The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-02-13 Planning Board Packet- 0� L1UM0 Agenda Edmonds Planning Board RqCOUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 13, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of January 23, 2019 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Interim Small Cell Updates to Wireless Ordinance (ECDC 20.50) 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda February 13, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/13/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of January 23, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB190123d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 23, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Rosen (excused) Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Lovell requested an update on the small cell wireless amendments. Mr. Lien advised that on January 151, staff made the same presentation to the City Council that was provided to the Board on January 91. The issue will come back before the Board on February 131. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that all local regulations and guidelines related to small cell wireless facilities must be in place by April 13'. Otherwise, the City will have lost its opportunity. He asked if the City is on track to meet this deadline. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council will consider an interim ordinance on February 5t1i, and the intent is to have a permanent ordinance in place before the deadline. Board Member Lovell observed that a public hearing before the Planning Board on the permanent ordinance is scheduled for February 27t1i Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a Board Member Monroe asked for a status report on the public process related to housing. He asked if the issue would come back to the Planning Board at some point in the future. Mr. Lien answered that a public open house was held on January 10' and was well attended. Board Member Crank said she did not attend the public meeting, but the ad hoc housing group is having its final meeting on January 31". She anticipates the meeting will include information and feedback that was gathered from the last two open houses, and it will likely be the official ending of the group. Board Member Monroe asked if a work product would result from the housing group meetings, and Board Member Crank answered no. She explained that the group was intended to be a type of stop gap to allow a pause and an opportunity to work the Housing Strategy back to what it was supposed to be. At the group's last meeting, it was discussed that a Housing Commission could potentially be formed. If a Housing Commission is appointed, she suggested it might be helpful for them to meet jointly with the Planning Board. HAINES WHARF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION (FILE NO. AMD20180011 Mr. Lien advised that this is a City -initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment that involves four parcels in the Haines Wharf area. The City owns a small parcel, and the other three are privately owned. Notice letters were sent to the three property owners, but no response has been received to date. Mr. Lien explained that the current Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the properties is Mixed Use Commercial and the properties are zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The only other area in the City that is zoned Commercial Waterfront is near the downtown and near the Port of Edmonds. The remainder of the tidelands are zoned Open Space (OS). With the exception of a few properties that are zoned Mixed Use Commercial, properties further shoreland are zoned Single Family Resource (RSW). RS-20 requires a lot size of at least 20,000 square feet and RS-12 requires a lot size of at least 12,000 square feet. He also advised that the existing structure on the subject parcels has been deteriorating over the years. Mr. Lien said the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is primarily an outgrowth of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. He provided an image to depict the old shoreline designation for the properties and explained that under the old SMP, the areas were intensely developed with a mixed use of commercial, port facilities, multi -modal transit facilities, railroad facilities and limited light industrial uses. With the recently updated SMP (2017), the shoreline designation was changed to Aquatic I. The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment is to protect, restore and manage the unique characteristic and resources of the areas waterward of the Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM). The City initiated the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the designation to a more appropriate designation consistent with the SMP. At the request of Board Member Lovell, Mr. Lien shared information about the properties that were developed under a Planned Residential Development and a Contract Rezone. Board Member Monroe requested clarification about what property the existing building is located on, and Mr. Lien answered that part of it is on private property and part is on state tidelands. The current tideland lease with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is month -to -month. He explained that before the wooden structure deteriorated, the property owner applied for a shoreline permit to refurbish the site. The structure was non -conforming under both the current and previous SMP. The property owner obtained a shoreline permit from the City but was unable to get a permit from the other government agencies. At this time, nothing is being pursued. Board Member Monroe asked if the other permits would have been required if the structure was located entirely on the private property. Mr. Lien responded that a variety of state agency permits would be required because the structure is located within navigable waters. To further clarify the proposal, Mr. Lien explained that zoning overlay, shoreline designation and Comprehensive Plan designation are different designations that apply to the site. The zoning designation has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Mixed -Use Commercial, and both the zoning designation and Comprehensive Plan designation must be consistent with the SMP. Currently, the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations are not consistent, and staff is proposing that the Comprehensive Plan Map designation be changed from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space (OS), which is consistent with rest of the tidelands next to the residential areas in North Edmonds (from the subject parcels all the way to Brackett's Landing South). Mr. Lien reminded the Commission that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can only be adopted if the following findings are made: Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 2 11 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a Mr. Lien explained that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to develop and implement the SMP consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and that is the purpose of the proposed amendment. When the amendment comes back to the Board for a public hearing, he will present a staff report to further explain how the proposed change is consistent with the four criteria. He summarized his presentation by stating that the next step would be a public hearing by the Planning Board in March, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell observed that one sliver of the property is owned by the City and the other three are privately owned, and the entire Haines Wharf complex is crumbling into the Sound and causing pollution. He asked if the Corps of Engineers has anything to say about the future of this property and the existing structure. Mr. Lien responded that number of agencies have been watching the structure decay over the years with nobody really stepping up and taking the lead. The Department of Ecology (DOE) has stepped in from time to time, as has the DNR because of the lease. After a significant storm a few years ago, the City made the property owners remove the wood portion and stabilize the rest of the structure. Pollution no longer occurs during high tide and/or significant storms. However, it is still a nonconforming structure that is inconsistent with the SMP, and not a lot can be done with the site beyond maintaining it in its current condition. Board Member Lovell asked if the properties would be considered undevelopable if the Comprehensive Plan Map designation is changed to OS. Mr. Lien shared a zoning map and explained that, currently, the Haines Wharf properties are designated as Commercial Waterfront, and the properties from Haines Wharf down to the Lynnwood Wastewater Treatment Plant are zoned OS. The properties between the treatment plant and the ferry terminal are zoned RSW-12. The RSW-12 zone was primarily developed for Lake Ballinger, so it has setbacks that are described from the lake edge. The Zoning Code has a chapter for the Marine Resource (MR) zone. Based on his research, the MR zone is supposed to apply to the OS and RSW zones in the tidelands, but it has not been applied to any properties on the zoning map. When it was initially adopted, it was applied to the tidelands outside of the City limits. However, when the City created the new electronic maps, the zone disappeared from the zoning map. Mr. Lien shared details about the MR zone, noting that its purpose is to regulate uses at the tidelands and other lands covered by saltwater, to preserve and enhance the natural marine