the number of visits or vehicles rather than the number of customers, and the remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Johnson pointed out that Section 20.20.010.B.7 requires an applicant to provide at least three on-site parking spaces if they anticipate customers and/or employees would come to the site. Mr. Chave pointed out that the standard parking requirement for single-family residential zones is two parking spaces per unit. However, tandem parking can be counted in the total number of spaces. Board Member Johnson pointed out that houses built in the 1960’s and earlier typically have one-car garages, and property owners utilize on-street parking spaces to meet their additional parking needs. The Board directed staff to bring the draft document back for a public hearing on November 10th. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NUMBER AMD20100004) Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the attachments in the Staff Report. He also referred to the new document submitted by Richard Busch, President of the Northwest Wireless Association, titled “Integrated Site Code Classifications,” which document would replace Attachment 2 in the Staff Report. He reminded the Board that, at their last meeting, they agreed to participate in a self-guided driving tour to see the Edmonds wireless communication sites for themselves. He provided a PowerPoint presentation of each of the sites on the tour, as well as examples from other municipalities. He pointed out the good and bad qualities of each one. He noted that most of the wireless facilities in Edmonds are monopoles, retrofits on existing utility poles and on buildings. Some are camouflaged. Although not required by the current code, the Board could consider a provision that requires the facilities to be camouflaged. Mr. Clugston explained that the AT&T wireless facility located on the building at 546 Alder Street (Commodore Condominiums) is not a permitted use based on the existing code. He suggested the Board should discuss whether or not it Packet Page 237 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 8 is appropriate to allow wireless facilities that create additional height on buildings that already exceeds the height limit for the zone or if they should limit wireless facilities on non-conforming buildings to types that are wall mounted. He expressed his belief that the existing regulations are out of date and do not deal properly with current technology. He recommended the Board focus their discussion on the option outlined in the document submitted by Mr. Busch (Integrated Site Code Classifications), which focuses less on the type of equipment installed and more on the location and design of the installation. He felt this option would offer a better approach to regulate both current and future wireless technology. He referred the Commission to the various articles provided in the Staff Report related to distributed antenna systems. He suggested this is another option that could be considered for possible inclusion in the draft language. Richard Busch, Attorney and President of the Northwest Wireless Association, Issaquah, said he also represents AT&T on a current wireless facility in Edmonds. He referred back to pictures provided by Mr. Clugston of a building in the downtown with antennas that are undesirably placed and compared this to a more appropriate roof installation on Swedish Hospital, where antennas were placed on the side of a parapet that was constructed to screen rooftop equipment. He explained that people are accustomed to seeing shelters on top of buildings to screen rooftop equipment. He suggested this same concept could be used on other buildings, as well. There does not necessarily have to be anything located behind the screen, but it allows the antennas to blend so they are less noticeable. Mr. Busch referred the Board to the matrix he provided titled, “Integrated Site Code Classifications.” Rather than going through the entire matrix at this time, he suggested the Board focus their attention on just Category 1, which outlines design standards that would apply to wireless facilities that are affixed to existing structures. He explained that if the code language were based on this type of matrix, applicants would have clear direction about the types of applications they could submit and what the expected outcome would be. If an application can meet the design criteria outlined on the matrix for Category 1, the proposed facility would be a permitted use in all zones except Single-Family Residential, subject to administrative review to confirm the proposal meets the design criteria. A public notice would be posted, and there would be public comment period, as well. Rather than totally rewriting ECDC 18.08 and 20.50, Mr. Busch suggested that the matrix could be integrated into the existing language as a stand-alone document. He offered to work with staff to tweak the remainder of the code language to make sure they are heading in the right direction. Board Member Stewart commented that the new information is a lot for the Board to digest in such a short amount of time. Mr. Busch suggested the Board start by reviewing the examples provided by Mr. Clugston to determine how the design criteria in the matrix would be applied to each one. Mr. Chave said the complicated factor in the discussion is related to height limitations, particularly in the downtown. While the concept sounds good in theory, placing an antenna on the top of a building that is at or exceeds the height limit would not be politically acceptable in Edmonds. He explained that citizens are particularly sensitive to height in the downtown area, and placing a wireless structure on top of a non-conforming building could block view and result in huge issues. Structures attached to the sides of existing building would be preferable in the downtown area. Mr. Busch suggested that perhaps antennas could be located more towards the center of buildings so they cannot be seen from the street. Another option would be to mount antennas on the parapets of equipment screening materials. He summarized that the Telecommunications Act requires cities to accommodate the needs of wireless providers, and if the City doesn’t identify acceptable ways for this to happen, they may lose in the long run. Mr. Busch explained that whip antennas are allowed on the Commodore Condominiums even though the building exceeds the height limit and is nonconforming. However, the AT&T antenna is not permitted based on the current code. He provided a picture of what the antenna looks like from the parking lot in front of the building and noted that from the ground level it looks no different than the vent on the existing chimney. He advised that the City has not received any complaints about the appearance of the antenna. He pointed out that this type of facility would fall under Category 2 because it looks like another vent and does not call attention to itself. He commented that AT&T would be willing to revise the design and move the antenna down to be wall mounted, but the current code does not allow wall-mounted antennas adjacent to residential living spaces. He expressed his belief that this provision may violate the Telecommunications Act. Another option would be to create a faux chimney and mount the antenna to the side to appear as trim. Packet Page 238 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2010 Page 9 Board Member Stewart asked if wireless providers typically approach the City first regarding a potential site. She also asked if owners are compensated for allowing wireless providers to place antennas on their buildings. Mr. Busch answered that the first step is to review the search ring map to identify potential locations. A consultant would then look for opportunities to co-locate on an existing wireless structure. If this is not possible the consultant would look for opportunities to locate on an existing structure or utility pole. Once a potential site has been identified, the consultant reviews the code requirements and then approaches the owners with their request. Property owners are typically compensated. He noted that once an owner agrees to allow a wireless facility to locate on his structure, other providers typically follow since the necessary electrical and telephone upgrades have already been done. Board Member Stewart asked if private property owners are compensated for allowing a wireless provider to place an equipment vault in their front yard. If so, can they deny the request? Mr. Busch answered that they are compensated, and they can deny the request. Denial would require the provider to put the vault in the right-of-way or find an alternative location. Mr. Busch referred to Mr. Clugston’s brief comments about distributed antenna systems, which are very unique applications. From a practical standpoint they are used to serve high-density small areas such as Safeco and Qwest Fields. They are not a solution to use in every situation, and they are not likely to be an acceptable application for Edmonds. He referred to a recent court decision that prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring specific technology, particularly if it interferes with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines. He suggested they keep it as a tool but not a requirement in the code. Board Member Johnson referred to information presented to the Commission at the last meeting, as well as the personal insight she received from the self-guided tour of existing wireless facilities in Edmonds. She suggested the Board consider a simplified three-tier approach as follows: Tier 1 – This level would include technologies that are acceptable for all locations. There are numerous examples of wireless facilities that blend in well with surrounding structures or are not visible from the street. Approval would require a staff-level review. From examples within the City of existing facilities it appears those would be acceptable. Tier 2 – This level would include technologies that are generally acceptable in all locations, but additional scrutiny would be required to ensure that the facility blends into the landscaping, topography and land uses. For example, the facility located by the water tower used to be between the fire department and the water tower. The fire department use changed and now the facility is located next to a multi-family development. Also, the facility near the bowling alley on Edmonds Way is okay given the adjacent uses, but it may not be appropriate if the use changes at some point in the future. Tier 3 – This level would include technologies that should only be allowed as a last approach such as new poles or equipment vaults. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to consider alternative locations that are more suitable, such as a public structure. There would need to be a hierarchy of decision making. She cited the antennas on top of the building at 2nd and Main Street as an undesirable situation from an aesthetic viewpoint. Mr. Busch encouraged the City not to prohibit any specific type of wireless facility, because it could be a violation of the Telecommunications Act. They need to have a safety valve to allow providers to locate as necessary for adequate service. He agreed that a hierarchy for location would fit well within what is currently being considered. Vice Chair Reed questioned if it would be possible to incorporate the concepts outline by Board Member Johnson and Mr. Busch into the existing draft language. Mr. Clugston answered that he would like to start from scratch to create new code language to implement the concept described by Board Member Johnson and Mr. Busch. He asked that he be allowed to take what is appropriate and applicable from the existing work and incorporate it into the new framework so the Board can approach the issue an entirely different way. The Board agreed that would be appropriate. They further agreed to continue their discussion on November 10th. Board Member Cloutier suggested that Mr. Clugston provide a simplified flow chart of preferences. Instead of writing it out in words, a picture would make it very easier for the users to interpret. FURTHER INFORMATION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS/PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRD’S) Mr. Clugston announced that he has been working with the Engineering staff for the past several weeks to obtain input, and he anticipates an actual draft of the Subdivision and PRD regulations would be available for the Board’s review on Packet Page 239 of 383 IN T E G R A T E D S I T E C O D E C L A S S I F I C A T I O N A. S u p p o r t St r u c t u r e D e s i g n B. A n t e n n a D e s i g n C. C a b l e D e s i g n D . E q u i p m e n t C a b i n e t De s i g n E. Zone and Structure F. Type of Review 1. A f f i x t o Ex i s t i n g St r u c t u r e Ex a m p l e : Wa l l - m o u n t e d an t e n n a s , . w a t e r ta n k ; u t i l i t y tr a n s m i s s i o n t o w e r . De s i g n : N o c h a n g e to e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . 1. M o u n t i n g b r a c k e t s / a s s e m b l y at t a c h e d d i r e c t l y t o s t r u c t u r e 2. U p p e r t i p o f a n t e n n a n o h i g h e r t h a n to p o f e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e 3. C o l o r p a i n t e d t o m a t c h e x i s t i n g st r u c t u r e , o r m o u n t e d b e h i n d R F ne u t r a l s h r o u d t h a t i s p a i n t e d / d e s i g n e d to m a t c h e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e 4. N u m b e r o f a n t e n n a s – n o l i m i t 5. D i m e n s i o n s o f a n t e n n a s – 1 2 ” w i d e by 8 4 ” t a l l 1. W h e r e v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , i n s t a l l ca b l e s i n s i d e c o n d u i t th a t i s p a i n t e d t o ma t c h 2. C o n d u i t c l o s e mo u n t e d t o s t r u c t u r e 3. I f n o t v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , n o re q u i r e m e n t s . 1. R o o f t o p , b e h i n d p a r a p e t o r sc r e e n i n g 2. I n s i d e o f a r o o m 3. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d la n d s c a p i n g 4. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d f e n c e All zones; all structures except SFR Permitted use, subject to administrative review to confirm meets design criteria; public notice and comment period 2. L o o k - A l i k e Ex t e n s i o n t o Ex i s t i n g St r u c t u r e Ex a m p l e : Fa u x c h i m n e y o n ro o f t o p , s h r o u d ex t e n s i o n t o u t i l i t y po l e ; s t e e p l e ; c u p u l a De s i g n : Ex t e n s i o n m u s t l o o k li k e e l e m e n t f o u n d on c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e , or o n s i m i l a r st r u c t u r e s . 1. I n s t a l l e d i n u t i l i t y p o l e s h r o u d , o r i n or o n n e w b u i l d i n g e l e m e n t . 2. U t i l i t y p o l e s h r o u d : U p p e r t i p o f ex t e n s i o n n o m o r e t h a n h e i g h t o f ex i s t i n g p o l e , p l u s m i n i m u m se p a r a t i o n , p l u s h e i g h t o f a n t e n n a as s e m b l y ; n o t t o e x c e e d 2 5 ’ i n c r e a s e in h e i g h t . 3. B u i l d i n g e x t e n s i o n : U p p e r t i p o f ex t e n s i o n n o m o r e t h a n 2 0 0 % o f t h e he i g h t o f t h e l o o k - a l i k e e l e m e n t , n o t to e x c e e d a 6 ’ e x t e n s i o n a b o v e t o p o f a s i m i l a r e l e m e n t . 4. C o l o r o f s h r o u d p a i n t e d t o m a t c h po l e ; n e w e l e m e n t p a i n t e d t o m a t c h bu i l d i n g o r s i m i l a r e l e m e n t , o r mo u n t e d b e h i n d R F n e u t r a l e l e m e n t th a t i s p a i n t e d t o m a t c h e x i s t i n g st r u c t u r e , o r m a t c h e s e x i s t i n g ar c h i t e c t u r a l f e a t u r e s . 5. N u m b e r o f a n t e n n a s – n o l i m i t 6. D i m e n s i o n s o f a n t e n n a s – 1 2 ” w i d e by 8 4 ” t a l l 1. W h e r e v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , i n s t a l l ca b l e s i n s i d e c o n d u i t th a t i s p a i n t e d t o ma t c h 2. C o n d u i t c l o s e mo u n t e d t o s t r u c t u r e 3. I f n o t v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , n o re q u i r e m e n t s . 1. R o o f t o p , b e h i n d p a r a p e t o r sc r e e n i n g 2. I n s i d e o f a r o o m 3. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d la n d s c a p i n g 4. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d f e n c e 5. P o l e m o u n t e d , i f v o l u m e o f eq u i p m e n t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l to 3 ’ x 3 ’ x 1 . 5 ’ , a n d i s p a i n t e d i n no n - r e f l e c t i v e c o l o r s i m i l a r t o su r r o u n d i n g s All zones; all structures except SFR Permitted use, subject to administrative review to confirm meets design criteria; public notice and comment period Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 0 of 38 3 A. S u p p o r t St r u c t u r e D e s i g n B. A n t e n n a D e s i g n C. C a b l e D e s i g n D . E q u i p m e n t C a b i n e t De s i g n E. Zone and Structure F. Type of Review 3. R e p l a c e m e n t St r u c t u r e Ex a m p l e : Re p l a c e m e n t u t i l i t y po l e ; r e p l a c e m e n t li g h t s t a n d a r d , tr a f f i c l i g h t De s i g n : 1. D i a m e t e r o f re p l a c e m e n t p o l e n o mo r e t h a n 2 0 0 % o f ex i s t i n g p o l e . 2. H e i g h t l i m i t : sa m e a s B . 2 . 2 . ab o v e . 3. F i n i s h s a m e a s ot h e r s t r u c t u r e s . 4. R e p l a c e m e n t st r u c t u r e p l a c e d i n li n e w i t h o t h e r st r u c t u r e s 1. M o u n t i n g b r a c k e t s / a s s e m b l y at t a c h e d d i r e c t l y t o s t r u c t u r e 2. U p p e r t i p o f a n t e n n a n o h i g h e r t h a n to p o f r e p l a c e m e n t s t r u c t u r e 3. C o l o r p a i n t e d t o m a t c h s t r u c t u r e , o r mo u n t e d b e h i n d R F n e u t r a l s h r o u d th a t i s p a i n t e d / d e s i g n e d t o m a t c h st r u c t u r e 4. N u m b e r o f a n t e n n a s – n o l i m i t 5. D i m e n s i o n s o f a n t e n n a s – 1 2 ” w i d e by 8 4 ” t a l l 1. W h e r e v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , i n s t a l l ca b l e s i n s i d e c o n d u i t th a t i s p a i n t e d t o ma t c h 2. C o n d u i t c l o s e mo u n t e d t o s t r u c t u r e 3. I f n o t v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , n o re q u i r e m e n t s . 1. I n s i d e o f a r o o m 2. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d la n d s c a p i n g 3. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d f e n c e 4. P o l e m o u n t e d , i f v o l u m e o f eq u i p m e n t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l to 3 ’ x 3 ’ x 1 . 5 ’ , a n d i s p a i n t e d i n no n - r e f l e c t i v e c o l o r s i m i l a r t o su r r o u n d i n g s All zones; all structures Permitted use, subject to administrative review to confirm meets design criteria; public notice and comment period 4. N e w , Lo o k - A l i k e St r u c t u r e Ex a m p l e : L i g h t po l e ; s t e e p l e ; De s i g n : D e s i g n fo u n d i n s i m i l a r zo n e s a n d u s e s 1. W h e r e v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , i n s t a l l ca b l e s i n s i d e c o n d u i t th a t i s p a i n t e d t o ma t c h 2. C o n d u i t c l o s e mo u n t e d t o s t r u c t u r e 3. I f n o t v i s i b l e f r o m pu b l i c p l a c e s , n o re q u i r e m e n t s . 1. I n s i d e o f a r o o m 2. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d la n d s c a p i n g 3. O n g r o u n d , b e h i n d f e n c e 4. P o l e m o u n t e d , i f v o l u m e o f eq u i p m e n t i s l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l to 3 ’ x 3 ’ x 1 . 5 ’ , a n d i s p a i n t e d i n no n - r e f l e c t i v e c o l o r s i m i l a r t o su r r o u n d i n g s All zones; all structures except SFR Permitted use, subject to administrative review to confirm meets design criteria; public notice and comment period 5. N e w Ex t e n s i o n t o Ex i s t i n g St r u c t u r e Ex a m p l e : An t e n n a s o n ro o f t o p , N o c h a n g e t o current code 6. N e w W C F St r u c t u r e Ne w m o n o p o l e N o c h a n g e t o current code Pa c k e t Pa g e 24 1 of 38 3 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 1 of 19 Chapter 20.50 Wireless Communications Facilities 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Ground-mounted facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. Definitions – move to Title 21 20.50.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; Comment: Update of existing 20.50.000 Packet Page 242 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 2 of 19 7. Allow wireless communication companies to use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 8. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through engineering, careful siting, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities; and 12. Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, this Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as otherwise provided, the placement of any wireless communications facility at any location within Edmonds is subject to the provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process, setback, height or Comment: New Packet Page 243 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 3 of 19 landscaping requirements of this title. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. B. All proposed installations are subject to a SEPA threshold determination according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. 20.50.030 Exemption. The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones: 1. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 2. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. 3. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.D. 4. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.E. 5. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. 6. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. 7. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter is maintained. 8. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until 30 days after the completion of such emergency activity. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in all zones. 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities (monopoles) are prohibited in the following locations: 1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)]; 2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center; 3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; 4. Within the City rights-of-way. 20.50.050 General Siting Criteria. A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for WCFs: 1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure where the facility would be located; Comment: Update of existing ECDC 20.50.080 Comment: New Comment: New, includes site prioritization and co- location. Packet Page 244 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 4 of 19 2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing; 3. A replacement structure or pole for an existing one; 4. A new structure or pole altogether. B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. 1. To the greatest extent that is technically feasible, applicants for new ground-mounted facilities shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. 2. Co-locations shall be reviewed by the City on the basis of the site being built out (all available mounting capacity in use). 3. Any WCF that requires an CUP under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information indicates the need to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible. C. Noise – Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. D. Business license requirement – Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a tower also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. E. Signage – Only safety signs or those mandated by other government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. F. Parking – Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. G. Finish – A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. H. Design – The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities with the natural setting and built environment. I. Color – All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. J. Lighting – Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. Packet Page 245 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 5 of 19 K. Advertising – No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure. L. Equipment Enclosure – Each applicant shall be use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment. M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. Upon installation of the facility, the applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed Federal Communications Commission standards, including FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant. Applications for amateur radio antennas or antennas installed for home entertainment purposes are exempt from this requirement. N. Landscaping and screening. 1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures, or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director or Director of Public Works, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots and natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: a. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. b. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. c. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall at the time of planting. d. Applicant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. 3. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal, and shall maintain all landscape Comment: Need to update to reference ECDC 20.13 as appropriate Packet Page 246 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 6 of 19 materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving 30 days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the landscaping at the expense of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 20.50.060 Permit Requirements. A. No person may place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into Table 1. Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Types of Permits Required for Wireless Communications Facilities Type of Permit Type of WCF Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right-of- Way Permit Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole X Structure-mounted facilities X (as applicable) X (as applicable) Ground-mounted facilities (no CUP) X Ground-mounted facilities (with CUP – structure exceeds maximum height of zone) X X C. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are partially or fully within City right-of-way. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by staff as a Type I review according to ECDC 20.02.002. Comment: New Packet Page 247 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 7 of 19 E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). F. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking or landscaping on a site. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under ECDC Chapter 20.75. Any request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. H. Third Party Expert Review – Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review his/her qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the proposal. The expert review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a modification under ECDC 20.50.130. Packet Page 248 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 8 of 19 20.50.070 Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds: A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis; B. Current coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities and coverage in the area; C. Proposed coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s coverage with the proposed facility; D. Site information, including; 1. Site plan 2. Elevations 3. Undergrounding details 4. Screening and landscaping plan E. Neighborhood Outreach Plan, including; 1. Adjacent Property Owners list 2. Meeting notice 3. Sign-in sheet 4. Meeting notes F. Photo-simulations of the site including the existing and proposed views from nearby public viewpoints. G. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. 