environment along the shoreline in Edmonds, and to provide local control over the natural marine environment to the extent that state and federal regulations allow. The MR zone allows for permitted uses such as commercial fishing, sports fishing, movement of vessels, swimming, and snorkeling. It also allows uses that require a Conditional Use Permit such as submerged power and communication cables, filling, dredging, submerged construction, breakwaters, bulkheads, scientific installation, marine extraction, mineral extraction from water, marine agriculture and propagation, and educational and recreational facilities. He said that he plans to review this zone further at some point in the future to determine how it could potentially be amended and applied to properties along the shoreline in Edmonds. Mr. Lien again emphasized that the property has three separate designations: Shoreline Environment, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The current proposal would only amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject parcels from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space, which is consistent with the rest of the waterfront. The proposed amendment would make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the SMP. Changing the zoning will be a separate action that would follow the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Board Member Lovell summarized that a future zoning amendment would involve a look at all of the rest of the zones along the waterfront relative to tidelands and previous zoning designations, but zoning is not part of the current proposal. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board would consider potential impacts to the property owners as part of any proposed zoning change. Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. Again, he said he has notified the property owners of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, but he has not heard back from any of them. Board Member Rubenkonig asked for more information about how the federal and state agencies are also involved, given that the properties are classified as tidelands. Mr. Lien explained that a variety of permitting agencies have responsibilities associated with the properties. For example, if the property owners were to apply for a permit, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife would have permit authority and not the City of Edmonds. The DNR would also have permit authority, as would the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which would coordinate with the Natural Marine Fisheries Services. Each of these agencies have different permitting requirements. Only the City of Edmonds implements the SMP and the zoning, but the DNR has a tideland lease. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 DNR would find the proposed change suitable to its mission, and Mr. Lien answered affirmatively. He said he has had numerous conversations with representatives from the DNR over the years as the site has deteriorated. Board Member Rubenkonig asked when the last time the property was commercially viable. Mr. Lien answered that he does not believe there was a commercial operation going on in 2008 when the property owners last applied for a Shoreline Permit. Board Member Rubenkonig asked what is stopping the site from being commercially viable. Mr. Lien explained that the property owners have not secured access from Burlington Northern Santa Fe, so there is no safe crossing across the tracks to the subject parcels. The location is another factor. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that there were viable businesses on the properties at one point in time. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the owners would be compensated if the properties are rezoned. Mr. Lien said the structure is non -conforming now, and it would remain non -conforming if the proposed amendment is approved. Therefore, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent rezone would not really change what is allowed to be there. He further explained that under the current SMP, a covered, over -water structure would not be allowed and the use would be considered non -conforming, as well. If a non -conforming use ceases to exist for a period of time, only conforming uses and structures would be allowed going forward. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the structure's commercial viability has been significantly reduced over the past decade. Mr. Lien emphasized that the structure was considered non- conforming under the previous SMP, which was adopted in 2000, so it has been non -conforming for the past 19 years. The intent is not to continue the non-conformance forever, but ultimately for the use to go away. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized her understanding that the proposed amendment would not take away from the property owners' ability to have a business, but they will have to jump through hoops to get it to be viable. This is no different than for any other business in Edmonds. Mr. Lien clarified that the structure can be maintained. However, he is not aware of any commercial activity at the site at this time. He read from the non -conforming section of the code that if a non- conforming use is discontinued for 6 consecutive months of for 12 months during any 2-year period, any subsequent use must be conforming. Board Member Monroe asked if structures could be built on the other properties under the Commercial Waterfront designation. Mr. Lien answered that the property owners would not be allowed to construct a building over the water now. The current SMP no longer allows covered structures over water. Board Member Monroe observed that the value of the properties was significantly reduced when the previous SMP was adopted in 2000. Mr. Lien said all he knows is that the structure was non -conforming when the City issued approval of a Shoreline Permit in 2008 under the old SMP that was adopted in 2000. At least since 2000, the structure type was not allowed and the existing structure was non -conforming. Board Member Monroe asked about the advantage of changing the Comprehensive Plan designation if the existing Mixed Commercial Use designation does not allow development, either. Mr. Lien said the purpose is to make the SMP and Comprehensive Plan consistent with each other. Board Member Monroe clarified that, in functionality, the proposed change would not cause any additional impacts that were not present in 2000. Mr. Lien concurred. Mr. Lien advised that the proposed amendments will come back to the Board for a public hearing in March. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the February 131 agenda will include a continued discussion on the Wireless Facilities Ordinance for small cell standards. The Board briefly reviewed what took place at their 2018 retreat, which was more of an information -gathering session with the City Attorney than a goal -setting session. They agreed it would be helpful to have their 2019 retreat earlier in the year so it could be used as a goal -setting session. They decided to push the public hearing for the Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to April so the 2019 retreat could be scheduled for March 27r''. Mr. Lien advised that another item that will be added to the extended agenda is a discussion on the Architectural Design Review Board's (ADB) role. The ADB will be discussing this issue at their next meeting and look forward to a joint meeting with the Planning Board, as well. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Board Member Rubenkonig recalled the items she brought forward at their last meeting for possible inclusion on the extended agenda. She pointed out that, previously, the Board received a yearly report on activity on Highway 99, but it was not included on the current extended agenda. In addition, the Board often has joint meetings with other City Boards and Commissions. The Board also appreciates periodic Parks and Recreation Reports and reports from the Development Services Director regarding development activity in the City. Chair Cheung suggested that perhaps the Development Services Director could be invited to provide a report on Highway 99 activity at their February 13' meeting. Mr. Lien advised that the Development Services Director provides an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity in the City. Following her presentation to the City Council, the information is also presented to the Planning Board. The Board discussed whether or not an additional study session is needed before the public hearing on the Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinance. Board Member Lovell reviewed that the subject was introduced to the City Council last week, and staff is working on proposed code changes that will be presented to the City Council as an interim ordinance. Mr. Lien said his understanding is that an interim ordinance will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing and adoption on February 5', which is before the Board's next meeting. On February 13t1i, staff would introduce the Board to the proposed code changes and the interim ordinance. Vice Chair Robles commented that no further Board discussion is needed prior to the public hearing unless they have an opportunity to discuss the issue with scientists who have expertise in the field. Board Member Rubenkonig reminded the Board that the City does not have the ability to regulate wireless facilities for safety since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already deemed them to be safe. Vice Chair Robles said he felt it was appropriate to get public safety concerns on the record even if they are outside the City's purview to regulate. He reminded them that the City's current moratorium on crumb rubber was based on unsettled science, and if small cell wireless facilities can also be classified as unsettled science, the City could take a similar approach. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that Vice Chair Robles' concerns were included in the January 9t' minutes. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to review the ordinance prior to the public hearing since that is the best time for them to affect change. Mr. Lien also recommended the Board have a study session to review the interim ordinance and proposed permanent ordinance and provide feedback to the staff prior to the public hearing. Chair Cheung asked if the Board will be expected to make a recommendation at the same meeting following the public hearing. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the April 131 deadline. Board Member Lovell commented that the Board would have plenty of time to discuss the draft ordinance following the public hearing and prior to making their recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien said his understanding is that staff will provide more pictures and information regarding small cell wireless facilities at their next meeting, as well as the interim ordinance and draft language (design guidance) for a permanent ordinance. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that her neighborhood has below ground power lines, and allowing small cell facilities on standalone poles would end up introducing more above ground wires and equipment. She felt it was important to look carefully at the design standards for the facilities which can be up to 50 feet in height. She recalled that the Board requested staff provide photographs of where they have been installed elsewhere, since there are none in Edmonds at this time. It would also be helpful to see examples from the manufacturers. She acknowledged that the City does not have a lot of ability to control small cell wireless facilities, but she is concerned that it is a bigger issue than it appears to be. Design seems to be the only opportunity the City has to provide guidance for the local community. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that, although most items on the Board's agenda come from the City Council, the Board can add items to its agenda, as well. This usually happens via the Chair working with the Mayor. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to add other study items when their agendas are light. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 5 11 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Robles observed that there are a lot of hot topics, especially surrounding affordable housing. Many of the topics are showing up on social media and many of the comments are adversarial and unfounded. Recently, he has commented, as well, in an attempt to direct the conversation towards encouraging citizens to participate in the public meetings. He suggested it might be appropriate for the Board to have a social media policy of its own. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the January 161 Economic Development Commission meeting. He announced that Scott Merrick recently joined the Commission. His background is in healthcare, but he has also been involved in a lot of development matters over the course of his professional life. He is currently a professor at Central Washington University and is based at the University of Washington. Board Member Lovell reported that the focus of the January 16th meeting was to review priorities for 2019 and hear reports from the three major subcommittees: business attraction, arts and tourism, and development feasibility. The role and responsibility of the three subcommittees is to study various issues that might directly impact the economic health of the City and make recommendations to the City Council accordingly. Upon hearing the recommendations, the City Council will decide whether to take action or not. Recommendations related to land use and zoning could eventually trickle down to the Planning Board for additional work. There was quite a discussion about the final report outlining the status of the Strategic Action Plan. He noted that a draft report was distributed at the Board's last meeting, and the final report is very similar except that it highlights items that are within the realm of economic development. There seemed to be a particular interest in revising some of the items that were very low priorities in the initial Strategic Action Plan, as well as those that have been put aside or abandoned for lack of incentive or as a result of changes in the makeup, interest and concern in the City. They also voiced interest in starting new categories. The list of new items includes: • Consider ways to improve east/west transportation. • Look at programs to increase parking capability and parking enforcement. • Look at 5G related business opportunities. • Look at fine development of Civic Park. • Lend support to the Creative District designation that the City just achieved (1st in the State). • Look at other types of like businesses that might want to relocate and center their operations in Edmonds. • Collaborate more with the Port of Edmonds. • Collaborate more with Edmonds Community College. Board Member Lovell asked if another Board Member would be interested in taking his place as a liaison to the Economic Development Commission. The Board Members agreed to consider the opportunity, and Board Member Lovell agreed to continue to serve as liaison for the time being. Board Member Crank announced that the quarterly Snohomish County Paine Field Airport Commission Meeting is on January 24'. She advised that, due to the government shutdown, the commission has been unable to get final approval from the Federal Aviation Administration so commercial service out of the new terminal has been postponed. Alaska Airlines was scheduled to start flights on February 11', and the date has been pushed out to March 4'. She commended Alaska Airlines for being expedient about reaching out to people who had already purchased tickets to change their flights to SeaTac. She briefly described the various impacts associated with the government shutdown. Board Member Monroe said he attended a meeting to help finalize the Urban Forest Management Plan. The intent of the meeting was to add specificity for Edmonds and make the plan less generic. The big thing he learned was that trees have a lifecycle, and given when Edmonds was established, many are reaching the end of their lifecycle and are starting to fall down. While the plan cannot solve the problem, it can at least start to address it. �IL111J 711►%_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 23, 2019 Page 6 11 Packet Pg. 8 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/13/2019 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Report is attached Attachments: Director. Re port.02.08.19 Packet Pg. 9 5.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM February 8, 2019 Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report "Branches on the evergreens, are dressed in snowy white, as soft the moonlight sparkles, on this blanket of the night. Delicate, untouched and pure, is found the ground below, as gentle moon beams glimmer, on the freshly fallen snow." -Pamela Joyce Randolph Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board meets next on February 13, 2019. The agenda includes a discussion of an ordinance for small cell wireless standards. The effort relates to new federal regulation. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) ❑ PSRC is continuing to work on developing VISION 2050 to update VISION 2040 (https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents) as our four -county regional growth plan. VISION 2050 is intended to "build on VISION 2040 to keep the central Puget Sound region healthy and vibrant is it grows." This year is the year for completing SEPA review and issuing a draft regional plan for 2050. Adoption would be scheduled in 2020. The regional plan helps guide the countywide planning policies adopted be each county —in our case through the Snohomish County Tomorrow process —and ultimately is associated with each city's planning process. ❑ PSRC performs ongoing research about transportation, jobs, and other topics for our region. Here's a recent PSRC finding: Between 2010 and 2017, the share of commuters driving alone to work went down, while transit shares went up. Overall, about a third of central Puget Sound residents chose to carpool, use transit, bike or walk to work. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 10 5.A.a Highway 99 Tunnel The long-awaited new Highway 99 Tunnel is open. The new structure is built to withstand a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and includes modern safety features. For tips on navigating new entrances and exits, check out information on the WSDOT website. State Legislature The State's 2019 legislative session is in full swing, with numerous bills being discussed on education, land use, climate, and more. LOCAL PROJECTS Climate Goals Project A public open house on climate goals and carbon reduction in Edmonds was held January 17 in the Brackett Room of City Hall. About 45 people came, viewed display boards, and observed a presentation from the City's consultant. The presentation included information about the new Greenhouse Gas Inventory that was prepared for the City and potential reduction targets for the future. Numerous questions and comments were offered, along with attendees' general support for the project. A new City webpage has been set up for the project. See: climateaction.edmondswa.gov. Housing Issues The City Council plans to discuss housing at its February 19 regular meeting. OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB has no meeting scheduled in February. Arts Commission The Arts Commission will meet on February 11, with an agenda that includes: ❑ Henbart project presentation ❑ Nominations ❑ Concerts ❑ Capital Projects ❑ Funding & Administration Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board will meet on February 21, with an agenda that includes: ❑ Chairman's Report ❑ Cemetery Sales, Burials & Financial Report ❑ Mapping Project ❑ Memorial Day Planning ❑ Financial Report ❑ Customer Satisfaction Survey 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 11 5.A.a Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission met on February 6, with an agenda that included: ❑ Upcoming Events ❑ Report to the Council ❑ Commission Retreat ❑ Hosts for Film Series ❑ Grants ❑ Surplus Funds ❑ New Logo ❑ Communities of Color Coalition Economic Development Commission (EDC) The EDC met on Jan. 10, with an agenda that included: ❑ Strategic Action Plan ❑ 2019 Priorities ❑ Development Feasibility ❑ Arts/Tourism ❑ Business Attraction Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner had no meetings in January. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting is February 14. An agenda will be posted on line when available. Copies of the 2019 Historic Calendars, featuring "Transportation in Edmonds", are available for pick-up at the Edmonds City Hall lobby and the Edmonds Museum Planning Board A student representative is being sought to serve on the Edmonds Planning Board. The Planning Board makes recommendations to the City Council on plans, codes, and issues related to community development, including transportation, environment, and housing, The selected student would serve the remainder of the school year and attend Planning Board meetings. The Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month, starting at 7:00 pm. Information about the Board is online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/planning- board.html- Student representatives must live in Edmonds and be attending either high school or college. For questions or to get an application, contact the City's Planning Division: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov or 425.771-0220. 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a Tree Board The Tree Board met on February 7, with an agenda that included: ❑ UFMP status ❑ Small Tree Brochure ❑ Garden club presentation ❑ Art Commission joint project ❑ Demo garden club presentation ❑ Earth Day ❑ Pursuit of partnerships with State groups Youth Commission The Youth Commission's meeting for February 6 was cancelled. City Council The City Council meeting on February 5 was cancelled due to weather conditions. Most agenda items were moved to the February 12 meeting. COMMUNITY CALENDAR • February 9: Music at the Library, 6:30 pm, Cascade Mountain Boys • February 11: Public meeting on "Welcome to Edmonds" sign, 6pm in Plaza Meeting Room, 650 Main St. • February 16: Diversity Commission Film "Old Goats", at noon at Edmonds Theater • February 21: Thursday Art Walk • February 23: Clam Chowder Cook -off, 12 — 3pm, Edmonds Yacht Club • March 7: State of the City Address Edmonds Theater at 8:30 am. 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 13 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/13/2019 Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Interim Small Cell Updates to Wireless Ordinance (ECDC 20.50) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History This topic was introduced to the Planning Board on January 9, 2019 Staff Recommendation Review and discuss the draft interim ordinance. Schedule public hearing for February 27. Narrative Cnntext As we come up with new ways to use wireless technology in our move toward the 'Internet of Things', we are using ever-increasing amounts wireless data. To serve that need, network providers are deploying new technologies at an ever-increasing pace. One of these technologies is small cell. Small cell is intended to provide greater data access over more localized areas and will fill in coverage gaps in 4G and will eventually be used for 5G technology when that becomes available. The challenge for policymakers is that the deployment of the small cell will look substantially different than the 'macro cell' deployments of the past. The existing 'macro' facilities familiar to most involved the construction of large towers or attaching fairly large antennas to buildings or utility poles. Edmonds has permitted two dozen macro facilities over the past 20+ years that provide cell coverage across most of town. Conveniently, the majority of macro facilities are located in commercial areas with a few on utility poles amongst residential neighborhoods. Small cell will flip that dynamic. They are intended to provide greater capacity over a shorter range and while the antennas and related equipment are physically 'smaller' in size and power, more of them will be needed to cover a given area. Small cell will also be greatly expanding into residential areas to provide capacity where wireless usage is growing most quickly. With multiple providers offering wireless services, many small cell installations will be coming to town. To speed the rollout of small cell even more, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the "Order") on September 27, 2018, adopting new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for new small wireless facilities. The Order went into effect on January 14, 2019 and local jurisdictions have until April 14, 2019 to adopt aesthetic rules. Packet Pg. 14 8.A What We Can Regulate 1) Location. The intent is to prioritize use of zoned property rather than the public right-of-way for small wireless facilities. In this way, individual landowners may gain some financial benefit from the small cell deployments encroaching into their neighborhoods and minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise be placed on existing utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to be located entirely on zoned properties because some property owners within the desired small cell deployment area may not want to participate or because of technological factors. In that instance, a mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations could be used. A seven -step preference hierarchy is proposed where a provider must analyze the use of each location in descending order and justify why the higher location cannot be used: Locate Outside of the Right-of-W 1. Existing Building 2. Freestanding Small Cell Pole Locate Within the Right -of -Way 3. Existing Street Light Pole or Utility Pole (hollow poles) 4. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole or Street Light 5. Existing PUD Single -Phase Pole (installation on top of pole) 6. Existing PUD Transmission Pole (installation in communication space) 7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space) 2) Appearance. A range of concealment and camouflaging strategies are proposed with the intent to minimize negative visual impacts. For example, new freestanding small cell poles must be completely concealed meaning that all antennas and associated equipment must be housed within a hollow pole. What We Cannot Regulate 1) Wireless providers cannot be excluded from the City of Edmonds. Each provider must be allowed to deploy equally. 2) Health impacts. The FCC provides health and safety guidance for radiofrequency (RF) emissions. As long as the wireless providers meet that guidance, local jurisdictions cannot further regulate based on health impacts. As part of the application process for wireless installations, the code requires that providers document compliance with the FCC standards, which staff verifies during permit review. Planning Board Process Due to the weather cancelation of the City Council meeting on February 5, 2019, Council moved the public hearing of the interim wireless ordinance to February 12. To keep with the timeline dictated by the FCC, the Planning Board will review the draft on February 13 and discuss refinements ahead of a public hearing before the Board on February 27. Attachment 1 is the redlined version of the proposed interim ordinance while Attachment 2 is a clean version of the proposed code changes. Attachment 3 are the slides for February 13. Attachment 4 is the excerpt minutes from the Board meeting on January 9. Attachment 5 is a presentation from Verizon that was given to staff. It contains useful photographs and drawings showing the scale and appearance differences between macro and small cell. Attachment 6 is a comment letter from Verizon on the proposed interim wireless ordinance. Packet Pg. 15 8.A Attachments: Attachment 1- Interim 20.50 redline Attachment 2 - clean interim 20.50 Attachment 3 - Small Cell PB Presentation 02.13.2019 Attachment 4 - January 9 PB minutes Attachment 5 - Verizon Small Cell Informational Presentation Attachment 6 - Verizon comment letter 252019 Packet Pg. 16 8.A.