20.50.080 Review Timeframes. A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. 2. The 90-day time period for decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant. B. New monopoles (ground mounted). 1. Wireless communication facilities requiring a conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05. Comment: New Comment: New Packet Page 249 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 9 of 19 20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed to the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using RF-transparent panels. Flush mounted antenna(s) attached directly to the face of a building shall not extend above the height of the building but may encroach into a required setback if the building was constructed to the property line setback. B. The maximum height of roof-mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed ? feet above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard shall apply to all buildings, including those built at the maximum height allowed in a specific zone. C. The equipment enclosure for building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be located within the building in which the facility is placed. An equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. ? additional height shall be allowed for equipment enclosures on top of existing nonconforming buildings. D. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective colors. Colors of these facilities and equipment enclosures shall blend in with the building colors. 20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles, towers and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. B. The maximum height of structure-mounted facilities shall not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way are unzoned); provided the facility may extend up to ? feet above the top of the structure on which the facility is installed, including those built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a facility in excess of the allowed zoning height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting wireless facilities shall be utilized to determine compliance with this subsection. Only one extension is permitted per structure. C. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings shall be painted with non-reflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the existing structure. D. Only wireless communication providers holding a valid franchise shall be eligible to apply for a right-of-way permit, which shall be required prior to installation in addition to other permits specified in this chapter. E. All supporting ground equipment locating within a public right-of-way shall be placed underground, attached to existing above-ground utility structures in the right-of-way, or if located on private property, shall comply with all development standards of the applicable zone. F. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City of Edmonds rights-of-way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirements and procedures: Comment: New Comment: Height consideration Comment: Height consideration Comment: New, includes ECDC 18.05 design standards and references in sub (F) Comment: Height consideration Comment: Existing standards cut and pasted from ECDC 18.05 – need to be better integrated in future draft Packet Page 250 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 10 of 19 1. The utility that owns the pole or the provider installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. No application for a building permit or other construction permit shall be considered complete by the City unless accompanied by a copy of the required notice, a copy of the addresses of residents within 300 feet of the pole, and meeting notes from the gathering. 2. A micro facility (ECDC 20.50.010) may be located on or atop of a utility pole. If installed on an PUD pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the micro facility. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 4. Design review is required for aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review is conducted by staff as a Type I process and shall be limited to the following criteria: a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through said screening may be reserved by the utility. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located shall install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad transformers are exempt from this screening requirement. b. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a neat and uncluttered appearance. c. Micro facility antennas and appurtenances shall be painted with non-reflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. Packet Page 251 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 11 of 19 20.50.110 Ground-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. New towers are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternates – No existing tower or structure, or other feasible site or other alternative technologies not requiring a new tower in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least intrusive: The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. B. All ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall conform to the height and setbacks requirements specified in Table 2. Table 20.50.080(2) – Height and Setback Standards for Ground-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities District or Zone Maximum Height Setbacks Business and Commercial Zones Less than or equal to the maximum height allowed for a primary structure in the zone. Setbacks of the underlying zone, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. Business and Commercial Zones Exceeding height specified for the zone. Minimum 30 feet from all adjacent business and commercial-zoned properties, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. C. All ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, ground-mounted facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. A landscaping plan, prepared according to ECDC 20.13, is required that shows the best use of the existing vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be supplemented with new landscaping to effectively screen the facility. Native, drought tolerant plants or species proven adaptable to the local climate should be used. New landscaping must provide design continuity between the subject site and neighboring properties. 4. Equipment enclosures shall be placed unobtrusively underground if site conditions permit and if technically feasible. When such placement is not feasible, equipment shall be incorporated in a building. 5. Above ground equipment shall be screened around the perimeter by a fence at least six feet high. The fence should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some Comment: New, but similar to existing monopole 1 and 2, and lattice towers Packet Page 252 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 12 of 19 combination of these. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited, unless fully screened from public views by a minimum eight-foot wide strip containing Type I landscaping. 6. Support structures, antennas and associated hardware and equipment shall be finished in such a manner as to blend with the background against which the wireless communication facility will be viewed. D. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above requirements are met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the tower height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing towers or structures or alternative sites are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new tower is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. E. Zoning setback exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or Packet Page 253 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 13 of 19 c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially-zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor. 20.50.130 Modification. From time to time, the applicant and/or co-applicant may want to alter the terms of the CUP by modifying specific features of the WCF. If any of the following changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City of Edmonds as a renewal of the CUP. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of WCF, including “in-kind” replacement. A. Addition to, or replacement of, any equipment specified in the original design submittals. B. Change of the WCF design as specified in the original permit submittals. 20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a personal wireless service facility, such carrier will notify the City of Edmonds development services group by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the personal wireless service facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. C. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the personal wireless service facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Removal of antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject property. 2. Transportation of the antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers to a repository outside of the City of Edmonds. 3. Restoring the location of the personal wireless service facility to its natural condition, except that any landscaping provided by the WCF operator shall remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a personal wireless service facility in accordance with this section of this chapter, the City of Edmonds shall have the authority to enter the subject Comment: New Comment: New Comment: Updated existing ECDC 20.50.090 Packet Page 254 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 14 of 19 property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the WCF shall be charged to the landowner in the event the City of Edmonds removes the facility. 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. Comment: New Packet Page 255 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 15 of 19 Wireless-related definitions to update and/or include in Title 21 - Definitions 21.05.005 Accessory antenna device. Accessory antenna device is an antenna including, but not limited to, test mobile antennas and global positioning (GPS) antennas which are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support structure. 21.05.035 Antenna. Antenna is any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. A. Omni-directional antenna (also known as a “whip antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360-degree radial pattern. For the purpose of Chapter 20.50 ECDC, an omni-directional antenna is up to 15 feet in height and up to four inches in diameter (see Title 22, Plate 1). B. Directional antenna (also known as a “panel antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). C. Parabolic antenna (also known as a “dish antenna”) is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or transmission radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”), directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless communication services). 21.05.055 Attached wireless communication facility. Attached wireless communication facility is a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure and is not considered a component of the attached wireless communication facility (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.15.013 Cell-on-wheels (COW). Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. 21.15.035 Co-location. Co-location exists when more than one wireless communications provider mounts equipment on a single support structure (i.e., building, monopole, lattice tower). Co-location. The use of a common wireless communications facility, or a common site, by two or more providers of wireless telecommunications services, or by one provider of wireless communications services for more than one type of telecommunications technology. Comment: Existing definitions in italics, proposed are underlined Comment: To be deleted - not referenced in ECDC or update Comment: Updated Comment: Updated to 21.115.023 Comment: New Comment: Updated Packet Page 256 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 16 of 19 21.20.025 Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a collection of small antennas spread over a specific geographic area and connected back to a central location or power source, usually a base station. 21.25.020 Equipment shelter or cabinet. Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cabinet or building used to house equipment for utility or service providers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.35.040 Guyed tower. Guyed tower is a wireless communication support structure which is usually over 100 feet tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern around the tower. Guyed towers are often constructed in rural areas and are used to support antennas and related equipment. Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. 21.55.005 Lattice tower. Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment (see Title 22, Plate 3). 21.55.006 Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the FCC to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. 21.60.002 Macro facility. Macro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 100 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.004 Micro facility. Micro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which may be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel) as viewed from any one point. The permitted antenna height includes the wireless communication facility support structure (see Title 22, Plate 1). 21.60.006 Mini facility. Comment: New Comment: Updated definition in 21.115.025 Comment: Updated Comment: Remove old plate reference Comment: New Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Packet Page 257 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 17 of 19 Mini facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 10 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 50 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.045 Monopole I. Monopole I is a wireless communication facility which consists of a support structure, the height of which shall not exceed 60 feet (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.046 Monopole II. Monopole II is a wireless communication facility which consists of a wireless communications support structure, greater than 60 feet in height erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.045 Monopole. Monopole. A self-supporting structure, ground-mounted, consisting of a single shaft that is typically made of wood, steel, or concrete and that often provides a rack (or racks) for mounting antennas at its top. 21.60.046 Mount. Mount. The structure or surface upon which wireless communication facilities are mounted. There are three types of permanent mounts: A. Building-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building; B. Ground-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the ground (e.g. monopole); C. Structure-Mounted. A wireless communication facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, water reservoirs, and bridges. 18.05.000.A.9. PUD transmission poles. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 21.85.035 Related equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors. 21.90.004 Satellite Earth Station Antenna. A satellite earth station antenna includes any antenna in any zoning district: Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Updated from old Monopole I and II Comment: New Comment: Eliminate distinct definition – covered by “structure-mounted” def Comment: Updated in 21.115.027 Comment: New Packet Page 258 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 18 of 19 A. That is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; B. Where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted, that is two meters or less in diameter; C. That is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and D. That is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 21.100.080 Transmission tower. Transmission tower is a freestanding structure, other than a building, on which communication devices are mounted. Transmission towers may serve either as a major or minor communication facility. Examples include, but are not limited to: A. Monopoles; B. Lattice towers; C. Guyed towers. 21.105.012 Unlicensed Wireless Services. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. 21.115.022 Wireless communication facility. Wireless communication facility is an unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of low-power radio signals consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support structure, antennas (e.g., omni-directional, panel/directional or parabolic) and related equipment. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components: 1. Antenna; 2. Mount; 3. Equipment enclosure; 4. Security barrier. 21.115.023 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Comment: Individual definitions broken out for guyed and lattice towers, monopole Comment: New Comment: Updated definition provides clarification Comment: New Packet Page 259 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 19 of 19 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. 21.115.024 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged. Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. 21.115.025 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure. Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. 21.115.026 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground Mounted. Wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010. Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. 21.115.027 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. 21.115.028 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles, towers and/or tanks. 21.115.029 Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. 21.115.024 Wireless communication support structure. Wireless communication support structure is the structure erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Support structure types include, but are not limited to, stanchions, monopoles, lattice towers, wood poles or guyed towers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). Comment: New Comment: Updated from 21.25.020 Comment: New Comment: New Comment: New Comment: Definition replaced by 21.115.023-.028. Packet Page 260 of 383 AI-3660 Item #: 7. a. Planning Board Agenda Date: 01/12/2011 Discussion on ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 definitions and processes for regulation of wireless facilities Staff Lead/Author:Mike Clugston, AICP Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Continued discussion on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless communication facilities (File No. AMD-2010-0004). Staff Recommendation Finalize discussion on changes to the proposed language and schedule a public hearing on the update for February 9, 2011. Previous Board Action The Board has held multiple meetings on this topic since April 2010. That work led to the creation of a completely revised draft regulation which was distributed on November 10, 2010. Narrative Staff introduced the revised draft wireless regulation at the November 10, 2010 meeting (Attachment 1). In addition to providing any comments on the revised draft, the Board needs to resolve several outstanding issues: 1) The current code allows for whip antennas to exceed height by between 6' and 15' regardless of whether they are on a conforming or nonconforming building (ECDC 20.50.010 - .030). Should antennas attached to buildings be allowed extra height above the maximum height of the zone? If so, how much? Should the same apply to nonconforming buildings? Should only whip antennas be allowed the exemption and not panel or dish antennas? What about a 'top hat' installation like at 546 Alder St.? 2) Camouflage. Should building-mounted antennas be camouflaged with screening or simply painted to match or some combination depending on whether the antenna is flush-mounted to a wall or placed on top of the building? If extra height is allowed, should the facility be camouflaged with a structure or painted to match the background on which it will be viewed? The Board had inquired in November whether there were industry standards for the size and shape of wireless antennas (Attachment 2). Rich Busch, President of the Northwest Wireless Association, indicated that there are no requirements but the antennas seem to fall into certain size categories (Attachment 3). In the end, the sizes and shapes appear to be adaptable to site conditions and will likely change in the future as the technology changes. Local jurisdictions handle the height question for building-mounted antennas in different ways. Several use an approach similar to Edmonds' currently does where between 6' and 15' of extra height is available for wireless antennas depending on the type of antenna and the zone, no camouflage required. Others provide a blanket height allowance for antennas regardless of their location ranging from 3' to 15'. Still other jurisdictions provide for no additional height for the building-mounted antennas - in other words, they may be built to the maximum height of the zone and no higher. To facilitate discussion, consider the following possibilities for building-mounted antennas: A) Allow a blanket 3' - 15' extra height provision with no camouflage requirement [similar to current standards]; B) Allow a 3' provision in the Downtown Activity Center and residential areas with camouflage and a 15' provision in the rest of the City without camouflage; C) All antennas must be flush-mounted and not protrude above the building or chimney, regardless of whether Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3660&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 261 of 383 it conforms to the height requirements of the zone, and be camouflaged or painted to match. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened and camouflaged to match the existing structure [allows use of taller buildings as long as the antennas blend in]; D) All antennas must comply with the height requirement of the zone, with camouflage; E) All antennas must comply with the height requirement of the zone, without camouflage. Attachments Attachment 1 - 11-10-10 draft reg Attachment 2 - 11/10/10 excerpt PB minutes Attachment 3 - Busch email 12/2/10 Attachment 4 - Busch email 1/12/11 Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3660&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 262 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 1 of 19 Chapter 20.50 Wireless Communications Facilities 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Ground-mounted facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. Definitions – move to Title 21 20.50.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Establish clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 2. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact upon the City; Comment: Update of existing 20.50.000 Packet Page 263 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 2 of 19 7. Allow wireless communication companies to use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 8. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the wireless communication facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through engineering, careful siting, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities; and 12. Provide a means for public input on major wireless communications facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas in approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, this Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as otherwise provided, the placement of any wireless communications facility at any location within Edmonds is subject to the provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process, setback, height or Comment: New Packet Page 264 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 3 of 19 landscaping requirements of this title. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. B. All proposed installations are subject to a SEPA threshold determination according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. 20.50.030 Exemption. The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones: 1. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. 2. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. 3. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.D. 4. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.E. 5. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. 6. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. 7. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that compliance with the standards of this chapter is maintained. 8. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until 30 days after the completion of such emergency activity. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in all zones. 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities (monopoles) are prohibited in the following locations: 1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)]; 2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center; 3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; 4. Within the City rights-of-way. 20.50.050 General Siting Criteria. A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for WCFs: 1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure where the facility would be located; Comment: Update of existing ECDC 20.50.080 Comment: New Comment: New, includes site prioritization and co- location. Packet Page 265 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 4 of 19 2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing; 3. A replacement structure or pole for an existing one; 4. A new structure or pole altogether. B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. 1. To the greatest extent that is technically feasible, applicants for new ground-mounted facilities shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. 2. Co-locations shall be reviewed by the City on the basis of the site being built out (all available mounting capacity in use). 3. Any WCF that requires an CUP under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information indicates the need to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible. C. Noise – Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. D. Business license requirement – Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a tower also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. E. Signage – Only safety signs or those mandated by other government entities may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. F. Parking – Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. G. Finish – A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. H. Design – The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the tower facilities with the natural setting and built environment. I. Color – All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than towers shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. J. Lighting – Towers shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the reviewing authority shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areas. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any tower. Packet Page 266 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 5 of 19 K. Advertising – No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure. L. Equipment Enclosure – Each applicant shall be use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment. M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. Upon installation of the facility, the applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed Federal Communications Commission standards, including FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant. Applications for amateur radio antennas or antennas installed for home entertainment purposes are exempt from this requirement. N. Landscaping and screening. 1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities may be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a tower, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures, or if the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure. The Director or Director of Public Works, as appropriate, may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots and natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: a. Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. b. The landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. c. The applicant shall utilize evergreens that shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall at the time of planting. d. Applicant shall utilize irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of planting. 3. The applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal, and shall maintain all landscape Comment: Need to update to reference ECDC 20.13 as appropriate Packet Page 267 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 6 of 19 materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving 30 days advance written notice, may maintain or establish the landscaping at the expense of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in full. 20.50.060 Permit Requirements. A. No person may place, construct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine how a proposed facility is incorporated into Table 1. Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Types of Permits Required for Wireless Communications Facilities Type of Permit Type of WCF Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right-of- Way Permit Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole X Structure-mounted facilities X (as applicable) X (as applicable) Ground-mounted facilities (no CUP) X Ground-mounted facilities (with CUP – structure exceeds maximum height of zone) X X C. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are partially or fully within City right-of-way. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by staff as a Type I review according to ECDC 20.02.002. Comment: New Packet Page 268 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 7 of 19 E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). F. No provision of this Chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility to reduce the minimum parking or landscaping on a site. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter shall not be eligible for variances under ECDC Chapter 20.75. Any request to deviate from this Chapter shall be based on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapter. H. Third Party Expert Review – Applicants use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert may be by mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, or at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the applicant and beneficially interested parties to comment on the proposed expert and review his/her qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the proposal. The expert review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner without approval from the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a modification under ECDC 20.50.130. Packet Page 269 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 8 of 19 20.50.070 Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds: A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis; B. Current coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities and coverage in the area; C. Proposed coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s coverage with the proposed facility; D. Site information, including; 1. Site plan 2. Elevations 3. Undergrounding details 4. Screening and landscaping plan E. Neighborhood Outreach Plan, including; 1. Adjacent Property Owners list 2. Meeting notice 3. Sign-in sheet 4. Meeting notes F. Photo-simulations of the site including the existing and proposed views from nearby public viewpoints. G. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. 20.50.080 Review Timeframes. A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. 2. The 90-day time period for decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant. B. New monopoles (ground mounted). 1. Wireless communication facilities requiring a conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05. Comment: New Comment: New Packet Page 270 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 9 of 19 20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed to the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using RF-transparent panels. Flush mounted antenna(s) attached directly to the face of a building shall not extend above the height of the building but may encroach into a required setback if the building was constructed to the property line setback. B. The maximum height of roof-mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed ? feet above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard shall apply to all buildings, including those built at the maximum height allowed in a specific zone. C. The equipment enclosure for building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be located within the building in which the facility is placed. An equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. ? additional height shall be allowed for equipment enclosures on top of existing nonconforming buildings. D. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective colors. Colors of these facilities and equipment enclosures shall blend in with the building colors. 20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles, towers and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. B. The maximum height of structure-mounted facilities shall not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way are unzoned); provided the facility may extend up to ? feet above the top of the structure on which the facility is installed, including those built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a facility in excess of the allowed zoning height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting wireless facilities shall be utilized to determine compliance with this subsection. Only one extension is permitted per structure. C. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings shall be painted with non-reflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the existing structure. D. Only wireless communication providers holding a valid franchise shall be eligible to apply for a right-of-way permit, which shall be required prior to installation in addition to other permits specified in this chapter. E. All supporting ground equipment locating within a public right-of-way shall be placed underground, attached to existing above-ground utility structures in the right-of-way, or if located on private property, shall comply with all development standards of the applicable zone. F. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City of Edmonds rights-of-way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirements and procedures: Comment: New Comment: Height consideration Comment: Height consideration Comment: New, includes ECDC 18.05 design standards and references in sub (F) Comment: Height consideration Comment: Existing standards cut and pasted from ECDC 18.05 – need to be better integrated in future draft Packet Page 271 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 10 of 19 1. The utility that owns the pole or the provider installing the wireless facility shall host an informational meeting for all property owners within 300 feet of the pole. Notice shall be provided in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, postage paid, five business days prior to the informational meeting. No application for a building permit or other construction permit shall be considered complete by the City unless accompanied by a copy of the required notice, a copy of the addresses of residents within 300 feet of the pole, and meeting notes from the gathering. 2. A micro facility (ECDC 20.50.010) may be located on or atop of a utility pole. If installed on an PUD pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the micro facility. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with PUD requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. All other components of the wireless facility must comply with Chapter 20.50 ECDC, Wireless Communications Facilities. 3. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Conduit placed upon the pole to serve the wireless facility shall be of a color closely matching the pole. 4. Design review is required for aboveground utilities before a building permit or other construction permit is issued. The review is conducted by staff as a Type I process and shall be limited to the following criteria: a. All aboveground utilities except poles, appurtenances, and overhead pole lines shall be enclosed within a building or shall be completely screened year round with a combination of landscaping or walls, fences, etc.; provided that adequate access for use and maintenance through said screening may be reserved by the utility. Landscape screening shall be visually solid, and at least as high as the equipment to be screened, within five years of the installation of the equipment. The owner of the property on which the aboveground utilities are located shall install and permanently maintain the enclosure and screening. Aboveground facilities needed for underground utilities serving one single-family dwelling and low profile mini-pad transformers are exempt from this screening requirement. b. Space frames and structures and conductors holding aboveground utilities shall have a neat and uncluttered appearance. c. Micro facility antennas and appurtenances shall be painted with non-reflective colors in a color scheme that blends with the background against which the facility will be viewed. Packet Page 272 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 11 of 19 20.50.110 Ground-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. New towers are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternates – No existing tower or structure, or other feasible site or other alternative technologies not requiring a new tower in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least intrusive: The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. B. All ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall conform to the height and setbacks requirements specified in Table 2. Table 20.50.080(2) – Height and Setback Standards for Ground-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities District or Zone Maximum Height Setbacks Business and Commercial Zones Less than or equal to the maximum height allowed for a primary structure in the zone. Setbacks of the underlying zone, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. Business and Commercial Zones Exceeding height specified for the zone. Minimum 30 feet from all adjacent business and commercial-zoned properties, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. C. All ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, ground-mounted facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. A landscaping plan, prepared according to ECDC 20.13, is required that shows the best use of the existing vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be supplemented with new landscaping to effectively screen the facility. Native, drought tolerant plants or species proven adaptable to the local climate should be used. New landscaping must provide design continuity between the subject site and neighboring properties. 4. Equipment enclosures shall be placed unobtrusively underground if site conditions permit and if technically feasible. When such placement is not feasible, equipment shall be incorporated in a building. 5. Above ground equipment shall be screened around the perimeter by a fence at least six feet high. The fence should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some Comment: New, but similar to existing monopole 1 and 2, and lattice towers Packet Page 273 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 12 of 19 combination of these. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited, unless fully screened from public views by a minimum eight-foot wide strip containing Type I landscaping. 6. Support structures, antennas and associated hardware and equipment shall be finished in such a manner as to blend with the background against which the wireless communication facility will be viewed. D. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above requirements are met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the tower height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing towers or structures or alternative sites are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing towers or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or towers do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on the existing towers or structures, or the antenna on the existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new tower is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. E. Zoning setback exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks of the underlying zoning. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this Chapter of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may permit modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or Packet Page 274 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 13 of 19 c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially-zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor. 20.50.130 Modification. From time to time, the applicant and/or co-applicant may want to alter the terms of the CUP by modifying specific features of the WCF. If any of the following changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City of Edmonds as a renewal of the CUP. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of WCF, including “in-kind” replacement. A. Addition to, or replacement of, any equipment specified in the original design submittals. B. Change of the WCF design as specified in the original permit submittals. 20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a personal wireless service facility, such carrier will notify the City of Edmonds development services group by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the personal wireless service facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. C. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the personal wireless service facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Removal of antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers from the subject property. 2. Transportation of the antennas, mount, equipment cabinets and security barriers to a repository outside of the City of Edmonds. 3. Restoring the location of the personal wireless service facility to its natural condition, except that any landscaping provided by the WCF operator shall remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a personal wireless service facility in accordance with this section of this chapter, the City of Edmonds shall have the authority to enter the subject Comment: New Comment: New Comment: Updated existing ECDC 20.50.090 Packet Page 275 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 14 of 19 property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the WCF shall be charged to the landowner in the event the City of Edmonds removes the facility. 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. Comment: New Packet Page 276 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 15 of 19 Wireless-related definitions to update and/or include in Title 21 - Definitions 21.05.005 Accessory antenna device. Accessory antenna device is an antenna including, but not limited to, test mobile antennas and global positioning (GPS) antennas which are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support structure. 21.05.035 Antenna. Antenna is any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. A. Omni-directional antenna (also known as a “whip antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360-degree radial pattern. For the purpose of Chapter 20.50 ECDC, an omni-directional antenna is up to 15 feet in height and up to four inches in diameter (see Title 22, Plate 1). B. Directional antenna (also known as a “panel antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). C. Parabolic antenna (also known as a “dish antenna”) is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or transmission radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”), directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless communication services). 21.05.055 Attached wireless communication facility. Attached wireless communication facility is a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure and is not considered a component of the attached wireless communication facility (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.15.013 Cell-on-wheels (COW). Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. 21.15.035 Co-location. Co-location exists when more than one wireless communications provider mounts equipment on a single support structure (i.e., building, monopole, lattice tower). Co-location. The use of a common wireless communications facility, or a common site, by two or more providers of wireless telecommunications services, or by one provider of wireless communications services for more than one type of telecommunications technology. Comment: Existing definitions in italics, proposed are underlined Comment: To be deleted - not referenced in ECDC or update Comment: Updated Comment: Updated to 21.115.023 Comment: New Comment: Updated Packet Page 277 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 16 of 19 21.20.025 Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a collection of small antennas spread over a specific geographic area and connected back to a central location or power source, usually a base station. 21.25.020 Equipment shelter or cabinet. Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cabinet or building used to house equipment for utility or service providers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.35.040 Guyed tower. Guyed tower is a wireless communication support structure which is usually over 100 feet tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern around the tower. Guyed towers are often constructed in rural areas and are used to support antennas and related equipment. Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. 21.55.005 Lattice tower. Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment (see Title 22, Plate 3). 21.55.006 Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the FCC to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. 21.60.002 Macro facility. Macro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 100 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.004 Micro facility. Micro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which may be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel) as viewed from any one point. The permitted antenna height includes the wireless communication facility support structure (see Title 22, Plate 1). 21.60.006 Mini facility. Comment: New Comment: Updated definition in 21.115.025 Comment: Updated Comment: Remove old plate reference Comment: New Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Packet Page 278 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 17 of 19 Mini facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 10 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 50 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.045 Monopole I. Monopole I is a wireless communication facility which consists of a support structure, the height of which shall not exceed 60 feet (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.046 Monopole II. Monopole II is a wireless communication facility which consists of a wireless communications support structure, greater than 60 feet in height erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.045 Monopole. Monopole. A self-supporting structure, ground-mounted, consisting of a single shaft that is typically made of wood, steel, or concrete and that often provides a rack (or racks) for mounting antennas at its top. 21.60.046 Mount. Mount. The structure or surface upon which wireless communication facilities are mounted. There are three types of permanent mounts: A. Building-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building; B. Ground-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the ground (e.g. monopole); C. Structure-Mounted. A wireless communication facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, water reservoirs, and bridges. 18.05.000.A.9. PUD transmission poles. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 21.85.035 Related equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors. 21.90.004 Satellite Earth Station Antenna. A satellite earth station antenna includes any antenna in any zoning district: Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Outdated definition Comment: Updated from old Monopole I and II Comment: New Comment: Eliminate distinct definition – covered by “structure-mounted” def Comment: Updated in 21.115.027 Comment: New Packet Page 279 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 18 of 19 A. That is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; B. Where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted, that is two meters or less in diameter; C. That is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and D. That is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 21.100.080 Transmission tower. Transmission tower is a freestanding structure, other than a building, on which communication devices are mounted. Transmission towers may serve either as a major or minor communication facility. Examples include, but are not limited to: A. Monopoles; B. Lattice towers; C. Guyed towers. 21.105.012 Unlicensed Wireless Services. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. 21.115.022 Wireless communication facility. Wireless communication facility is an unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of low-power radio signals consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support structure, antennas (e.g., omni-directional, panel/directional or parabolic) and related equipment. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components: 1. Antenna; 2. Mount; 3. Equipment enclosure; 4. Security barrier. 21.115.023 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Comment: Individual definitions broken out for guyed and lattice towers, monopole Comment: New Comment: Updated definition provides clarification Comment: New Packet Page 280 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Wireless code draft 11-10-10.doc Page 19 of 19 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. 21.115.024 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged. Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. 21.115.025 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure. Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. 21.115.026 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground Mounted. Wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010. Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. 21.115.027 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. 21.115.028 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles, towers and/or tanks. 21.115.029 Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. 21.115.024 Wireless communication support structure. Wireless communication support structure is the structure erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Support structure types include, but are not limited to, stanchions, monopoles, lattice towers, wood poles or guyed towers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). Comment: New Comment: Updated from 21.25.020 Comment: New Comment: New Comment: New Comment: Definition replaced by 21.115.023-.028. Packet Page 281 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 10 CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NUMBER AMD20100004_ Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board has been working on this project since April 2010 and has held multiple meetings on the topic, the most recent being October 13th. He reminded the Board that the initial goal was to provide some additional criteria for siting and visual impact. However, it later became apparent that the current regulations were largely outdated and a new starting point was needed. As part of this process, a new framework was offered by Rich Busch, Attorney and President of the Northwest Wireless Association (Attachment 2), which encourages co-location of wireless facilities on existing structures and buildings as the first siting option and steps through different siting options with the last option being the installation of a new monopole, if allowed in the zone. The Board also discussed additional design standards for facilities including antennas, coax cables and conduit, and equipment cabinets. He referred the Board to the new draft language (Attachment 3), which attempts to incorporate the new ideas into the work already done by the Board. He briefly reviewed the new sections (20.50.090, 20.50.100 and 20.50.110) that were added to provide standards for building-mounted, structure- mounted and ground-mounted facilities. A new section was also added (20.50.040) to specifically describe things the City does not want to allow in any zone such as guyed and lattice towers. In addition, monopoles would not be allowed in residential zones, within rights-of-way, in public and open space zones, or in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Chair Lovell referred to a recent article published in THE EDMONDS BEACON and THE ENTERPRISE lambasting the City Council and Planning Board for the monstrous wireless facilities that were put up recently in the City. He said his understanding is that these structures were installed by licensed professionals who submitted design plans to the City for approval, and City staff reviewed the applications based on the current code provisions. The City did not have the ability to deny the structures because engineering standards dictate that they are required in order to provide adequate coverage. He summarized that other than being able to ameliorate the public by providing for enough advance notice and an opportunity for public input about the impacts of the installation alternatives, there is not a lot the City can do. He noted the articles indicate there is no process in the City that could have prevented the two installations from occurring. Mr. Clugston clarified that the City has had wireless facility regulations in place since 1996, and the two proposals in question received permits based on the current code. He reminded the Board that the goal is to simplify the process, make the standards more understandable, bring the standards up to date with current technology, and provide an opportunity for public input. The best they can hope for is to minimize the impacts. Mr. Chave explained that while the City can choose the options that are available, they cannot structure the code in such a way that it eliminates a provider’s ability to install facilities to provide needed service within the City. He recalled that, historically, the City decided they did not want monopoles in single-family residential neighborhoods, and that is why they allow small installations on existing utility poles. However, this type of installation often requires a slight extension of the existing pole in order to provide adequate separation. The code was amended previously to clarify that utility pole installations need to resemble the previous poles, and this requirement is further clarified in the language proposed by staff. Mr. Clugston added that that integrating requirements for utility pole retrofits will require additional work with the Engineering division. There are specific permitting and licensing requirements for right-of-way work that need to be addressed. This work will appear in a future draft. Vice Chair Reed summarized that the Board’s goal is to minimize the impacts in residential neighborhoods, acknowledging there are some facilities that cannot be eliminated. It is important to help the public understand the City’s limitations. Board Member Clarke also referred to the letters submitted to the local newspapers regarding two recent wireless facility projects. He asked if the two facilities that are the subject of the articles would be permitted based on the new proposed language. Mr. Clugston said there is no proposal to change how the City deals with these types of projects. He reminded the Board that a previous amendment provided clarification of the requirement that the new poles must resemble the previous poles. They can be slightly taller, but they must look similar. Chair Lovell added that the City does not have the ability to prohibit these types of facilities, but they can minimize their impacts. Board Member Clarke summarized that the letters indicate inaction on the part of the Board and City Council, and that the Board is listening to the commercial community and not the citizens, which is not the case. He said it is important to make it clear that the City cannot prohibit what was built in these two locations now or in the future. These uses are allowed by Federal law. Chair Lovell noted that, as per the Packet Page 282 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 10, 2010 Page 11 proposed new language, the two projects would have at least required a more laborious public process. The applicants would have had to prove that their proposals offered the only viable solutions. If that is found to be the case, the best the City can do is lessen the impacts to the neighborhood as much as possible. Mr. Chave recalled Mr. Busch’s earlier statement that the wireless providers would like the City to be more lenient than what is currently being proposed. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Board is not going as far as the industry would like them to. Mr. Clugston specifically invited the Board to provide feedback on the following: The current code allows for whip antennas to exceed height by 6 and 15 feet, regardless of whether they are on a conforming or nonconforming building. Should antennas attached to buildings be allowed extra height above the maximum height of the zone? If so, how much? Should the same apply to nonconforming buildings? Should only whip antennas be allowed the exemption and not panel or dish antennas? What about a “top hat” installation like at 546 Alder Street? Should building mounted antennas be camouflaged with screening or simply painted to match or some combination depending on whether the antenna is flush-mounted to a wall or placed on top of a building? If extra height is allowed, should the facility be camouflaged with a structure or painted to match the background on which it will be viewed? Board Member Johnson said that her answers to the above questions would depend on other factors. She expressed her belief that the Harbor Building’s rooftop antennas at the corner of 2nd Avenue South and Main Street are unsightly. When she visited the various wireless facility sites, the layperson criteria seemed to be whether or not the facility could be seen. Mr. Clugston agreed that the goal is to get roof-mounted equipment out of the view of the pedestrian, but his first question is more related to height. Board Member Johnson observed that the higher the building, the less visible the antenna will be from the street. Mr. Chave noted that the downtown area is an exception to this rule. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that antennas attached to the side of a building tend to be less noticeable because they can be camouflaged. Putting them on top of buildings on the hillside and in the downtown can be problematic, unless they are very thin. Mr. Clugston referred to the three whip antennas that are currently located on top of the building at 546 Alder and noted that from a short distance back, all three are visible, as is the top hat enclosure, but from a further distance, they are not as noticeable. Board Member Cloutier said it would be helpful to know the height needed to meet industry standards. For example, it would be pointless to have a City standard that only allows roof antennas to be six feet in height when the industry standard requires a greater height. He said it would also be helpful to identify the risks and benefits of allowing one large antenna versus numerous smaller antennas. Mr. Clugston said he does not anticipate the providers would be able to give him a clear cut answer to these questions because technology changes quickly. He agreed to research ordinances from other jurisdictions to see how they address these issues. Board Member Clarke asked if providers are required by code to remove facilities that are functionally obsolete. Mr. Clugston answered that the current code has language about discontinuance of use, and the proposed new language expands upon this concept. The Board agreed to review the draft documents and prepare for a continued discussion on January 12th. PLANNING BOARD GUIDELINES Mr. Chave suggested that before the Board takes action to formally adopt the Planning Guidelines, they should be reviewed and updated. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback, and staff would provide an updated draft for their consideration in early 2011. PLANNING BOARD STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Lovell referred the Board Members to the draft information letter, guidelines and application that were prepared by the subcommittee (Chair Lovell and Board Member Stewart). Board Member Stewart advised that the guidelines came from the Packet Page 283 of 383 Clugston, Michael From: Rich Busch [rich.busch@wirelesscounsel.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:21 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: RE: City of Edmonds wireless question Page 1 of 2City of Edmonds wireless question 1/5/2011 Hi, Mike. My apologies for the delay in responding to your questions. Here are the drivers for antennas as I understand them: Cellular/PCS carriers stopped using whip antennas years ago because whip antennas broadcast 360 degrees/all around. Cellular/PCS carriers need to broadcast in three sectors of 120 degrees each. There might be a few whip antennas still hanging around because a carrier couldn’t upgrade its facilities, but we don’t install them any longer. As a result, I don’t know about the dimensions for whip antennas. It is possible that police, fire, etc. still use them. Panel antennas will vary from 4’ high to 8’ or 9 ‘ high, and can be 10” to 12” wide. It depends on how many technologies or frequency bands the carrier wants to put inside of one antenna casing. Most of the larger antenna casings actually have two smaller antennas inside of them, either for two separate technologies or two separate frequency bands. We’re now coming out with the LTE (4G) antennas, and I don’t think the industry is set on how large those antennas will be. I heard long ago that the antennas would look like closet doors (to which I responded “I don’t think so…”), but more recently I heard that the LTE antennas will be roughly the same size as the current antennas (8’~9’ tall; 12” wide). Is this helpful, or would you like me to get more specific/accurate information from an RF engineer? I trust you had a nice holiday too. Should we sit down one of these days and discuss different ideas and approaches to the next draft? This is hard—trust me—and I don’t like coming in to the meetings at the last minute without fully agreeing with your language or approach. Let me know. There are a lot of nice lunch places in Edmonds. Rich Richard J. Busch Busch Law Firm PLLC 22525 SE 64th Place Suite #288 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-458-3940 Direct 206-265-3821 Wireless Rich.Busch@WirelessCounsel.com www.WirelessCounsel.com President, Northwest Wireless Association www.nwwireless.org Packet Page 284 of 383 From: Clugston, Michael [mailto:clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:14 PM To: Rich Busch Subject: City of Edmonds wireless question Hi Rich, Long time - hope you had a good Thanksgiving. As you may remember, we distributed a new draft wireless reg to the Planning Board on November 10 and we'll pick that back up in January due to their meeting schedule. I did have one question, however, that came up at that meeting. In discussing heights for rooftop installations, one member wanted to know if there was an industry standard for antenna size. For example, do whip antennas have to be at least, say, 6' but not more than 15'? How about for panel or dish antennas? Or, is it all technology driven? Any help is most appreciated. Have a good afternoon. Mike Clugston, AICP Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department P: 425-771-0220 | F: 425-771-0221 michael.clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us Page 2 of 2City of Edmonds wireless question 1/5/2011 Packet Page 285 of 383 Clugston, Michael From: Rich Busch [rich.busch@wirelesscounsel.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:54 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: RE: Wireless reg at Planning Board Page 1 of 2Wireless reg at Planning Board 1/19/2011 Good afternoon, Mike. Thank you for your message. First, my compliments on a well drafted ordinance. I believe the policy statement, the classifications of facilities and the type of permit required will encourage the wireless carriers to design and propose well integrated sites in the City. Second, your cover memo raises the correct policy issues for the Planning Board to review. I agree that the downtown district should probably have a different rooftop standard than other districts. If the antennas are limited to 3’ above roof height in the downtown district, however, I don’t believe any carriers will be able to meet that standard with their current collection of antennas. The smallest antennas currently in use are approximately 4’ tall. New 4G technology will use lower frequency bands (700 MHz), so as a matter of physics the antennas will be approximately 10” taller than current antennas. The smallest of the new 4G antennas will therefore be approximately 5’ tall. Third, if the antennas must be installed in the middle of the roof, they must be elevated off of the roof to broadcast over the edge of the roof plus propagate down toward the street and sidewalk. If the City could consider: (a) allowing a taller antenna tip height above the roof surface, or (b) limiting rooftop antennas to 5’ tall in the downtown district with the requirement that they be installed as low as feasible, or (c) allowing taller disguised or shrouded antennas to be mounted closer to the edge of the roof, it will be feasible for carriers to use rooftops in the downtown district. Finally, I would encourage the Planning Board to allow taller antennas (6’ – 9’ tall) in other districts if they are well integrated or if they are designed to look like common rooftop structures like chimneys, vents, stovepipes, etc. These rooftop installations, like the 7’ tall pipe on Alder Street, can be very well integrated with the surroundings. If the antennas are taller, the carrier is able to install fewer individual antennas per site. I apologize that I will not be able to attend the Planning Board’s meeting this evening. I did not notice that tonight’s meeting would address wireless issues until your email message arrived this afternoon. If you could share my comments with the Planning Board, I would appreciate it. I am planning to attend the February 9 public hearing. Best regards. Rich Richard J. Busch Busch Law Firm PLLC 22525 SE 64th Place Suite #288 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-458-3940 Direct 206-265-3821 Wireless Rich.Busch@WirelessCounsel.com www.WirelessCounsel.com Packet Page 286 of 383 President, Northwest Wireless Association www.nwwireless.org Page 2 of 2Wireless reg at Planning Board 1/19/2011 Packet Page 287 of 383 City of Edmonds Planning Division At the request of Council, staff has been working with the Planning Board for much of the past year on updating the City’s wireless communication facility (WCF) regulations. These regs are currently located in ECDC 20.50 as well as in ECDC 18.05.030. The goal was to update the regs to reflect how wireless facilities are located today, to combine the code in one chapter, and to make sure it is in agreement with federal requirements for such facilities. A wide range of design standards are also being proposed or clarified in order to have these facilities blend in as much as possible with the environments where they are located. These standards are included in several different subsections as well as a general section: 20.50.050 – General site criteria and design considerations [particularly (F) – (I) and (M)] 20.50.090 – Building-mounted WCF standards 20.50.100 – Structure-mounted WCF standards 20.50.110 – Monopole standards While I would encourage you to take a look at the whole reg for context, please review these portions of code and consider whether any changes should be made or if the standards need to be further clarified. Where possible, we’ve tried to tie the standards to existing regs (e.g. ECDC 20.13 – Landscaping) but there may be additional references that could provide additional clarity. Please bring any questions, concerns and comments to the February 16 meeting and we’ll go over the code and make changes as necessary. Thanks. Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda Memo To: ADB Members From: Mike Clugston, AICP Date: February 9, 2011 Subject: ADB review of design standards proposed in wireless communication facility regulation update Packet Page 288 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 1 of 21 Chapter 20.50 Wireless Communications Facilities 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Monopole facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. Definitions – move to Title 21 20.50.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter may be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6. Encourage and where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable Packet Page 289 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 2 of 21 structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact on the City; 7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the City to use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed as necessary, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through strict compliance with State building and electrical codes; and 12. Provide a means for public input on wireless communication facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), this Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Packet Page 290 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 3 of 21 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. B. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. 20.50.030 Exemptions. The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones: A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.D. D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.E. E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. G. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that the equipment, structure or enclosures maintain compliance with the standards of this chapter. If the cost of repair of a legally nonconforming equipment, structure and/or enclosure exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the equipment, structure and/or enclosure, the repair shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. H. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in Edmonds. 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations: 1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)]; 2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center; 3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; and 4. Within the City rights-of-way. Packet Page 291 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 4 of 21 20.50.050 General Siting Criteria and Design Considerations. A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use existing sites or to utilize more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless communication facilities: 1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon which the facility would be located; 2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or structure; 3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one; 4. A new pole or structure altogether. B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. 1. To the greatest extent technically feasible, applicants for new monopole facilities shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. 2. Any Wireless Communication Facility that requires an conditional use permit (CUP) under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information clearly indicates that the requested site is needed in order to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible. C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. D. Business license requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. F. Finish. A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. G. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment. H. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color Packet Page 292 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 5 of 21 of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. I. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are permitted, the City shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord with FCC requirements. J. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure. K. Equipment enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required co-location. L. Radio frequency emissions compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant. M. Landscaping and screening. 1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The Director or his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property perimeter provide a sufficient buffer. 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with ECDC 20.13. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. Packet Page 293 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 6 of 21 b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant. d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts with other surrounding utilities. 3. The applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to ECDC 20.13.040. 4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or wood fencing materials are preferred. 20.50.060 Permit Requirements. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20 and ECDC Title 18. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine what permits will be required for the proposed facility. Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Permit Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities Permits Required Type of Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right-of- Way Permit Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole X Structure-mounted facilities (excluding co-location on existing monopole) X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable) Monopole facilities (structure complies with height requirement of the underlying zone) X Monopole facilities (structure exceeds maximum height of zone) X X (Type III-B) C. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter for projects located on public or private property, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director, or his designee,. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the City rights-of-way. Regardless of whether the Packet Page 294 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 7 of 21 Director or the Director of Public Works or their respective designees, are reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the Director or his designee. E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility which minimize parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by this code. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under ECDC chapter 20.85. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this chapter. H. Third party review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require third party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the City. The applicant and interested parties may comment on the proposed expert and review his/her qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the proposal. The third party review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other site or sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner without the approval of the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a modification under ECDC 20.50.130. Packet Page 295 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 8 of 21 20.50.070 Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds: A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis; B. Existing wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities and wireless coverage in the area; C. Proposed wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s wireless coverage with the proposed facility; D. Site information on scaled plans, including; 1. Site plan 2. Elevation drawings 3. Undergrounding details, as applicable 4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with ECDC 20.13), as appropriate E. Photos and photo-simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints; F. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050.C), if applicable; G. Radio frequency emissions report for the proposed facility, which shall not be reviewed further by the City; H. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the Director in order to issue a decision. 20.50.080 Review Timeframes. A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to Superior Court under the Land Use Permit Act. 2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant. 3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of facilities: a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for Packet Page 296 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 9 of 21 communications purposes by more than one wireless carrier or by one carrier providing more than one type of telecommunications technology; or b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a tower. For purposes of this section, “substantial increase in the size of a tower” means: 1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the height size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; 2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; 3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or 4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site; or c. Facilities that are a part of a Distributed Antenna System, provided that the Distributed Antenna System connects to an existing tower or antenna. A Distributed Antenna System, for the purposes of this section, is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure. B. New monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05. 20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facility Standards. A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using Radio Frequency-transparent panels. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted. B. Height. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas shall be flush-mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the Packet Page 297 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 10 of 21 building on which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush-mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the City right-of-way if an Encroachment Permit is first obtained. 2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building- mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine (9) feet above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes. C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosure for building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable then an equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be either be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone or screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.M. D. Feed lines and coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right of way or adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. Acceptable Building Mounted WCF Unacceptable Building Mounted WCF Packet Page 298 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 11 of 21 A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. 1. Co-location of antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed. 2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City rights-of- way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirements: a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. 3. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with non- reflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure and surroundings. B. Height. 1. The maximum height of structure-mounted wireless communication facilities shall not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six (6) feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed in order to comply with separation requirements. This includes installation of facilities on structures built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a wireless communication facility in excess of the allowed height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting wireless communication facilities shall be used to determine compliance with this subsection. 2. Only one extension is permitted per structure. 3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility’s requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. C. Equipment enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the equipment must be either enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone or screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.M. D. Feed lines and coaxial cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid right-of-way use agreement shall be eligible to apply for a right-of-way construction permit , which shall be required prior to installation of facilities within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter. Packet Page 299 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 12 of 21 F. City property/lease agreement. 20.50.110 Monopole Facility Standards. A. New monopoles are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and Acceptable Structure Mounted WCF Unacceptable Structure Mounted WCF Packet Page 300 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 13 of 21 2. Alternatives – No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least intrusive – The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. C. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. Equipment enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be either enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone or screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.M. 4. Feed lines, coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. D. Review criteria. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards are met. Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible co-location opportunity) Acceptable Monopole WCF Packet Page 301 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 14 of 21 Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III-B conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. E. Zoning setback exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in Table 20.50.080(2). However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially-zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. Packet Page 302 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 15 of 21 A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor. 20.50.130 Modification. From time to time, the applicant and/or co-applicant may apply to alter the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP) by modifying specific features of the wireless communication facility. If any of the following changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City as a new CUP application. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a wireless communication facility (WCF), including “in-kind” replacement. A. Addition to, or replacement of, any equipment specified in the original design submittals. B. Change of the WCF design as specified in the original permit submittals. 20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless communication facility, such carrier will notify the Director by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. C. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the wireless communication facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, cabling and the like from the subject property. 