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress enacted sweeping new provisions intended to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications infrastructure; and WHEREAS, several provisions of the 1996 Act speak directly to Congress's determination that certain state and local regulations are unlawful; and WHEREAS, Section 253(a) provides that "[n]o State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service;" and WHEREAS, Congress specified in Section 332(c)(7) that "[t]he regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof —(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services;" and WHEREAS, Section 332(c)(7) generally preserves state and local authority over the "placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities" but with certain limitations; and WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authority to interpret Sections 253 and 332 of the 1996 Act to further elucidate what types of state and local legal requirements run afoul of the statutory parameters Congress has established; and Packet Pg. 17 8.A.a WHEREAS, America is preparing to transition to the next generation of wireless services, known as 5G; and WHEREAS, in preparing for that transition, and to improve existing deficits in their 4G networks, wireless providers have been increasingly looking to densify their networks with new small cell deployments that have antennas often no larger than a small backpack; and WHEREAS, the challenge for the city's policymakers is that the deployment of these small cell networks will look different than the 3G and 4G deployments of the past, which often involved the construction of large cell towers; and WHEREAS, to support advanced 4G or 5G offerings, wireless providers must build out small cells at a faster pace and at a far greater density of deployment than before; and WHEREAS, to meet rapidly increasing demand for wireless services and prepare our national infrastructure for 5G, wireless providers must deploy infrastructure at significantly more locations using these new, small cell facilities; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2018, in the context of the forthcoming small cell deployment, the FCC found it necessary and appropriate to exercise its authority to interpret the 1996 Act and clarify the preemptive scope that Congress intended by issuing its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order ("FCC Order"); and WHEREAS, the FCC asserts that its Order is part of a national strategy to promote the timely buildout of this new infrastructure across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments that unnecessarily add delays and costs to bringing advanced wireless services to the public; and WHEREAS, the FCC Order still recognizes that certain reasonable aesthetic considerations do not run afoul of Sections 253 and 332; and WHEREAS, the regulations contained herein are intended to, among other things, (1) ensure that the design, appearance, and other features of wireless facilities are compatible with nearby land uses; (2) manage the public right-of-way so as to ensure traffic safety and coordinate various uses; and (3) protect the integrity of the city's historic, cultural, and scenic resources and the quality of life of Edmonds' citizens; and Packet Pg. 18 8.A.a WHEREAS, the FCC Order states that "aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are (1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance;" WHEREAS, the FCC Order states that "aesthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out -of -character deployments are also permissible;" and WHEREAS, the FCC has given cities until April 14, 2019 to have adopted and published its aesthetic regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that these regulations promote the small cell deployment in a manner that also balances the needs of the community while mitigating the potential negative impacts of that deployment; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the growing use of smart phones and other personal devices has created a substantial need for wireless data transmission, including in single-family neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City Council is the steward of the public right-of-way which will probably host some of the forthcoming small cell facilities; and WHEREAS, as steward of the public right-of-way, the City Council must consider the various competing uses of the public right-of-way, which is already crowded with various wet and dry utilities both above and below ground, to say nothing of its transportation uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that not all utilities are similarly situated: some (like water and sewer) can only function below ground; some (like wireless antennas) can only function above ground; some (like wireline utilities) require the kind of continuity that can only be provided if they are located in the public right-of-way; and some (like wireless facilities), because they transit radio frequencies, are less reliant than wireline utilities on the continuity provided by the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, in light of the different needs of the various utilities, and in light of the limited available space in the right-of-way, the City Council intends to prioritize and preserve the right-of-way for those utilities that most need it; and Packet Pg. 19 8.A.a WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to incorporate the FCC guidelines and provide for the streamlined review of applications and greater flexibility in siting wireless communications facilities, including small cell facilities, within the City, and at the same time to further the protection of the public environment through the adoption of small cell design standards, concealment techniques and dispersion requirements; and WHEREAS, over the next many years, the deployment of small cell facilities in the numbers contemplated by the FCC is likely to have a cumulative negative visual impact upon the City, which threatens to lower the quality of life of the Edmonds citizens; and WHEREAS, the aesthetic regulations and dispersion requirements contained in this ordinance are intended to mitigate some of that negative visual impact; and WHEREAS, the dispersion requirement is intended to ensure that the negative visual impact is spread evenly throughout the City, and, in so doing, make it less noticeable than it would be if it was concentrated in certain small cell hot spots containing multiple wireless facilities in close proximity; and WHEREAS, it is common for cities to adopt interim regulations when amending their codes to address new technology; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that authority, the city council held a public hearing on February 5, 2019; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Wireless Communication Facilities," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in sal eugk). Packet Pg. 20 8.A.a Section 2. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 3. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, wireless providers could attempt to have new small cell applications processed pursuant to regulations that were not intended to apply to such facilities. Therefore, this interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that the status of such previously filed applications is addressed herein. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 3, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. Section 6. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support of the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above. Packet Pg. 21 8.A.a APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 22 8.A.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2019, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED "WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES," DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 92019. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 7 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 23 8.A.a Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemations. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 1 1 1 1 .1FHFPeSe- 20.550.0200. 2Q-5&.Q3Q-9xeFnptiE)ns. ..4. . 20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks. 1 1 1 1 • • •-• '- 20.50.020 —Application requirements. 20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests. 1 1 1.1 20.50.080 Review 20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards. 20.50.100 20� 50400-New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards. 20.50.110 20� 50I0-New monopole -mounted macro wireless facility standards. 20.50.120 4.-S0.4-2-0-Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Small wireless standards (small cell). 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. 20.50.150 Maintenance. 20.50.160 Definitions. 20.50.010 Purpose._ 0 ,, The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deploymentclev;t of t4e-competitive wireless communication facilities through out*elece-mm''REr;*iAA- m-,rk tpla e ;R the city. The purpose of this chapter may be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1 Packet Pg. 24 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, 2. environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless communications facilities * ,mm„�; ,* �� PFE)V* and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations peFtaiRiRg W * , ,mm„� * �� P i�� Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent feasiblee, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfarecemmunity is minimal; 4. For macro facilities, encourage 5. En,., wag the location of those%virele« ce..munmeati n facilities in nonresidential areas and allow macrovO.Fel SS ,.,,M nunaeatm n facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the communicationstp-.'P-rP-.V,.m,,,;ieat*ens industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; m c m L 0 N E •L Packet Pg. 25 8.A.a 7. N Minimize the total number of macro•-i.eles;- r--e—m unieatien facilities in residential areas; 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 structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or eliminate additionalin,-tee prl--rp -lativ negative impact on the city; 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, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any one location, 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; 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. Balance the City's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication facilities with e the ability of the providers of communications+^I^r-^mm--'RmG ,+iORS services to deploye such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; 10. 44, 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 CD protect the citizens from imminent harm and danger; N 11. E L d 44, Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and falling C equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and y 12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small cell facilities as evenly as possible throughout the communitv. esaecially when ioint use does not eliminate additional visual impact. a 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 wireless communication facilitieste-%ve.s @.,,- antennas. C. G. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect Packet Pg. 26 property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced communications* I,,,.,,mm'-'Aim.at*A-..- services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations.. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and any ambiguities herein shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would materially inhibitte pmhibit or to have the deploymente€feet of Pr hibit; g persenaI wireless communication facilitiesseFviees. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent peFSORal wireless facilitiessewices. a To the extent that any provision of this chapter ;s ineensistent 9r conflicts with any other city ordinance, this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the other provisions and regulations of the city. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the city shall act within federally required time periods. reasepa"I^ peried of tome after an applicatien fer a peFrnit is duly filed, taking4prte Packet Pg. 27 8.A.a RA the h-,+„re -,.,- Sof the ^ plieatien. 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 this title, this chapter, the adopted Edmonds comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. .. II MM M 1' ON •, 20.50.020 Applicability. A. —................... ...................... -................. .... -...................... -....................................... .......................... A: Except as provided herein, all wireless communication 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 (ECDC). B. Environmental. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197- 11-800. All proposals are subiect to the critical areas reauirements in Title 23 ECDC and the shoreline master program in Title 24 ECDC29.15A ECDC URIess eategeFieally exempt pwsuaRt W WAG 197 11-8000. G. FeF exiStiRg sites / te the exte.nt feasible, limited te,eefer, / / C. Master Permit Agreement Needed. 1. Consistent with chapter 35.99 RCW, any person, corporation or entity that proposes to locate any portion of a wireless communication facility within the city right-of-way must have a valid fully executed master permit with the city before submitting applications for right-of-way construction permits. 2. Wireless providers interested in obtainine a master hermit must aaoly as follows to have a complete application: Packet Pg. 28 a. make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office; b. submit a proposed master permit form, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall no longer apply in the event that the city council has adopted a standard master permit template; c. submit three valid fully executed master permits that the provider has with other cities in Washington state, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall be excused to the extent that the provider does not have sufficient valid master permits in other jurisdictions to meet that requirement; d. submit a map or maps showing provider's current coverage area within the City of Edmonds, distinguishing different types of coverage available (e.g. 3G, 4G, 5G) in various areas of the city, if such distinctions are applicable; e. submit a map showing provider's existing macro and small cell facilities within the City a of Edmonds; c f. submit a map showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities within the O City of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; N g. submit a map showing provider's existing fiber connections within the City of Edmonds, 2 whether those connection are owned by the provider or a third party; o h. submit a map showing provider's proposed fiber connections within the City of y Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit, whether those connection are owned by the provider or a third party. a 3. After receipt of a complete application, the city attorney and wireless provider shall negotiate the terms of the master permit until they have agreed on terms that can be recommended to the city council for final approval. If the city attorney and wireless provider have not been able to reach agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit within 120 days of the date the complete cn application was submitted, the wireless provider may submit the provider's proposed master permit G form to the council president directly and request that the provider's proposed master permit be added c 2 .y to a forthcoming city council agenda for consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on 3 the proposed master permit, including any renewal. n 4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative discretion of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be approved by a majority of the full c council. Anv denial of a proposed master permit must be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in subsection C.2.b, above, is merely intended to facilitate future master permit negotiations and should in no wav be seen as limitine the citv council's leeislative discretion to approve or reiect a similar master it that has come before the citv council for action. 6. Master permit terms shall not exceed five years. Master permits shall require the City to be indemnified by the provider and that indemnification shall be support by insurance that names the City as an additional insured. D. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-wav construction permit is required prior to performing any work within the city right-of-way pursuant to ECDC Title 18. 20.50.030 Exemptions._ The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter: Packet Pg. 29 A. ,4 Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation. B. 8, Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers. C. G Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in ECDC 16.20.050(W(D). D. D, Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in ECDC 16.20.050(' 6.'xv 20.050 (E). E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone. F. F— Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and commercial zones. G. a� c m L 0 N E �L I E M V CD E M 2 a Packet Pg. 30 8.A.a G, Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit and/or right-of-way 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. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §_ 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. A, The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds: 1. Guyed towers. 2. Lattice towers. B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations: c� M 1_ E Co All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF)); o c 0 2_ Downtown waterfront activity center; N 3. 0 m Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and as 4. o IQ Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §_ 2 (Att. A), 2011]. N E •L 20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations. C A. r m A, The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or more E frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers. To M that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless Q communication facilities: W 1. z U Co -location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon which the a 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; Packet Pg. 31 M 8.A.a A new pole or structure altogether. 8, Co -location shall be encouraged for all wireless communication facility applications and is implemented through less complex permit procedures. C. 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 a conditional use permit (CUP) under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring a 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. m c m L 0 N E �L Packet Pg. 32 8.A.a G. 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 Chapter 5.305-.38 ECC, 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. 10 9, 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. 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. F- Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material. The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any applicable o standards of the FAA or FCC. c H . -a L 14, Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures, Q screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment. N I . E 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 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. Packet Pg. 33 Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to contain the required equipment and a reserve for required co -location. I& 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 Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the director determines the wireless communication facility, as constructed, may emit radio frequency emissions_ Packet Pg. 34 8.A.a 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 Radio Frequency 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. 