2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the City. 3. Restoring the location of the wireless communication facility to its pre-permit condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility operator may remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this section, the City shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the wireless communication facility shall be charged to the wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the City removes the facility. 20.50.150 Maintenance. Packet Page 303 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 16 of 21 A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. Packet Page 304 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 17 of 21 Wireless-related definitions to update and/or include in Title 21 - Definitions 21.05.005 Accessory antenna device. Accessory antenna device is an antenna including, but not limited to, test mobile antennas and global positioning (GPS) antennas which are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support structure. 21.05.035 Antenna. Antenna is any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. A. Omni-directional antenna (also known as a “whip antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360-degree radial pattern. For the purpose of Chapter 20.50 ECDC, an omni-directional antenna is up to 15 feet in height and up to four inches in diameter (see Title 22, Plate 1). B. Directional antenna (also known as a “panel antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). C. Parabolic antenna (also known as a “dish antenna”) is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or transmission radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”), directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless communication services). 21.05.055 Attached wireless communication facility. Attached wireless communication facility is a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure and is not considered a component of the attached wireless communication facility (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.15.013 Cell-on-wheels (COW). Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. 21.15.035 Co-location. Co-location exists when more than one wireless communications provider mounts equipment on a single support structure (i.e., building, monopole, lattice tower). Co-location. The use of a common wireless communications facility, or a common site, by two or more providers of wireless telecommunications services, or by one provider of wireless communications services for more than one type of telecommunications technology. Packet Page 305 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 18 of 21 21.20.025 Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a collection of small antennas spread over a specific geographic area and connected back to a central location or power source, usually a base station. 21.25.020 Equipment shelter or cabinet. Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cabinet or building used to house equipment for utility or service providers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). 21.35.040 Guyed tower. Guyed tower is a wireless communication support structure which is usually over 100 feet tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern around the tower. Guyed towers are often constructed in rural areas and are used to support antennas and related equipment. Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. 21.55.005 Lattice tower. Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment (see Title 22, Plate 3). 21.55.006 Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the FCC to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. 21.60.002 Macro facility. Macro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 100 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.004 Micro facility. Micro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which may be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel) as viewed from any one point. The permitted antenna height includes the wireless communication facility support structure (see Title 22, Plate 1). 21.60.006 Mini facility. Packet Page 306 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 19 of 21 Mini facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 10 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 50 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.045 Monopole I. Monopole I is a wireless communication facility which consists of a support structure, the height of which shall not exceed 60 feet (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.046 Monopole II. Monopole II is a wireless communication facility which consists of a wireless communications support structure, greater than 60 feet in height erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.045 Monopole. Monopole. A self-supporting structure or tower, ground-mounted, consisting of a single shaft that is typically made of wood, steel, or concrete and that often provides a rack (or racks) for mounting antennas at its top. 21.60.046 Mount. Mount. The structure or surface upon which wireless communication facilities are mounted. There are three types of permanent mounts: A. Building-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building, chimney, stairwell, elevator penthouse or similar extension; B. Ground-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the ground (e.g. monopole); C. Structure-Mounted. A wireless communication facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, water reservoirs, and bridges. 18.05.000.A.9. PUD transmission poles. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 21.85.035 Related equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors. 21.90.004 Satellite Earth Station Antenna. A satellite earth station antenna includes any antenna in any zoning district: Packet Page 307 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 20 of 21 A. That is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; B. Where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted, that is two meters or less in diameter; C. That is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and D. That is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 21.100.080 Transmission tower. Transmission tower is a freestanding structure, other than a building, on which communication devices are mounted. Transmission towers may serve either as a major or minor communication facility. Examples include, but are not limited to: A. Monopoles; B. Lattice towers; C. Guyed towers. 21.105.012 Unlicensed Wireless Services. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. 21.115.022 Wireless communication facility. Wireless communication facility is an unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of low-power radio signals consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support structure, antennas (e.g., omni-directional, panel/directional or parabolic) and related equipment. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components: 1. Antenna; 2. Mount; 3. Equipment enclosure; 4. Security barrier. 21.115.023 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Packet Page 308 of 383 L:\ECDC_Rewrite\Cell poles\Redline of Edmonds Wireless Communiations Ordinance (856754)-OMW & JM.DOC ERZ856754.DOC;1\00006.900150\ Page 21 of 21 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. 21.115.024 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged. Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. 21.115.025 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure. Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. 21.115.026 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Monopole. Wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010. Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. 21.115.027 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. 21.115.028 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles and/or tanks. 21.115.029 Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. 21.115.024 Wireless communication support structure. Wireless communication support structure is the structure erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Support structure types include, but are not limited to, stanchions, monopoles, lattice towers, wood poles or guyed towers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). Packet Page 309 of 383 AI-3783 Item #: 7. a. Planning Board Agenda Date: 03/09/2011 Discussion on ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 definitions and processes for regulation of wireless facilities Staff Lead/Author:Mike Clugston, AICP Department:Planning Initiated By:City Council Information Subject/Purpose Continued discussion on proposed amendments to ECDC 18.05 and 20.50 clarifying definitions and processes for regulation of wireless communication facilities (File No. AMD-2010-0004). Staff Recommendation Finalize discussion on the proposed language and schedule a public hearing for April 13, 2011. Previous Board Action The Board has held multiple meetings on this topic since April 2010. That work led to the creation of a completely revised draft regulation which was distributed on November 10, 2010. The Board discussed various refinements of the draft regulation in detail at their January 12, 2011 meeting (Attachment 1). Narrative As mentioned above, the Planning Board discussed the proposed draft wireless code at the January 12 meeting. Staff subsequently reviewed the draft with the Architectural Design Board on February 16 to get their input on the numerous design-related sections of the proposal (Attachment 2). Overall, the ADB was satisfied with the proposed language but did offer some additional clarifications. Using the input received from both meetings, staff and the City attorney made refinements to the draft which are included in the redline/strike out version that is Attachment 3. Highlights of this draft include: 1) Changed "ground-mounted" facilities to "monopole" facilities for clarity since other possible ground- mounted facilities like lattice towers and guyed towers are specifically prohibited. 2) Definitions will be included with the chapter (20.50.160) as opposed to in a different title. 3) Updated 20.50.050.N (landscaping and screening) to better reflect existing Landscaping code in ECDC 20.13 4) Included the Planning Board's recommended language for location and height of building-mounted wireless facilities in ECDC 20.50.090 as well as structure-mounted antennas in ECDC 20.50.100. 5) Aligned monopole height and setbacks to Chapter 16 (Zoning) and so eliminated Table 20.50.080(2). Attachments Attachment 1 - PB excerpt minutes 1-12-11 Attachment 2 - ADB draft minutes 2/16/11 Attachment 3 - Wireless code draft for 3-9-11 Page 1 of 1Print Agenda Item 4/20/2011http://edmonds-agenda/frs/publish/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=3783&rev=0&mode=External... Packet Page 310 of 383 APPROVED FEBRUARY 9TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 12, 2011 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair John Reed, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Kristiana Johnson Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Clarke STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (File Number AMD-2010-0004) Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the following attachments to the Staff Report: Attachment 1 – Draft Regulations dated November 10, 2010 Attachment 2 – Excerpts from the November 10, 2010 Planning Board Meeting Minutes Attachment 3 – Email from Richard Busch dated December 2, 2010 Attachment 4 – Email from Richard Busch dated January 12, 2010 Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board has been working on the Wireless Communication Facilities Regulations for quite some time. An initial public hearing was conducted in July 2010, and the Board decided to rework the draft regulations based on the comments received. He explained that the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to review the draft regulations and provide Packet Page 311 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 2 feedback to staff in preparation for another public hearing. He specifically invited the Board to provide feedback related to Sections 20.50.090 and 20.50.100, where further direction related to height and size is still needed. Chair Lovell complimented staff for doing a great job of putting together the draft regulations. He reminded the Board that there is very little the City can legally do to prevent wireless facilities. However, the proposed language would enable the City to require proper application submittals and notification and limit the associated visual and environmental impacts. It does a good job of accommodating the requirements of the law, the providers and the residents. The document is easy to read and provides clear direction to applicants regarding project submittals and design. Board Member Stewart agreed that staff did an amazing job, paying close attention to details. She referred to Section 20.50.050.N.1 and suggested the word “may” in the first sentence should be changed to “shall” to make the language stronger. Vice Chair Reed said he had the same thought. Chair Lovell pointed out that Section 20.50.050.N.2 provides specific direction regarding the type of screening and landscaping required. Board Member Johnson said she would support the language being more specific for requirements applicants are expected to follow. However, she questioned how much latitude staff would like to have in determining where, when and how the landscaping and screening should be conducted. As the Board visited existing wireless facility sites throughout the City, they observed that each installation was unique. Therefore, applying one standard evenly across the board may have some undesirable results. Board Member Stewart agreed that there must be flexibility, and perhaps changing “may” to “shall” would strengthen staff’s position to address unique circumstances. Board Member Johnson invited staff to comment on whether they would prefer rigid requirements or more flexibility to apply their own judgment. Board Member Johnson referred to the memorandum from Mr. Clugston (green), which outlines four options for building- mounted antennas. She noted that the term “must” was used in two of the four options. She said she is unclear about how much flexibility staff needs, especially in light of recent emails the Board received from Mr. Busch about current technology (Attachments 3 and 4). Mr. Clugston suggested that using the word “should” in place of “may” in Section 20.50.050.N.1 would address staff’s need for flexibility. Board Member Stewart also referred to Section 20.50.060.H.1 and suggested that the word “may” in the first sentence should also be changed to “shall.” Mr. Clugston explained that rather than allowing the third party expert to be selected via a mutual agreement between the applicant and the City, staff is proposing that the language be changed so selection of the third party expert would be at the discretion of the City. The Board concurred with this proposed change. Chair Lovell referred to Section 20.50.010.E and recalled that at their last meeting, the Board collectively agreed that there should be an opportunity for the public to comment on wireless facility applications and that sufficient notice should be given so citizens can organize themselves to attend public meetings. He suggested that 45 days would be a reasonable time period for this to occur within the 90-day time frame for approving the permit. Mr. Clugston pointed out that Section 20.50.010.E is intended to provide a general definition of the timeline, which is more specifically defined in Section 20.50.080.A.1. He noted that some changes must be made to be consistent with recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings, and staff has been working with the City Attorney to incorporate the required changes. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Section 20.50.100.F would require applicants to host information meetings prior to submitting applications for wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City of Edmonds rights- of-way adjacent to single-family residential zones. Mr. Clugston clarified that, as currently written, an applicant must verify that an information meeting has been held before the application can be deemed complete. Chair Lovell pointed out that an information meeting prior to application submittal would allow a carrier to address public concerns prior to submitting a final design. Mr. Clugston clarified that Section 20.50.100.F refers specifically to utility pole retrofits. He explained that the pre- application meeting requirement was instituted as a result of the Seaview utility pole installation. However, it is important to keep in mind that, with the exception of Planned Residential Developments (PRD), no other City permit requires a pre- application meeting. He said that while he understands the initial intent, he is not clear on the benefits of a pre-application meeting. He explained that public notice is already required for any Type II, III, or IV permit application. He recommended Packet Page 312 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 3 that utility pole retrofits be classified as Type II Permits, which would not require a pre-application meeting. An applicant would submit a proposal based on current code requirements. The City would issue a notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project, inviting them to submit written comments during the actual permit process. Chair Lovell inquired if an applicant would be required to tweak a design to address concerns raised by the public as part of the public comment period. Mr. Clugston clarified that staff would review each application based on the design standards in the code. Approval would be granted if staff determines an application is consistent with code standards. Staff could deny the application or require an applicant to redesign a project based on a public comment that identifies an inconsistency with the code. However, it is misleading to suggest that applications that are deemed consistent with code standards can be denied based on public dislike. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that written comments do not carry the same weight as comments that are provided during a public meeting. Requiring a pre-application meeting would allow the public to have their say in a fashion that is strong enough for the applicants to clearly understand their concerns. Wireless facilities can impact a neighborhood for a long time, and the providers need to at least have an opportunity to hear the public’s concerns and hopefully attempt to address them. Board Member Johnson observed that not only would a pre-application meeting benefit the citizens, it would also allow applicants an opportunity to clearly understand neighborhood concerns before spending significant time and resources preparing an application. Mr. Clugston pointed out that if appropriate design standards are adopted, applicants will know exactly what they need to do. All applicable design standards must be satisfied before a project can be approved, so it behooves applicants to pay careful attention to the requirements. Again, he reminded the Board that pre-application meetings are not required for any other type of application except PRDs. Board Member Stewart asked how much additional time is required for an applicant to go through a pre-application meeting. Mr. Clugston answered that pre-application meetings should not take a significant amount of time. However, they must be held before an application is submitted, so the time required would be in addition to the City’s 90-day timeline for processing the permit. Mr. Clugston suggested that another option would be to make utility pole retrofits a Type III Permit. He explained that, as currently proposed, monopole installations would be Type III permits that require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. However, he reminded the Board that the proposed language was designed to make the permit process for monopoles more difficult to discourage their use. On the other hand, the City wants to encourage building-mounted antennas so only a building permit would be required. Because utility pole retrofits would be located on existing structures, they are more favorable than monopoles, but less favorable than building-mounted antennas. That is why staff believes a Type II Permit would be appropriate. Board Member Cloutier expressed concern that requiring pre-application meetings for utility pole retrofit applications may give the illusion that the public has the ability to influence an application. While public comments can provide scrutiny to make sure applications meet all code requirements, staff does not have the ability to deny an application that meets all code requirements just because the neighborhood does not like it. He summarized that if adequate design standards are adopted, it should not make a difference whether public comments are written or oral. He suggested that Section 20.50.100.F.1 be eliminated. Instead, structurally-mounted wireless communication facilities (utility pole retrofits) should be classified as Type II Permits, requiring a public notice but no public hearing or pre-application meeting. Board Member Stewart said she would support this proposed change because it would be consistent with the City’s other permit processes. The public would still have an opportunity to submit written comments. The City is limited in their ability to control wireless facilities. If an application meets the code requirements, the project must be approved regardless of public dislike. Board Member Cloutier agreed that the public notice process provides an opportunity for more public scrutiny to make sure an application meets the code requirements, but it does not allow public input to vote down an application that meets all code requirements. Packet Page 313 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 4 Board Member Johnson asked how the Type II review process would have been applied to previous utility pole retrofit applications in Seaview and Westgate. She recalled that one significant concern related to the Westgate installation was the lack of choice as to where the pole was located. She questioned if the proposed language would provide opportunities to consider alternative locations that work better for the neighborhoods. Mr. Clugston replied that the proposed new language establishes a priority for location. He specifically referred to Section 20.50.070, which identifies the application requirements. As proposed, applicants would be required to submit a project description including a design narrative, technology description and co-location analysis. Applicants would be required to consider opportunities for co-location first. The next option would be utility pole retrofits. Monopoles would only be allowed as a last resort. Applicants would also be required to provide current coverage maps to identify the coverage gaps, and proposed coverage maps to identify how a proposed installation would fill the gap. These three items will be important to show that carriers have done their homework. If it is determined that a utility pole retrofit is the best possible option, the City would not have the ability to exclude them from a neighborhood. Chair Lovell referred to Section 20.50.040.B and asked how the City would handle situations where an applicant provides proof that one or more of the prohibitions would preclude them from providing adequate coverage. Mr. Clugston said cities handle these situations in a variety of ways. He suggested the City handle these cases through a variance process. Chair Lovell referred to Section 20.50.050.J and asked if the City would have the ability to enforce this requirement if lighting is required by the FCC. Mr. Clugston noted that only towers over 200 feet in height are required to provide lighting. However, if this issue were to come up, it could be dealt with through the variance process. Chair Lovell also referenced Section 20.50.050.B.1 and asked if the requirement to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier would infringe on private property rights. Mr. Clugston answered no. Vice Chair Reed recognized that the items in Section 20.50.010.A were not intended to be a list of priorities. However, he suggested that Item 1 be moved before Item 2. The remainder of the Board concurred. Vice Chair Reed also referred to Section 20.50.020.A and suggested that the first sentence conflicts with the third sentence. The Board agreed to eliminate the first sentence of this section and replace it with the third sentence. Vice Chair Reed also suggested that acronyms be spelled out the first time they are used in each section. Vice Chair Reed referred to Section 20.50.140.A.4, and questioned why a property owner would be responsible to pay for the removal of an abandoned facility. Mr. Clugston pointed out that property owners are held liable for wireless facilities that are placed on their property, so they should be responsible for their removal, as well. Property owners should address the issue of removal as part of the contract they sign with the provider. The Board agreed that the proposed language is appropriate, and landowners could seek a remedy with the carrier they signed a contract with. Mr. Clugston referred to Section 20.50.090 and explained that the City’s current code allows whip antennas to exceed the height limit by 6 to 10 feet regardless of whether they are located on a conforming or nonconforming building. He asked the Board to provide direction about whether extra height above the maximum height of the zone should be allowed for antennas attached to buildings. If so, how much, and should the same apply to nonconforming buildings? He referred to Mr. Busch’s email (Attachment 3), which indicates that whip antennas are no longer used. Mr. Clugston noted that local jurisdictions handle the height question for building-mounted antennas in different ways. To facilitate the discussion, he referred the Board to the four options he provided in the staff report to address the issue. He suggested that while height is a particular issue in the Downtown Activity Center, it is not such a concern elsewhere in the City. He suggested the Board could consider two different requirements: one for the Downtown Activity Center and another for the remainder of Edmonds. He reminded the Board that the current code allows a height exception for church steeples, elevator penthouses, chimneys, vent pipes, etc. If the Board agrees to allow additional height for wireless facilities in the downtown, should they be camouflaged? Another option would be to allow antennas on sides of buildings, chimneys, etc. but none would be allowed to stick out straight on top of a building. He suggested the City Council would likely feel very strongly that they do not want to see any extra height in the downtown area, but this approach could conflict with current technology and FCC requirements. Packet Page 314 of 383 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 5 Board Member Cloutier said the first principle to keep in mind is that the City must enable coverage. The question is how to provide coverage while meeting the rest of the community goals. He reminded the Board that they requested information about industry standards for size and shape of wireless antennas and learned that a 4G antenna would be approximately five feet tall. A maximum height of 6 feet would be the minimum height necessary for this type of antenna to be mounted on top of a building. However, a slightly greater height would allow the antenna to be set back from the edge of the building, making it less visible from the street. He observed that if antennas cannot be placed on the top of buildings, many more would have to be placed on the sides of buildings to provide the same amount of coverage. Board Member Johnson suggested that Option D be eliminated as a possible choice. Board Member Cloutier agreed unless the City recognizes that multiple installations on the sides of buildings would be required to provide the same coverage as a single roof-top antenna. Vice Chair Reed agreed that more antennas would be required if mounted on the sides of buildings, but side-mounted antennas tend to be less visible because they are easier to camouflage. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the code also allows decorative structures on top of buildings to extend up to five feet above the stated height limit for the zone. Mr. Clugston emphasized that this provision only applies to structures in the BD zones. Vice Chair Reed observed that there are already buildings that have deck railings, elevator penthouses, etc. that extend beyond the allowed height limit. These types of structures should be used to accommodate the taller wireless facilities. There are also very tall light poles near the ferry holding lanes, which would be an excellent location for a wireless facility. After further discussion, the Board decided it would be appropriate to divide Section 20.50.090.B into two sections: one for the Downtown Activity Center and another for the rest of the City. They agreed to the following language: Downtown Activity Center – All antennas must be flush mounted and not protrude above the building or chimney, regardless of whether it conforms to the height requirement of the zone, and be camouflaged or painted to match. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened and camouflaged to match the existing structure. (Option 1) All Other Areas of the City – Allow taller antennas up to 9 feet tall if they are well integrated or if they are designed to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents, stovepipes, etc. Mr. Clugston requested direction from the Board regarding Section 20.50.090.C related to the height limit for equipment enclosures. Chair Lovell pointed out that equipment enclosures can vary in size from four to eight feet. Mr. Clugston pointed out that equipment enclosures can also be placed inside a building rather than on the rooftop. Because the current code does not allow a height exception for any other type of rooftop equipment, he cautioned against allowing a height exception for wireless facility rooftop enclosures. The Board concurred and agreed to eliminate the last sentence of the section. Mr. Clugston referred to Section 20.50.100.B and reminded the Board that a 15-foot vertical separation is required for wireless facilities located on utility poles. Additional height would be required in order to attach a wireless facility on top of an existing 25-foot tall utility pole. The Board agreed that an additional height of six feet should be allowed. Board Member Johnson questioned how the City would deal with nonconforming antennas, such as the one on top of the Commodore Condominiums at 546 Alder Street. Mr. Clugston answered that AT&T’s facility at 546 Alder Street has not been permitted by the City so it must be removed. Antennas that become nonconforming as a result of the new code language would be allowed to continue. It is anticipated that, over time, these facilities would be removed and/or replaced with new technology that meets the new code requirements. The Board directed staff to update the draft language and present it to the Board for review on February 9th. They further directed staff to schedule a public hearing for February 23rd. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Packet Page 315 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 1 of 6 DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 16, 2011 Chair Kendall called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Valerie Kendall, Chair Rick Schaefer, Vice Chair Lois Broadway Bryan Gootee Michael Mestres Board Members Absent Bruce O’Neill Tom Walker (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2011 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER GOOTEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There was no one in the audience. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: No public hearings were scheduled on the agenda. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): No consolidated permit applications were scheduled on the agenda. Packet Page 316 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 2 of 6 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Review of Design Standards Proposed in Wireless Communication Facility Regulation Update Mr. Clugston explained that, at the request of the City Council, the Planning Board has been working for the past year to update the City’s Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Regulations, which are currently located in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.50 and 18.05.030. The goal is to update the regulations to reflect how WCFs are located today, to combine the code into one chapter, and to make sure it is in agreement with federal requirements for such facilities. Mr. Clugston advised that the Planning Board has proposed a wide range of development standards that are meant to ensure that WCFs blend in as much as possible with the environments where they are located. He explained that the Planning Board is seeking feedback from the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about whether additional changes are needed or if the standards need to be clarified. They would like the ADB to specifically comment on Chapters 20.50.050, 20.50.090, 20.50.100 and 20.50.110, all of which are related to design standards for WCFs. He noted that the current WCF regulations were adopted in 1996, and technology and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) requirements have changed over time. The community’s expectations related to WCFs have also changed. Mr. Clugston referred to the proposed language and explained that the Planning Board’s intent was to discourage large monopoles, which are aesthetically unpleasing and clutter the landscape. Instead, providers are encouraged to locate WCFs on existing tall buildings and/or structures or to retrofit existing utility poles. The goal is to minimize the footprint of future WCFs and require them to be as unobtrusive as possible, recognizing that the FCC does not allow the City to prohibit the facilities. Mr. Clugston reported that the Planning Board conducted an individual driving tour throughout Edmonds to identify several different types of existing facilities. He provided pictures to illustrate the pros and cons of the various types of WCFs located within the City: • Monopoles. Monopoles are large and tall. The City wants to encourage providers to co-locate on existing monopoles rather than erecting new ones. Monopoles are almost always made of metal, and there is often a large facility at the base of the poles for ground equipment. The City prefers that the equipment be placed underground; but if that is not possible, they want it to be screened with fencing or landscaping. Some monopoles are shrouded so they blend in more with the environment. While this is an improvement, they are still very tall structures. The goal of the proposed language is to create a permit process that has adequate design review to minimize the impact of monopoles in the future. Based on current code, a monopole can have a fairly bad design and still be code compliant. • Utility pole retrofits. Many times, old wooden utility poles are replaced with metal poles with antennas attached to the top. Residents in the Sea View Neighborhood expressed particular concern because the replacement pole installed in their area was much larger and made of metal, which did not blend in with the existing poles in the neighborhood. They would have preferred the pole to be replaced with a wooden variety, but they recognized it would need to be taller to provide space for the WCF on top. The City’s design standards were changed as a result of this situation. • Building mounted antennas. In some cases, antennas are placed on the roof of existing structures. When placed near the edge of the building they are highly visible from the street. The City would prefer the antennas to be placed towards the middle of the building so they cannot be seen by pedestrians at the street level. Another option is to mount them on the side of existing buildings or behind or on top of a parapet. For example, numerous antennas have been mounted to the elevator shaft of the hospital. They have been painted to match the building and are nearly invisible from the street level. Antennas can also be located on the side of a chimney and painted to blend in. The antennas located on top of the performing arts center cannot be seen from the street Packet Page 317 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 3 of 6 because they have been built into the side of the structure and screened with radio frequency (RF) transparent materials. Kendall asked if the City has the ability to require providers to allow others to co-locate on their existing facilities. Mr. Clugston explained that providers seek to site WCFs where there are existing coverage gaps. Typically, they look for opportunities to co-locate their facilities on existing structures. However, the owner of the existing structure must be willing to lease space in order for the co-location to move forward. While the City cannot compel a provider to allow co-location, they can encourage it. Co-location is encouraged in the existing code language, and the proposed new language would be even more forceful in this regard. Mr. Clugston explained that the proposed code language is completely new and is an amalgamation of regulations from various local communities and current FCC requirements. The main idea is to provide better design standards for how the facilities will look and to encourage co-location on existing structures whenever possible. Board Member Mestres asked if the Board would be responsible for reviewing the technical aspects of a proposed WCF or if their review would be solely related to aesthetics. He noted that the Board does not have the expertise to make decisions about whether a particular type of facility is appropriate and necessary in the proposed location. Mr. Clugston agreed that there are certain technical requirements for the various types of WCFs. For example, a monopole must be strong enough to withstand wind, which requires that they be constructed of metal in most cases. He noted that both lattice and guy wire towers would be prohibited based on the proposed code language. He summarized that the intent is to provide clear design standards so that providers can immediately identify what the City wants to see and what they will allow. Hopefully, the updated standards will be easier for the industry to use and understand. He summarized that the ADB would not be asked to make a decision about whether or not a proposed WCF is the right technology. Their role would be review the aesthetic aspect of a proposal. He noted that technology is changing rapidly, and the goal is to provide adequate design criteria to guide the siting of future facilities. The Board reviewed the proposed design standards and provided the following feedback: • ECDC 20.50.050.F – Finish. Vice Chair Schaefer expressed concern about the use of a galvanized steel finish. He suggested that a metal structure that is painted a neutral color might be more appropriate. Board Member Broadway pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a report that galvanized materials leach into the soil, which can create an environmental concern. However, she acknowledged that prohibiting galvanized monopoles would not solve the problem since most traffic light poles are also constructed of galvanized steel. Board Member Gootee expressed concern that painted poles become unsightly if they are not adequately maintained. On the other hand, galvanized poles would be maintenance free and would blend in with the Northwest Environment. Board Member Mestres said he would support requiring metal poles that are painted to match the environment, and Chair Kendall suggested the code could be flexible to allow whichever material is most appropriate for a specific location. Board Member Broadway agreed that either galvanized steel or painted metal would be appropriate materials, depending on the location of the proposed WCF. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the proposed language would allow either material. • ECDC 20.50.050.G – Design. Board Member Broadway suggested that providers be required to use graffiti and vandalism proof materials, particularly the ground equipment enclosures. Board Member Gootee pointed out that vandalism resistant materials are costly. In his experience, they allow graffiti to be washed off the first time, but then they must be reapplied. Therefore, it is more cost effective to simply paint over the graffiti. Board Member Mestres recalled that the City Council recently passed an ordinance that requires property owners to deal with graffiti on their property within a one-month time period. Vice Chair Schaefer suggested that graffiti and vandalism can be addressed as an enforcement issue, but they should make sure the new law applies to WCF’s, as well. Mr. Clugston agreed to include addition language in the maintenance section to address this issue. Packet Page 318 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 4 of 6 Board Member Gootee questioned what the Board’s role in design review of WCF proposals would be. Would they be responsible for making sure a facility blends in with its environment and that it is properly screened? He also questioned what criteria the Board would use to determine whether or not a proposed facility would “blend in.” Mr. Clugston answered the Board’s role would depend on the type of permit. Co-locations such as antennas on the water tank would be a staff review. Proposals that require SEPA review would also be reviewed by the ADB. He further advised that the term “blend in” is meant to be a general term rather than a specific standard. The Planning Board felt it would be appropriate to allow flexibility depending on the site circumstances. Board Member Mestres said that before an application comes before the ADB for design review, he hopes staff would already have discussed the technical requirements with the applicant. The Board needs to have a clear understanding about why specific elements of the project are being proposed and how much leeway they have to require design changes without compromising the function of the facility. • ECDC 20.50.050.H – Color. The Board agreed that WCFs should be painted a neutral color to blend in with the surrounding environment. • ECDC 20.50.050.I – Lighting. Mr. Clugston pointed out that lighting should not be a problem in Edmonds because the FCC does not require providers to light a WCF unless it exceeds 200 feet in height. • ECDC 20.50.050.M – Landscaping and Screening. Board Member Broadway expressed concern that the proposed language does not provide a lot of direction as to how the ground equipment enclosures should be screened. Mr. Clugston pointed out that ground equipment enclosures are addressed more substantially in other sections of the code. Vice Chair Schaefer questioned how the proposed landscaping would be measured to ensure it meets the requirements of ECDC 20.13. Board Member Gootee suggested that the same landscaping and screening requirements that apply to trash enclosures would also apply to equipment enclosures that are located on the ground. Mr. Clugston agreed and pointed out that, as proposed, chain link, plastic and wire fencing would be prohibited. Ornamental metal and wood fending would be the preferred materials for screening equipment enclosures. He said the proposed language indicates that locating equipment enclosures underground would be the preferred option. If this is not possible, the enclosures must be screened or located within an accessory structure that meets the setback requirements. The Board pointed out that in order to make the requirement clear, the word “or” in the last sentence of ECDC 20.50.090.C should be changed to “and.” The Board discussed whether or not there should be a height limit established for equipment enclosures located on the ground. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the equipment enclosures would be considered accessory structures, which are limited to a maximum height of 15 feet, and they must meet all setback requirements. Board Member Broadway asked if any additional landscaping would be required around the accessory structures, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. • ECDC 20.50.090 – Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities. Mr. Clugston explained that, as per the proposed language, WCFs in the downtown area would be limited to the maximum building height allowed in the zone. Rather than placing antennas on the edge of an existing building, the new code language would require the antennas to be placed towards the center of the roof. They would be allowed to extend up to the maximum height allowed in the zone. Board Member Broadway pointed out that the code allows exceptions to the height limit for steeples, flag poles, etc. She asked if the proposed language would allow a provider to attach an antenna to an existing steeple or other structure that has been allowed to exceed the height limit. Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are very few exceptions to the height limit in the downtown zones. He said the Planning Board discussed the idea of allowing additional height in the downtown zone for antennas Packet Page 319 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 5 of 6 that are placed on rooftops, but they decided not to go that route. He pointed out that flag poles are considered accessory structures and cannot exceed 15 feet in height. He said that while there is an exception in the BD zones that allows additional height for elevator shafts, chimneys and vent pipes, the Planning Board is not recommending a height exception for antennas. They are, however, recommending an additional height allowance of 9 feet for rooftop antennas in other zones throughout the City. Vice Chair Schaefer pointed out that ECDC 20.50.100.A.1 states that co-location of antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore permitted. He asked if antennas would be allowed on top of nonconforming buildings that already exceed the maximum height limit. Mr. Clugston answered that anything above the maximum height limit would be considered nonconforming. WCFs that are currently located on top of nonconforming buildings could be maintained and/or replaced, but no new facilities would be allowed. The Board agreed that it would not be impractical or unnecessarily burdensome to require providers to screen WCFs that are located on existing buildings. They cited the Performing Arts Center as a good example of facilities located unobtrusively on an existing building. Board Member Mestres pointed out that if the code does not allow antennas to extend beyond the maximum height limit in the downtown zones, more antennas may be required in order to obtain maximum coverage. Mr. Clugston acknowledged that may be the case. • ECDC 20.50.100 – Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities. Mr. Clugston pointed out that retrofitting existing utility poles to provide space for WCFs is a good option for providing coverage in residential zones, particularly if the poles are wooden to match the other wooden utility poles. He noted that this type of installation does require that the pole be extended approximately 20 feet. ECDC 20.50.110 – Monopole Standards. Board Member Gootee asked if the City could require a provider to camouflage an entire monopole. Mr. Clugston answered that placing a shroud around the entire monopole is a less costly option, but it requires additional height, which is something they don’t want to see in the downtown. The Planning Board has indicated they would prefer antennas to be located on existing buildings whenever possible and then painted to blend in. Board Member Broadway expressed concern that requiring a monopole to be shrouded to screen the antennas may end up calling more attention to the pole. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the proposed language would prohibit monopoles from being located in single-family zones, multi-family zones, BD zones, public open space, parks and City rights-of-way. That means they are limited to commercial zones. Vice Chair Schaefer questioned the use of the terms “adverse impacts” and “negative impacts.” He noted that the word “adverse” has a certain standing in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and staff should check to make sure the terms are used accurately and consistently throughout the proposed language. Vice Chair Schaefer also pointed out a possible inconsistency between ECDC 20.50.010.A.4 and ECDC 20.50.010.A.8. Item 4 states that WCFs would be allowed in residential areas only when necessary to meet the functional requirements of the industry. However Item 8 states that they can be located on City properties. He noted that the water tank is City property, and it is located within a residential area. Vice Chair Schaefer advised that the proposed new language would not apply to television antennas that are placed on single-family homes. Mr. Clugston agreed and added that ham radio antennas would also be exempt from the proposed language. Both of these uses are dealt with elsewhere in the code. Packet Page 320 of 383 Architectural Design Board Meeting – Synopsis February 16, 2011 Page 6 of 6 Vice Chair Kendall asked if any of the existing WCFs in the City would comply with the proposed new code language. Mr. Clugston answered that some would comply. He expressed his belief that providers would not have difficultly complying with the proposed requirements. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Election of 2011 Officers Vice Chair Schaefer indicated he would be willing to continue to serve as Vice Chair. Chair Kendall noted that she has served as Chair for a number of years, and she questioned if another Board Member would like to have an opportunity. The Board agreed to table this discussion until the next meeting to include the absent Board Members in the decision. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Packet Page 321 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 1 of 23 Chapter 20.50 Wireless Communications Facilities 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemption. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review timeframes. 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards. 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards. 20.50.110 Ground-mountedMonopole facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Modification. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. 20.50.160 Definitions. 20.50.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the City. The purpose of this Chapter will may be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 2.Establish Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless telecommunications providers and services that are consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to telecommunications providers; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate themfacilities, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal; 4. Encourage the location of wireless communication facilities in nonresidential areas and allow wireless communication facilities in residential areas only when necessary, to meet functional requirements of the telecommunications industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; 5. Minimize the total number of wireless communication facilities in residential areas; 6.Require Encourage and where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites Comment [mc1]: Change ground-mounted to monopole throughout for clarity Comment [c2]: OMW indicated that defs should be in same chapter or title Comment [mc3]: Switched #1 and #2 Packet Page 322 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 2 of 23 and suitable structures to the greatest extent possible, in order to reduce cumulative negative impact on the City; 7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging techniques, and through assessment of technology, current location options, siting, future available locations, innovative siting techniques and siting possibilities beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the City; 8.Allow Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the City to use City property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the City; 9. Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and Building Code compliance, and provide a mechanism for the City to cause these abandoned wireless communication facilities to be removed as necessary, to protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; 11. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure, through engineering, careful siting, and maintenance of wireless communication facilities; strict compliance with State building and electrical codes; and 12. Provide a means for public input on wireless communications facility placement, construction and modification. B. In furtherance of these objectives, the City shall give due consideration to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning code, existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas whenin approving sites for the location of communication towers and antennas. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced telecommunication services in the City. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The provisions of this Chapter are not intended to and shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. This Chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services. D. To the extent that any provision of this Chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other City ordinance, this Chapter shall control. Otherwise, this Chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the City. E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the City shall act within a reasonable period of time after an application for a permit is duly filed, taking into account the nature and scope of the application. Any decision to deny an application shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The City shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), this Chapter, the adopted Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. Packet Page 323 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 3 of 23 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communications facilities shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. B. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to ECDC 20.15A unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. 20.50.030 ExemptionExemptions. The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter and shall be permitted in all zones: A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.D. D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050.E. E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. G. Maintenance or repair of a communication facility, antenna and related equipment, transmission structure, or transmission equipment enclosures; provided, that the equipment, structure or enclosures maintain compliance with the standards of this chapter is maintained. If the cost of repair of a legally nonconforming equipment, structure and/or enclosure exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the equipment, structure and/or enclosure, the repair shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. H. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance of a facility until 30 five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communications facilities are prohibited in Edmonds. 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities (mMonopoles) are prohibited in the following locations: 1. All residential zones [single family (SF) and multifamily (MF)]; 2. Downtown Waterfront Activity Center; 3. Public (P) and Open Space (OS) zoned parcels; and Comment [mc4]: Revised per 1/12 PB discussion Packet Page 324 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 4 of 23 4. Within the City rights-of-way. 20.50.050 General Siting Criteria and Design Considerations. A. The City of Edmonds encourages wireless communications providers to use existing sites or to utilize more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for WCFswireless communication facilities: 1. Co-location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure where upon which the facility would be located; 2. Co-location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or structure; 3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one; 4. A new pole or structure altogether. B. Co-location shall be encouraged for all wireless communications facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. 