10 a. a N Landscaping and Screening. -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 o 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. as L 0 ui 2, Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with Chapter 20.13204-3 N ECDC. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as E L 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. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or conflicts with Packet Pg. 35 1 3 other surrounding utilities. 8.A.a H When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant to ECDC 20.13.040. '^.�0 The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or wood fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §= 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.060 Permits and Shot Clocks. Permit requirements. M ................................................................................................................................................... ................ A -.-No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operateffv944y a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020.0 and a permit issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as_ Packet Pg. 36 8.A.a otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the requirements of chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless facilities are expressly exempted from a provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context necessitates that a provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC not apply to wireless facilitiesig. 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 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. Table A Permits Required Packet Pg. 37 Building FCC Shot Permit Clocks for Required Permit Review Request Location i� Wn Per Wit e. e. ge r0l Permit (CUR) Perm it Eligible facilities request Existing Yes, if on Yes, if in 60 days approved WCF private ROW property New macro facility Collocation Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days elements on elements in private the ROW property New macro facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 150 days monopole elements on elements in private the ROW property New small cell facility Collocation Yes, if on Yes, if any 60 days private elements in the ROW property New small cell facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days freestanding elements on elements in 8.A.a r c m E t O .r r a as z u 2 r Q Packet Pg. 38 Table A Permit. Required 8.A.a Building FCC Shot Permit Clocks for Required Permit Review Request Location Bui Ilin Per wit e. u re Permit CLIP) Perm it small cell pole private the ROW property Temporary facility Varies Yes, if any Yes, if any Standard elements on elements in permit private the ROW quotes property C Timalinac 1. Macro cell. The application review period begins when all required application materials have been received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of application, the clock stops. The clock restarts when the City receives the applicant's supplemental submission in response to the City's Packet Pg. 39 2.S notice of incompleteness. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls au if the CitV provides written notice within ten 10 da s that a su lemen al submission did not rov'de the requested information. ce nn_Inngter! G.A. iOtinlY strUUGt Urn n x MOaepele X4as sling hlel mall New strU UotU Urn M Rted fad4ios strU UG Urn nlaGement to Y (as g nlinahle) Y hlel VnhVing nnling N V New m lfdlitil nn nneaes /nneGOM C fQ � x4as .,lies of height x � with requirement the Title 1 appliGable) O to URderlying zoneORECDC N v New m nn nle fadlities /nnle a ne eds d X-(as L maximum height of zone g CCDC x X Ti Q) �0 to n% The apDlication review Period begins when all reauired ar)Dlication materials have been received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of the date of application, the clock stops. The clock resets to zero (0) when the City receives the applicant's supplemental submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the Citv Provides written notice within ten (10) days that a supmlemental submission did not provide the requested information. D. Batched small cell applications. as c If an applicant is applying for a small wireless network in a contiguous service area, up to 15 small wireless facilities may be batched into one application, PROVIDED THAT the application fee shall still beCD calculated as if the applications were submitted separately. The director or his/her designee may 0 approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of the small wireless facilities proposed in the N application. The denial of one or more small wireless facility locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of other locations or the entire batched application for small wireless facilities. c Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures ' for small wireless facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the City has adequate time to review the new construction sites. G E. 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. F. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the director or his/her designee. G Packet Pg. 40 The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate govern body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.). H. F— No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code. 1. Packet Pg. 41 8.A.a G, Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC.20�C. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter. J. 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. 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. N a- The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. b, The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; as C. o E The validity of conclusions reached; N 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. E K. r a Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial deference in CD any appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application E for a wireless communication facility. U r L. Notwithstanding other remedies that may be available under federal law, failure of the City to issue a permits within or otherwise comply with the FCC shot clock reauirements does not provide a "deemed" grant of approval for macro or small wireless facilities. No work may occur until the permit issues. of public Pe; I(s, eF heaFIngexami-neF witheut the-appFevaI of the city. Packet Pg. 42 8.A.a K-. Ce location of addk&Ral antennas on peFFAitted nenCORferming monopoles OS Rot Considered to iRer .,f^.-.,- ing menepek is aNewed. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §_ 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.070 Application requirements. The in add'Nen te the FeqWFements of EGPG ;KM%IQ@2, and these asseeiated with the permit types Feferenee Erna 2n rn ncn the following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds: M Packet Pg. 43 8.A.a A, Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and co -location analysis indicating the alternative locations and technologies considered- B. 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. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding M -3-. WndeFgFGUndi=Rg details, as applicable; Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with Chapter 20.1320-.43 ECDC), as appropriate; Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of the site and appearance of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints; Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050('^.o(C)), if applicable; G. Radio Frequency (RF) emissions standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an RF engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small cell network will comply with RF standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City recognizes that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC sole jurisdiction in the field of regulation of RF emissions and wireless facilities that meet FCC standards shall not be conditioned or denied on the basis of RF impacts. H. For small cell deDlovments. the following additional documentation shall be Drovided as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the site preference criteria set forth in ECDC 20.50.130.A, as applicable: 1. For installations DroDosed for Location Preference #2: a. A copy of the offer letter, certified mail receipts, and affidavit from applicant stating that no property owners fronting on the same right-of-way within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facilitv location accepted offers to locate the small wireless facilitv on an existinE buildiniz: or Packet Pg. 44 b. An engineering and technical analysis by an engineers data certified Washington on an existing buildiniz fronting on the same right-of-wav within 150 lineal feet of each r000sed small wireless facilitv location. 2. For installations proposed for Location Preference #3: a. Documentation as required in H.1 above; and b. A coav of the offer letter. certified mail receipts, and affidavit from aoalicant stati that no aroaerty owners frontinE on the same right-of-wav within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location accepted offers to locate a freestanding small cell along the property frontage. 