1. To the greatest extent that is technically feasible, applicants for new ground- mountedmonopole facilities shall be required to build mounts capable of accommodating at least one other carrier. 2. Co-locations shall be reviewed by the City on the basis of the site being built out (all available mounting capacity in use). 3.Any WCF 2. Any Wireless Communication Facility that requires an conditional use permit (CUP) under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring an CUP, unless the submitted engineering information clearly indicates that the need requested site is needed in order to provide coverage for the particular provider and other siting options have been analyzed and proven infeasible. C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 5.30, “Noise Abatement and Control”. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator or similar device. The City may require that the report be reviewed by a third party expert at the expense of the applicant. D. Business license requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless communication facility within the City shall have a valid business license issued annually by the City. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a business license on an annual basis. E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by other a government entities entity with jurisdiction may be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless communication facilities. F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. G. Finish. A monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. Packet Page 325 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 5 of 23 H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment. I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible. J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other applicable authoritygovernment entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are permitted, the reviewing authority City shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding areasarea. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be denied unless no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord with FCC requirements. K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure. L. Equipment enclosure. Each applicant shall be use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required co-location. M. Radio frequency emissions compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed Federal Communications Commission FCC standards, including FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the Director determines the wireless communications facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission uncontrolled/general population standards in the FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population, the Director may require post-installation testing to determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant. N. Landscaping and screening. 1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures, or if . If the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required. The Director or Director of Public Works, as appropriate, his designee may reduce or waive the standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative fences or other features achieve the same degree of screening as the required landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal; and in those locations where large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and natural growth around the property perimeter may be provide a sufficient buffer. Comment [mc5]: Revised per 1/12 PB discussion Packet Page 326 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 6 of 23 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with ECDC 20.13. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or screening requirements. The following requirements apply: a. Type I Screening landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure. b. The lLandscaping area shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. c. The aApplicant shall use native evergreens that shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall at the time of planting. c. Applicant shall use irrigation or an approved maintenance schedule that will insure to ensure that the plantings are established after two years from the date of plantingVegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant. d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts with other surrounding utilities. 3. When landscaping is used, Tthe applicant shall replace any unhealthy or dead plant materials in conformance with the approved landscaping development proposal, and shall maintain all landscape materials for the life of the facility. In the event that landscaping is not maintained at the required level, the Director, after giving 30 days advance written notice, may maintain or re-establish the landscaping at the expense of the owner or operator and bill the owner or operator for such costs until such costs are paid in fullshall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to ECDC 20.13.040. 4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or wood is fencing materials are preferred. 20.50.060 Permit Requirements. A. No person may place, construct , reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this Chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this Chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this Chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of ECDC Title 20 and ECDC Title 18. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060.B(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the Director shall have the authority to determine what permits will beare required how afor the proposed facility is incorporated into Table 1. The Conditional Use Permit types referenced are described in ECDC Chapter 20.01. Table 20.50.060.B(1) – Types of Permits Requirements d for Wireless Communications Facilities Comment [mc6]: Revised per 1/12 PB discussion to establish Type II permits for staff CUPs Packet Page 327 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 7 of 23 Type of Permits Required Type of Wireless Communications Facility Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right-of- Way Permit Building-mounted facilities or facilities co-located on an existing monopole X Structure-mounted facilities (excluding co-location on existing monopole) X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable) Ground-mountedMonopole facilities (structure complies with height requirement of the underlying zone) X Ground-mountedMonopole facilities (structure exceeds maximum height of zone) X X (Type III-B) C. Any application submitted pursuant to this Chapter chapter for projects located on public or private property, shall be reviewed and evaluated by the Director , or his designee, for all projects located on public or private property. The Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the City right-of-wayrights-of-way. Regardless of whether the Director or the Director of Public Works is or their respective designees, are reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this Chapterchapter. D. All applications for wireless communications facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by staffthe Director or his designee. E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). F. No provision of this Chapter chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility to reduce the which minimizemum parking or , landscaping or other site development standards on a siteestablished by this codethe Edmonds Community Development Code. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this Chapter chapter shall not be eligible for variances under ECDC Chapter chapter 20.85. Any request to deviate from this Chapter chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions or waivers set forth in this Chapterchapter. H. Third party review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically-based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the Comment [mc7]: Section revised per 1/12 PB discussion – brings PUD pole replacements and the like under existing permit types in Title 20. Comment [mc8]: Revised to state requirement more generally Packet Page 328 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 8 of 23 engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The City may at its discretion require an third party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the City, with a provision for the . The applicant and beneficially interested parties may comment on the proposed expert and review his/her qualifications. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site-specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the City may require changes to the proposal. The expert third party review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other site or sites in the City for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the City. J. Any decision by the Director or the Director of Public Works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the City to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. K. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the Director, Director of Public Works, or Hearing Examiner without the approval from of the City. Minor changes which do not change the overall project may be approved by the Director as a modification under ECDC 20.50.130. L. Co-location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming monopole is allowed. 20.50.070 Application Requirements. In addition to the requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, and those associated with the permit types referenced in Section 20.50.060, the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communications facility permit in the City of Edmonds: A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co-location analysis indicating the alternative locations and technologies considered; B. Existing wireless Current coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s existing facilities and wireless coverage in the area; C. Proposed wireless coverage map overlaid on a current aerial photo showing provider’s wireless coverage with the proposed facility; D. Scaled site information on scaled plans, including; 1. Site plan 2. Elevation drawings Comment [mc9]: The City will select the consultant at its discretion, similar to critical areas Comment [c10]: Moved from 20.50.100.A.1 Packet Page 329 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 9 of 23 3. Undergrounding details, as applicable 4. Screening, camouflaginge or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with ECDC 20.13), as appropriate E. Photos and photo-simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints; F. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050.C), if applicable); G. Radio frequency emissions report for the proposed facility, which shall not be reviewed further by the City; H. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the Director in order to issue a decision. 20.50.080 Review Timeframes. A. Co-located facilities (building- and structure mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the City shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The City shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the City shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The City shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to Superior Court under the Land Use Permit Act. 2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the City and the applicant if circumstances warrant. 3. For purposes of this section, “co-located facilities” includes any of the following types of facilities: a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing towermonopole, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes; or b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a towermonopole. For purposes of this section, “substantial increase in the size of a monopoletower” means: 1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the towermonopole would increase the existing height of the towermonopole by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; 2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; 3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower monopolestructure at Comment [mc11]: Language adapted by the City attorney after contacting FCC regarding the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas Packet Page 330 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 10 of 23 the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower monopole via cable; or 4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site; or c. Facilities that are a part of a Distributed Antenna System, provided that the Distributed Antenna System connects to an existing tower or antenna. A Distributed Antenna System, for the purposes of this section, is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure. B. New monopoles (ground mounted).1. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III- B conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of ECDC 20.05. 20.50.090 Building-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilityies Standards. A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from public views using Radio Frequency-transparent panels. Building-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with non-reflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted. B. Height. The following requirements shall apply: 1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas shall be flush-mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Flush-mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the public City right-of-way if a right-of-way use agreement is established with the City. Antennas shall not project into the right-of-way by more than two feet and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.n Encroachment Permit must be is first obtained. 2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building- mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine (9) feet above the top of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings regardless of whether they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying zone. Such antennas must be well integrated with the existing structure or designed to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes. C. Equipment enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment Equipment enclosure for building-mounted wireless communication facilities to shall first be located within the Comment [mc12]: Verified permit type Comment [mc13]: Section revised per 1/12 PB discussions Packet Page 331 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 11 of 23 building on which the facility is located. As a second choice, If an equipment enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable then an equipment enclosure may be incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below the parapet walls, no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the screening must be consistent with the existing building in terms of color, style, architectural style and material. Finally, if there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be either enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone or and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. D. Feed lines and coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables must be are visible from a public right of way or adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building. 20.50.100 Structure-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities Standards. A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles and/or tanks shall be designed to blend with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner. 1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned City of Edmonds rights-of-way adjacent to single family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirements: a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. Acceptable Building Mounted WCF Unacceptable Building Mounted WCF Comment [mc14]: Section revised per 1/12 PB discussion – brings PUD pole replacements and the like under existing permit types in Title 20 Packet Page 332 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 12 of 23 2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with non- reflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure. B. Height. 1. The maximum height of structure-mounted wireless communication facilities shall not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights-of way are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six (6) feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed. This includes installation of facilities on structures, including those built at or above the maximum height allowed in a specific zone, so long as the diameter of any portion of a wireless communication facility in excess of the allowed height does not exceed the shortest diameter of the structure at the point of attachment. The height and diameter of the existing structure prior to replacement or enhancement for the purposes of supporting wireless communication facilities shall be used to determine compliance with this subsection. 2. Only one extension is permitted per structure. 3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility’s requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier’s antennas. C. Equipment enclosure. The Equipment enclosures shall first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must shall be underground. If there is no other choice feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure aboveon the ground on private property, the equipment must be either enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone or and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. D. Feed lines and coaxial cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supportsing the antennas. E. Only wireless communication providers with a holding a valid right-of-way use, license. agreement Or lease agreement franchise shall be eligible to apply for a right-of-way construction permit , which shall be required prior to installation of facilities within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter. Packet Page 333 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 13 of 23 20.50.110 Ground-MountedMonopole Wireless Communication Facilityies Standards. A. New monopoles are not permitted within the City unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage objective – There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternatives – No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the City, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least intrusive: – The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, ECDC Title 20, and the Comprehensive Plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. B. All ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall conform to the height and setbacks requirements specified in Table 2. Acceptable Structure Mounted WCF Unacceptable Structure Mounted WCF Comment [omw15]: Remove this section n its entirety. Packet Page 334 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 14 of 23 Table 20.50.080(2) – Height and Setback Standards for Ground-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities District or Zone Maximum Height Setbacks Business and Commercial Zones Less than or equal to the maximum height allowed for a primary structure in the zone. Setbacks of the underlying zone, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. Business and Commercial Zones Exceeding height specified for the zone. Minimum 30 feet from all adjacent business and commercial-zoned properties, one (1) tower length from all adjacent residentially-zoned properties, 30 feet from any public right-of-way. B. All ground-mountedmonopole wireless communication facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, ground-mountedmonopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. Equipment enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be either enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and or screenedbe screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050.N. Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible co-location opportunity) Acceptable Monopole WCF Packet Page 335 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 15 of 23 4. Feed lines, coaxial cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supportsing the antennas. C. Review criteria. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-B conditional use permit (per ECDC 20.05), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards requirements are met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the foregoing Type III-B conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing monopoles or , structures or alternative sites site(s) are located within the geographic area required to that meet the applicant’s engineering requirements to meet fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the City); 3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antenna on the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. D. Zoning setback exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in Table 20.50.080(2)Chapter 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The Director or Hearing Examiner, depending on the type of application, may approvepermit modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially-zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any required setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. Packet Page 336 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 16 of 23 4. A request for a setback exception should shall be made at the time of the initial application is submitted. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. A. The installation of a “cell on wheels” or COWs and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, codes, including, but not limited to the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. COWs may only be used in the immediate aftermath of declared emergencies in the City of Edmonds in order to provide temporary wireless service. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within thirty (30) days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the Mayor. 20.50.130 Modification. From time to time, tThe applicant and/or co-applicant may want apply to alter the terms of a conditional use permit (CUP) by modifying specific features of the wireless communication facility. If any of the following changes are proposed or occur, such modifications must be submitted to the City of Edmonds as a renewal of the new CUP application. This provision shall not apply to routine maintenance of a WCFwireless communication facility (WCF), including “in-kind” replacement.as described in ECDC 20.50.030.G A. Addition to, or replacement of, any equipment specified in the original design submittals. B. Change of the WCF design as specified in the original permit submittals. 20.50.140 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless communication facility, such carrier will notify the Director by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of operations. C. Within 90 days from the date of Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the wireless communication facility. within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling and the like from the subject property. 2. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the City of Edmonds. 3. Restoration ofing the location of the wireless communication facility site to its pre-permit condition, except that any landscaping provided by the WCF wireless communication facility operator may remain in place. 4. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this section, the City of Edmonds shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. Costs for removal of the WCF wireless communication Packet Page 337 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 17 of 23 facility shall be charged to the landowner wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the City of Edmonds removes the facility. 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the WCF to standards that may be imposed by the City at the time of granting a permit. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. In the event the applicant fails to maintain the facility, the City of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations. Packet Page 338 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 18 of 23 Wireless-related definitions to update and/or include in Title 21 - Definitions 20.50.160 Definitions. 21.05.005 Accessory antenna device. Accessory antenna device is an antenna including, but not limited to, test mobile antennas and global positioning (GPS) antennas which are less than 12 inches in height or width, excluding the support structure. A. Antenna.(updated 21.05.035) Antenna is any system of poles, panels, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency signals. A. Omni-directional antenna (also known as a “whip antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a 360-degree radial pattern. For the purpose of Chapter 20.50 ECDC, an omni-directional antenna is up to 15 feet in height and up to four inches in diameter (see Title 22, Plate 1). B. Directional antenna (also known as a “panel antenna”) transmits and receives radio frequency signals in a specific directional pattern of less than 360 degrees (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). C. Parabolic antenna (also known as a “dish antenna”) is a bowl-shaped device for the reception and/or transmission radio frequency communications signals in a specific directional pattern. A device used to capture an incoming and/or to transmit an outgoing radio-frequency signal. Antennas include, but are not limited to, the following types: omni-directional (or “whip”), directional (or “panel”), parabolic (or “dish”), and ancillary antennas (antennas not directly used to provide wireless communication services). 21.05.055 Attached wireless communication facility. Attached wireless communication facility is a wireless communication facility that is affixed to an existing structure and is not considered a component of the attached wireless communication facility (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). B. Cell-on-wheels (COW). Cell-on-wheels (COW). COWs are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. C. Co-location.(updated 21.15.035) Co-location exists when more than one wireless communications provider mounts equipment on a single support structure (i.e., building, monopole, lattice tower). Co-location. The use of a common wireless communications facility, or a common site, by two or more providers of wireless telecommunications services, or by one provider of wireless communications services for more than one type of telecommunications technology. Collocation means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or structure for Comment [omw16]: Is this suppose to be Title 20? Definitions should be in the same chapter. Comment [mc17]: To be deleted - not referenced in ECDC or update Comment [mc18]: Updated Comment [mc19]: Updated to 21.115.023 Comment [mc20]: New Comment [mc21]: Updated Comment [c22]: Definition from Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas Packet Page 339 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 19 of 23 the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes D. Distributed Antenna System (DAS). Distributed Antenna System (DAS). DAS is a collection of small antennas spread over a specific geographic area and connected back to a central location or power source, usually a base stationis a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure. 21.25.020 Equipment shelter or cabinet. Equipment shelter or cabinet is a room, cabinet or building used to house equipment for utility or service providers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). E. Guyed tower.(updated 21.35.40) Guyed tower is a wireless communication support structure which is usually over 100 feet tall, which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and is steadied by wire guys in a radial pattern around the tower. Guyed towers are often constructed in rural areas and are used to support antennas and related equipment. Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. F. Lattice tower.(Updated 21.55.005) Lattice tower is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment (see Title 22, Plate 3). G. Licensed carrier. Licensed carrier is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. 21.60.002 Macro facility. Macro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 15 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 100 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.004 Micro facility. Micro facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than four feet in height (except omni-directional antennas which may be up to six feet in height) and with an area of not more than 580 square inches in the aggregate (e.g., one-foot diameter parabola or two-foot by one and one-half-foot panel) as viewed from any one point. The permitted antenna height includes the wireless communication facility support structure (see Title 22, Plate 1). Comment [mc23]: New Comment [mc24]: Updated definition in 21.115.025 Comment [mc25]: Updated Comment [mc26]: Remove old plate reference Comment [mc27]: New Comment [mc28]: Outdated definition Comment [mc29]: Outdated definition Packet Page 340 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 20 of 23 21.60.006 Mini facility. Mini facility is an attached wireless communication facility which consists of antennas equal to or less than 10 feet in height or a parabolic antenna up to one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter and with an area not more than 50 square feet in the aggregate as viewed from any one point. 21.60.045 Monopole I. Monopole I is a wireless communication facility which consists of a support structure, the height of which shall not exceed 60 feet (see Title 22, Plate 2). 21.60.046 Monopole II. Monopole II is a wireless communication facility which consists of a wireless communications support structure, greater than 60 feet in height erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances (see Title 22, Plate 2). H. Monopole.(updated 21.60.045) Monopole. A self-supporting structure or tower, ground-mounted, consisting of a single shaft that is typically made of wood, steel, or concrete and that often provides a rack (or racks) for mounting antennas at its top. A freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities. Antenna(s) may be externally mounted (visible antenna) or internally mounted (no visible antennae). 21.60.046 Mount. Mount. The structure or surface upon which wireless communication facilities are mounted. There are three types of permanent mounts: A. Building-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the roof or side of a building, chimney, stairwell, elevator penthouse or similar extension; B. Ground-Mounted. A wireless communication facility mount fixed to the ground (e.g. monopole); C. Structure-Mounted. A wireless communication facility fixed to a structure other than a building, such as light standards, water reservoirs, and bridges. 18.05.000.A.9. PUD transmission poles. “PUD transmission poles” (PUD poles) are those poles which are carrying 50 kV or greater power lines. 21.85.035 Related equipment. Comment [mc30]: Outdated definition Comment [mc31]: Outdated definition Comment [mc32]: Outdated definition Comment [mc33]: Updated from old Monopole I and II Comment [mc34]: Originally proposed to be added, now not Comment [mc35]: Eliminate distinct definition – covered by “structure-mounted” def Comment [mc36]: Updated in 21.115.027 Packet Page 341 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 21 of 23 Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to the transmission and reception of voice and data via radio frequencies. Such equipment may include, but is not limited to, cable, conduit and connectors. I. 21.90.004 Satellite Earth Station Antenna. A satellite earth station antenna which includes any antenna in any zoning district that: 1. IThat is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; 2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas Wwhere commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted, that is two meters or less in diameter; 3. IThat is designed to receive programming services by means of multi-point distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi-point distribution services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and 4. IThat is designed to receive television broadcast signals. 21.100.080 Transmission tower. Transmission tower is a freestanding structure, other than a building, on which communication devices are mounted. Transmission towers may serve either as a major or minor communication facility. Examples include, but are not limited to: A. Monopoles; B. Lattice towers; C. Guyed towers. J. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Unlicensed Wireless Services. The offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services.Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license. K. Wireless communication facility. Wireless communication facility is an unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of low-power radio signals consisting of an equipment shelter or cabinet, a support structure, antennas (e.g., omni-directional, panel/directional or parabolic) and related equipment. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF). An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the following components: 1. Antenna; Comment [mc37]: New Comment [mc38]: Individual definitions broken out for guyed and lattice towers, monopole Comment [omw39]: The Telecom Act 47 USC 332(b)(7)(C)(ii) has the following definition: “The offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct- to-home satellite services.” Comment [mc40]: New Comment [mc41]: Updated definition provides clarification Packet Page 342 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 22 of 23 2. Mount; 3. Equipment enclosure; 4. Security barrier. L. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Building Mounted. Wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing monopoles. M. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Camouflaged. Wireless Communication Facility, Camouflaged. A wireless communication facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole, guyed, or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure. N. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Equipment Enclosure. Wireless Communication Facility, Equipment Enclosure. A small structure, shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for processing wireless communications signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning and emergency generators. O. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground MountedMonopole. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Ground MountedMonopole. Wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.010. Does not include co-location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. P. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Related Equipment. Related equipment is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. Q. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless Communication Facility (WCF), Structure Mounted. Wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, existing monopoles and/or tanks. R. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services. Any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless telecommunications services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. 21.115.024 Wireless communication support structure. Wireless communication support structure is the structure erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances. Support structure types include, but are Comment [mc42]: New Comment [mc43]: New Comment [mc44]: Updated from 21.25.020 Comment [mc45]: New Comment [mc46]: New Comment [mc47]: New Comment [mc48]: Definition replaced by 21.115.023-.028. Packet Page 343 of 383 l:\ecdc_rewrite\cell poles\wireless code draft for 3-9-11.doc Page 23 of 23 not limited to, stanchions, monopoles, lattice towers, wood poles or guyed towers (see Title 22, Plates 1 – 4). Packet Page 344 of 383 1 Clugston, Michael From:Cunningham, Diane Sent:Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:29 PM To:Clugston, Michael Subject:FW: For planning board meeting 3/9 I forwarded to PB this morning… Diane Cunningham cunningham@ci.edmonds.wa.us Planning Assistant 425.771.0220 x 1335 -----Original Message----- From: Spellman, Jana Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:04 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob; Petso, Lora Subject: FW: For planning board meeting 3/9 Diane, Would please forward this e-mail to the Planning Board per Councilwoman Petso’s request? Thank you. Sincerely, Jana Spellman Sr. Ex. Assistant Edmonds City Council 425.771.0248 From: Petso, Lora Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:55 AM To: Spellman, Jana Subject: For planning board meeting 3/9 Jana- Can you forward this to planning board members? To the planning board: Regarding wireless communication facilities, I have heard comments from neighbors that the City should assure that facilities are located where service vehicles can park to maintain the facilities. Apparently, neighbors sometimes encounter vehicles parked on lawns or landscaping. Regarding BD zones, please assure that our downtown core requires legitimate commercial space. Ceiling height, commercial depth, and other requirements should be reviewed from a business perspective, not merely with an eye to how many condo's can be placed above the commercial use. Apparently, in the past, staff recommended at least a 45 foot commercial depth for the retail core, but a prior council choose to require only a 30 foot depth. Perhaps the staff recommendation is worthy of reconsideration by the Board. Thanks Packet Page 345 of 383 2 Lora Packet Page 346 of 383 1 Clugston, Michael From:Elisabeth Larman [bhlarman@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:05 PM To:Clugston, Michael Subject:disguised cell phone towers Mr. Clugston, I am surprised that you did not mention to the ADB that there is a solution for ugly cell phone towers. You can find example on the link below. For your information there are counties and countries where companies have to disguise the ugly towers. As you can see it is also being done in this country. I have seen them everywhere in South Africa for example, Europe, etc..., they virtually become one with the rest of the vegetation. From palm trees, fir trees and many others even big leafed trees, they blend in much better than any paint color!!!. Why could this not be done in Edmonds? I think you should insist that the telephone companies do that even if it cost them more money. I feel it was a disservice to not mention this to the ADB and recommend they consider this solution. I thank you in advance for considering presenting this information to the ADB and all those concerned. BettyLarman http://waynesword.palomar.edu/faketree.htm Packet Page 347 of 383 4/28/2011 1 Wireless Communication Facilities Code Update (AMD-2010-0004) City Council Discussion May 3, 2011 Background Citizen inquiries about utility pole retrofit on 96th Avenue West Council referred to the Planning Board directing the Board “…to be as restrictive as possible with regard to new poles without limiting coverage.” Packet Page 348 of 383 4/28/2011 2 Process Type V legislative action – Planning Board recommendation to Council Planning Board met nine times between April 2010 and April 2011 Architectural Design Board reviewed the project at their February 16, 2011 meeting The FCC says… Federal regulations prohibit local municipalities from excluding wireless communication facilities Wireless facilities cannot be regulated on the basis of health impacts if they meet federal criteria for radio frequency emissions Packet Page 349 of 383 4/28/2011 3 What can Edmonds do? Regulate location of different types of facilities Regulate appearance using design standards Background, Part II Edmonds is largely residential and hilly No monopoles in residential zones Use existing taller structures where possible – utility poles, buildings – co-location permitted Packet Page 350 of 383 4/28/2011 4 Existing City Regulations ECDC 18.05 – Utility Wires (2006, 2008) – unzoned rights-of-way ECDC 20.50 – Wireless Communication Facilities (1996) – zoned parcels 2006 & 2008 updates to ECDC 18.05 Specified wireless antenna separation distance for mounting on utility poles Required use of wooden poles Initiated public notification process What additional design standards for these facilities would be appropriate? Packet Page 351 of 383 4/28/2011 5 ECDC 20.50 Wireless code for zoned parcels Contains existing design standards for certain types of wireless antennas and facilities Interrelated with ECDC 18.05 Last updated in 1996 Packet Page 352 of 383 4/28/2011 6Packet Page 353 of 383 4/28/2011 7 July 28, 2010 Public Hearing A variety of changes were proposed for ECDC 18.05 and ECDC 20.50 Testimony at the hearing led to a reconsideration of the proposed changes and to further work on both 18.05 and 20.50 Packet Page 354 of 383 4/28/2011 8 Concepts to Incorporate Can’t regulate based on health impacts Technological changes Prioritized location preferences FCC ‘shot clock’ – permit timeframes Clear permitting and review processes Existing wireless code in ECDC 20.50 in need of comprehensive overhaul New Framework 20.50.010 Purpose 20.50.020 Applicability 20.50.030 Exemption 20.50.040 Prohibitions 20.50.050 General siting criteria 20.50.060 Permit requirements 20.50.070 Application requirements 20.50.080 Review timeframes 20.50.090 Building-mounted facility standards 20.50.100 Structure-mounted facility standards 20.50.110 Ground-mounted facility standards 20.50.120 Temporary facilities 20.50.130 Modification 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use 20.50.150 Maintenance Packet Page 355 of 383 4/28/2011 9 Prohibitions No guyed or lattice towers in City No monopoles in… Residential zones Rights-of-way Public and Open Space zones Downtown Waterfront Activity Center as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Zoning map Possible General Monopole Location - Current Code Packet Page 356 of 383 4/28/2011 10 General Design Standards Co-location Noise Business license Signage Temporary parking Finish Design Color Lighting Advertising Equipment enclosure RF compliance Landscaping and screening Wireless Location Preferences Co-location of wireless antennas at existing wireless sites without an increase of height Co-location at an existing site where additional height is necessary over existing Placing antennas on a replacement pole or structure for an existing one Placing antennas on a new pole or structure altogether Wireless providers must demonstrate during the application process how a location meets their needs and if co-location is not proposed, why not Packet Page 357 of 383 4/28/2011 11 Building-mounted facilities Downtown Waterfront Activity Center No extra height allowed Antennas flush-mounted to building Existing over-height buildings OK All other locations 9’ extra OK Integrate antenna appearance Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match Packet Page 358 of 383 4/28/2011 12 Structure-mounted facilities Includes utility pole retrofit language from ECDC 18.05 – 15’ separation distance, wood poles required Allow extra 6’ height for antennas Equipment cabinet, antennas and cabling must be screened or painted to match Packet Page 359 of 383 4/28/2011 13 Monopole facilities Least preferred alternative Location restricted Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match Conditional use permit (Type III-B) required if height proposed is in excess of underlying zone Must meet setbacks of underlying zone; exception possible if new location retains existing trees and open space, provides better screening, or moves facility further from residentially-zoned property Packet Page 360 of 383 4/28/2011 14 Permitting Specific application requirements Depends on type of facility… Building permit - co-locations Engineering right-of-way permit - retrofits Conditional use permit (Type II for utility pole retrofits, Type III-B for monopoles exceeding height requirement of underlying zone) Specific timeframes identified Design review with every application SEPA, as required by RCW Co-location encouraged through simpler permit process Packet Page 361 of 383 AM-3918 Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 05/03/2011 Time:90 Minutes Submitted For:Mayor Cooper Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion of levy options. (Public comment will be received.) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Place a levy on the August ballot. Previous Council Action The City Council created a Levy Review Committee in 2010 and has received periodic updates. Mayor Cooper presented a Power Point Presentation regarding his levy proposal at the April 5, 2011 Council Meeting. A discussion by the Council followed after his presentation. The Council had further discussion on placing a levy on the ballot at the April 19 and 26, 2011 City Council Meetings. Narrative Continued discussion regarding placing a levy on the ballot. Please note that Attachment 2 is an updated budget forecast (working capital) with 2010 actuals. Attachments Attachment 1: Mayor's 2011 Levy Memo to Council Attachment 2: Forecast (Working Capital) with 2010 Actuals.pdf Attachment 3: City Council Minutes re: Levy Discussion Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 04/29/2011 12:03 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 04/29/2011 01:53 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 04/28/2011 Final Approval Date: 04/29/2011 Packet Page 362 of 383 Date: March 30, 2011 To: Council President Peterson From: Mike Cooper, Mayor Subject: Levy Proposal Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want Edmonds to restore services with citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has put many long hours into this effort, but no consensus before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you place it before the voters on the August 16 I am recommending a four year levy focused on “ Streets, and Parks For Everyone at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an annual basis. This will increase our revenue $2.26 million in 2012. “Safe Neighborhoods, Safe Streets, and • Safe Neighborhoods Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a cost of $210,000/year. • Safe Streets - Dedicate $704,000/year is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 million/year. • Parks for Everyone This money would insure that our stream and that we c short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. In addition to these dedicated action items, we will have en comply with the council mandated one month ending cash This is sustained for the duration of the four year levy. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY HALL • THIRD FLOOR EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425)771 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City / Hekinan, Japan Peterson, City Council members Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want Edmonds to restore services with more revenue. There have been two separate citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has put many long hours into this effort, but no consensus recommendation has come before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you place it before the voters on the August 16th ballot. a four year levy focused on “Safe Neighborhoods, Safe For Everyone”. If approved by the voters the levy would start at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an annual basis. This will increase our revenue $2.26 million in 2012. borhoods, Safe Streets, and Parks For Everyone” Action Plan Safe Neighborhoods – Restore our Crime Prevention Program in the Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a cost of $210,000/year. edicate $704,000/year or $.11/$1000 to street is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 for Everyone – Dedicate $102,000/year or $.016/$1000 to parks. This money would insure that our flower program has a dedicated funding stream and that we can cover the approximately $50,000/year revenue short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. In addition to these dedicated action items, we will have enough in reserve the council mandated one month ending cash balance requirement. This is sustained for the duration of the four year levy. CITY OF EDMONDS THIRD FLOOR (425)771-0246 • FAX (425)771-0252 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want more revenue. There have been two separate citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has recommendation has come before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you orhoods, Safe . If approved by the voters the levy would start at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an Action Plan Restore our Crime Prevention Program in the Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a overlays. It is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 Dedicate $102,000/year or $.016/$1000 to parks. program has a dedicated funding approximately $50,000/year revenue short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. ough in reserves to balance requirement. Mike Cooper MAYOR Packet Page 363 of 383 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City / Hekinan, Japan While this proposed action cannot rebuild of our workforce needs, do all major projects, or catch up all of the deferred maintenance needs for our city facilities, it does position us to be healthy over the next four years without further cutting needed service. During that four year period we must focus together on a plan to generate the needed long term revenue. I look forward to working with you in the coming months to put a package before the voters that has unanimous approval from the council. Packet Page 364 of 383 29 - A p r - 1 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s : S t r a t e g i c O u t l o o k 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 Ac t u a l B u d g e t A c t u a l B u d g e t O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k Be g i n n i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e 1, 4 9 7 , 8 6 0 1, 2 7 3 , 2 6 5 2, 1 6 7 , 1 5 6 2, 8 1 5 , 3 1 3 2, 7 5 9 , 5 0 2 2, 7 0 1 , 4 3 8 2, 0 8 7 , 4 8 2 862,048 (996,324) (3,336,691) RE V E N U E Pr o p e r t y T a x 13 , 8 2 8 , 9 0 1 14 , 1 4 7 , 0 8 4 13 , 6 3 7 , 2 9 4 13 , 6 0 9 , 4 8 2 13 , 6 0 9 , 4 8 2 13 , 6 0 6 , 1 7 5 13 , 6 7 8 , 0 9 1 13,824,862 14,011,433 14,200,858 Re t a i l S a l e s T a x 4, 4 1 4 , 8 7 4 5, 5 1 9 , 9 4 9 4, 4 4 6 , 1 1 2 4, 5 2 4 , 1 9 5 4, 6 0 1 , 7 2 5 4, 6 9 3 , 7 6 0 4, 7 8 7 , 6 3 5 4,883,388 4,981,056 5,080,677 Ot h e r S a l e s & U s e T a x 54 3 , 7 3 1 66 5 , 9 0 1 54 2 , 9 0 1 54 6 , 7 9 7 54 5 , 9 1 3 55 1 , 5 0 4 55 7 , 1 5 4 562,863 568,632 574,461 Ut i l i t y T a x 5, 9 5 3 , 0 2 8 5, 2 2 5 , 3 1 1 5, 9 2 8 , 3 3 0 6, 4 4 1 , 9 6 2 6, 1 2 6 , 9 2 7 6, 1 8 8 , 1 9 6 6, 2 5 0 , 0 7 8 6,312,579 6,375,705 6,439,462 Ot h e r T a x e s 30 1 , 6 3 3 29 7 , 5 0 0 30 3 , 1 1 4 31 1 , 9 8 2 30 8 , 6 3 9 31 4 , 2 6 9 32 0 , 0 0 6 325,853 331,811 337,882 Li c e n s e s / P e r m i t s / F r a n c h i s e 1, 0 2 3 , 0 1 7 1, 4 1 8 , 2 1 3 1, 1 9 2 , 1 0 6 1, 0 3 7 , 8 1 3 1, 2 0 5 , 4 0 0 1, 2 1 7 , 3 9 7 1, 2 2 9 , 5 1 4 1,241,752 1,254,112 1,266,596 Co n s t r u c t i o n P e r m i t s 44 8 , 6 1 2 68 8 , 9 9 1 41 5 , 1 1 3 44 7 , 0 1 6 41 8 , 7 3 2 42 2 , 3 8 8 42 6 , 0 8 0 429,808 433,575 437,379 Gr a n t s 13 3 , 4 2 5 4, 6 4 4 21 8 , 1 2 0 4, 4 1 0 4, 4 1 0 - - - - - St a t e R e v e n u e s 72 5 , 8 8 8 75 2 , 4 2 6 78 3 , 1 1 8 74 6 , 8 0 3 75 4 , 5 0 3 74 9 , 1 5 6 75 3 , 8 4 3 758,562 763,314 768,100 In t e r g o v ' t S e r v i c e C h a r g e s 1, 3 4 8 , 7 4 3 37 8 , 1 8 4 18 2 , 9 5 3 86 , 0 4 3 16 6 , 0 9 8 17 1 , 8 5 5 17 7 , 8 3 7 184,053 190,512 197,226 In t e r f u n d S e r v i c e C h a r g e s 1, 3 1 8 , 7 7 3 98 0 , 4 6 9 1, 2 8 4 , 1 3 7 1, 3 8 8 , 9 3 5 1, 3 1 6 , 2 4 1 1, 3 2 2 , 8 2 2 1, 3 2 9 , 4 3 6 1,336,083 1,342,764 1,349,477 Ch g s . f o r G o o d s & S e r v i c e s 2, 3 0 7 , 3 9 0 3, 5 7 4 , 7 8 4 2, 7 4 2 , 7 9 4 2, 2 4 8 , 5 4 5 2, 1 7 9 , 2 8 3 2, 2 1 9 , 2 7 3 2, 2 6 0 , 5 8 1 2,303,222 2,347,215 2,392,580 Fi n e s & F o r f e i t s 67 4 , 6 3 3 64 0 , 3 0 0 62 4 , 4 4 7 66 7 , 1 0 0 67 5 , 6 5 8 69 0 , 7 0 6 70 6 , 0 9 4 721,829 737,920 754,373 Mi s c R e v e n u e s 53 1 , 8 9 0 2, 2 8 9 , 1 3 3 1, 9 3 5 , 4 3 2 44 3 , 5 3 7 44 7 , 5 0 4 43 2 , 5 6 8 44 2 , 8 8 3 453,457 464,294 475,403 T o t a l R e v e n u e 33 , 5 5 4 , 5 3 8 36 , 5 8 2 , 8 8 9 34 , 2 3 5 , 9 7 0 32 , 5 0 4 , 6 2 0 32 , 3 6 0 , 5 1 3 32 , 5 8 0 , 0 7 0 32 , 9 1 9 , 2 3 2 33,338,311 33,802,342 34,274,474 Re v e n u e G r o w t h / ( D e c l i n e ) 2. 0 % - 1 1 . 1 % - 5 . 5 % 0 . 7 % 1 . 0 % 1 . 3 % 1 . 4 % 1 . 4 % EX P E N S E S Sa l a r i e s a n d W a g e s 17 , 7 5 1 , 6 2 6 13 , 3 9 4 , 2 0 2 12 , 4 1 4 , 7 2 6 12 , 7 8 0 , 6 3 2 12 , 7 8 0 , 6 3 2 13 , 0 4 2 , 0 8 6 13 , 3 0 0 , 5 2 0 13,564,063 13,832,819 14,106,892 Be n e f i t s 5, 4 6 4 , 5 3 6 5, 0 0 7 , 7 9 6 3, 8 9 1 , 0 4 0 4, 2 7 8 , 9 2 4 4, 2 7 8 , 9 2 4 4, 2 8 0 , 4 0 9 4, 5 6 3 , 8 8 2 4,870,869 5,203,616 5,564,594 Su p p l i e s 51 5 , 9 3 3 58 4 , 3 6 6 56 7 , 2 6 3 58 0 , 2 9 7 58 8 , 9 8 6 72 6 , 6 1 8 74 4 , 7 8 4 763,403 782,488 802,051 Se r v i c e s 3, 4 5 7 , 8 2 1 3, 6 2 7 , 5 6 6 4, 4 7 2 , 0 5 6 3, 6 9 8 , 2 8 4 3, 6 8 5 , 8 8 0 3, 1 8 1 , 7 1 9 3, 2 9 4 , 9 0 4 3,414,120 3,539,831 3,672,539 In t e r g o v ' t 2, 0 1 9 , 3 1 0 8, 2 9 7 , 4 0 5 8, 0 5 3 , 6 2 2 8, 3 3 2 , 9 1 6 8, 4 3 4 , 3 1 1 9, 0 0 3 , 1 2 2 9, 2 4 7 , 2 3 9 9,498,660 9,757,629 10,024,397 Ca p i t a l 41 , 6 4 3 30 , 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - De b t S e r v i c e 1, 4 1 6 , 1 5 4 1, 4 2 3 , 9 5 1 1, 4 2 2 , 4 5 5 1, 4 5 2 , 2 8 4 1, 4 5 2 , 2 8 4 1, 4 4 5 , 9 1 7 1, 4 4 6 , 8 8 3 1,475,935 1,382,617 1,404,463 Tr a n s f e r s 1, 2 3 9 , 3 2 0 1, 2 6 6 , 1 8 9 2, 0 1 3 , 0 5 1 80 9 , 7 7 8 55 3 , 1 2 8 86 0 , 0 2 6 88 2 , 3 9 2 935,384 959,020 983,319 In t e r f u n d 1, 0 4 6 , 7 4 9 91 4 , 4 8 9 93 2 , 6 4 3 38 7 , 7 8 2 64 4 , 4 3 2 65 4 , 1 2 7 66 4 , 0 6 4 674,249 684,689 695,390 T o t a l E x p e n s e s 32 , 9 5 3 , 0 9 1 34 , 5 4 5 , 9 6 4 33 , 7 6 6 , 8 5 6 32 , 3 2 0 , 8 9 7 32 , 4 1 8 , 5 7 7 33 , 1 9 4 , 0 2 6 34 , 1 4 4 , 6 6 6 35,196,683 36,142,709 37,253,645 Ex p e n s e G r o w t h / ( D e c l i n e ) 2. 5 % - 6 . 4 % - 4 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 2 . 9 % 3 . 1 % 2 . 7 % 3 . 1 % Wo r k i n g C a p i t a l Y e a r E n d A d j u s t m e n t 67 , 8 4 8 12 3 , 2 3 1 En d i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e 2, 1 6 7 , 1 5 6 3 , 3 1 0 , 1 9 0 2 , 7 5 9 , 5 0 2 2 , 9 9 9 , 0 3 6 2 , 7 0 1 , 4 3 8 2 , 0 8 7 , 4 8 2 8 6 2 , 0 4 8 (996,324) ( 3 , 3 3 6 , 6 9 1 ) ( 6 , 3 1 5 , 8 6 2 ) - 0 - - 0 (0) - - Ta r g e t E n d i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e (1 ) 2, 74 6 , 0 9 1 2, 8 7 8 , 8 3 0 2, 8 1 3 , 9 0 5 2, 6 9 3 , 4 0 8 2, 7 0 1 , 5 4 8 2, 7 6 6 , 1 6 9 2, 8 4 5 , 3 8 9 2,933,057 3,011,892 3,104,470 (1 ) G F O A r e c o m m e n d s t a r g e t e n d i n g w o r k i n g c a p i t a l s h o u l d b e 1 t o 2 m o n t h o f e x p e n d i t u r e s . A o n e m o n t h t a r g e t i s d i s p l a y e d . Ex e c u t i v e S u m m a r y - C u r r e n t F o r e c a s t Ch a n g e s i n W o r k i n g C a p i t a l Pa c k e t Pa g e 36 5 of 38 3 Packet Page 366 of 383 Packet Page 367 of 383 Packet Page 368 of 383 Packet Page 369 of 383 Packet Page 370 of 383 Packet Page 371 of 383 Packet Page 372 of 383 Packet Page 373 of 383 Packet Page 374 of 383 Packet Page 375 of 383 Packet Page 376 of 383 Packet Page 377 of 383 Packet Page 378 of 383 Packet Page 379 of 383 Packet Page 380 of 383 Packet Page 381 of 383 Packet Page 382 of 383 Packet Page 383 of 383