3. For installations proposed for Location Preference #4: a. Documentation as required in H.1 and H.2 above; and b. Evidence that no street light poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way line; or c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small wireless facility on any existing street light poles located within 150 lineal feet of each small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. 4. For installations proposed for Location Preference #5: a. Documentation as reauired in H.1. H.2. and H.3 above: and b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small cell in the right-of-way = could not be met; and U c. Confirmation by the director of public works that a new street light was not determined to be needed or could not be located within 150 lineal feet of the cn 4- proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. c 5. For installations c proposed for Location Preference #6: c a. Documentation as required in H.1, H.2, H.3, and H.4 above; and b. Evidence that no single-phase power poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each uci proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way line; or o c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small c wireless facility on any existing single-phase power poles located within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. o 6. For installations proposed for Location Preference #7: o a. N Documentation as required in H.1, H.2, H.3, H.4, and H.5 above; and E b. Evidence that no transmission power poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, measured along the right-of-way; or C c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small r wireless facility on any existing transmission power poles located within 150 lineal feet a of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. M mmonyoun 14, Any other documentation deemed necessary for a complete application in a publication issued by the director in ^Fdeff +^'«„^ aa derisie- . [Ord. 3961 §=1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §= 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.Review This section implements section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which requires the City of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base Packet Pg. 45 station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described in this section and do not apply throughout this chapter. 1. Base Station is a structure or eauioment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment associated with a tower. Base station includes. without limitation: uioment associated with wireless communications services as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and back-up power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and small cell networks). c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed (with iurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing that supporter. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. Ce Lecated Facilities (Building and 4, Per new or Feplaeement wireless building Structure antennas meunted the nted� en existing struetuFes- issue final dee'slien Fequ F ng a eF the within on days the permit, date the city shall a en ,tier us rJeteFMiRed to be p ect of se„Tle-te. The E+tysh h-crce 30 a plic f�=vT�r+hi pfscodl c+ ciTmTrc=Phr+rhri nII the is Of y deerned ineemplete, z.rcrcc the inform +1,, appliicatien ceirnplette; in the decurnentatien eity shall te the applicant writing ef The have 14 days needed frem the make appliGati receipt the cemplete. city shall ef additienal Such decisien be final te the Land shall and 2, The on day time p ed fr,r - T 7�TRT�CTiIT appealable rJecisien ccT�TvcC�cccTrcrca enly may be supeFffier ceurt undeF r,..+r,r,ded by rn �+� al w pitte., cccrr RgeRt the the GTr CGITTJta Rees warpaRt. includes agree of —city and applicant -ff "GO Per purposes A-f seEtwOR, ler•- ted far•' ities" of the fe'19WiRg types of faedi+ies- structure; &F Packet Pg. 46 8.A.a 19, rFaeilFtFes that de net Fnvelye a substantial-rrneFease On the sF«cr mv"nrepele. Fer ppurpE'ses er "substantial substtantial increase in the size- e,f a eIen The term does not include anv structure that. at the time the relevant application is filed with the City under this section, does not support or house equipment described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section. 2. Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communication purposes. 3. Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantiallv increase the phvsical dimensions of such tower or base station. involving: a. Collocation of new transmission eauipment: b. Removal of transmission equipment; or C. Replacement of transmission equipment. 4. Elieible Suaport Structure. Anv tower or base station as defined in this section: provided. that it is existinL- at the time the relevant application is filed with the Ci 5. Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition. +-6. Site. For towers other than towers in the public riehts-of- way,., eI RtiRg Gf the p .,rd ar,+.,Rna r.Y, +h., .,, ele u l d height of eRe a d.di+i. nal -,r.+.,nna aFFay with sepaFatien frern the r est exiStiRg -,r,+.,RRa Ret to exceed 20 feet whieh.yeF is .,ateF• pyirderl hA_weueF, that the meURt+ns ef the pFepesed apte.ppa-may exceed the rize limits set feFth OR this s ubseC+ieR if n " to -, eidexiStiRg r ii-.-The R;E)URt;Rg of the proposed e f rnA e rrethan the standard r, antenna would ORVE)Ive the iRstallatiE)R rv, h e of n eq T�re-ah-in��,�f4l+h, +.,.-hr,.,l. i .,Iyed et to e e d fe r e +h-,., e gy o.. Rt sheiter• fly The the r -,r,+.,nna involve Fneunting of ed would adding an to the bedy the 0 appurtenance the tev.fe.r of than 29 edge Of more feet, than the v.gi.d+h the m the level the e e of ele at of Packet Pg. 47 apAurteRiRee ' .,h.Gheyer i greateF, e pt that- the m.. RtiRg of +v, , definedthe current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 7. Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: a. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it increases the height of the tower by more than ten (10) percent or by the height of one (1) additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten (10) percent or more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. (1) Changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act; b. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than ten (10) feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than six (6) feet; c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than one (1) new equipment cabinet for the technoloizv involved: or. for towers in the public streets and base stations. it involves installation of anv new eauipment cabinets on the eround if there are no Dreexisti ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; d. It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; e. It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or f. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment; provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is noncompliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified above. B. Qualification as an Eligible Facilities Request. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible facilities request, the Director will review the application to determine whether it qualifies as an eligible facilities request. C. Time Frame for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date on which a network provider submits an eligible facilities request application, the Director must approve the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section. D. Tolling of the Time Frame for Review. The sixty (60) day review period begins to run when the application is submitted, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the Director and the applicant or in cases where the Director determines that the application is incomplete. The time frame for review Packet Pg. 48 of an eligible facilities request is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of applications. 1. To toll the time frame for incompleteness, the Director must provide written notice to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the application. 2. The time frame for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the Director's notice of incompleteness. 3. Following a supplemental submission, the Director will notify the applicant within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The time frame is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this subsection. Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that was not delineated in the a original notice of incompleteness. c E. Determination That Application Is Not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the Director determines that 0 the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, the Director must deny the N m application. ;v F. Failure to Act. In the event the Director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible facilities request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is deemed granted. The 0 y deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the Director in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted. a G. To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance intended by the original facilitv. includinE. but not limited to. color. screenine. 11. M. I NO M ' 0. .. landscapine. camouflage. concealment techniaues. mountine confieuration. or architectural treatment. 20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards. A. ............................... . 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 nonreflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas are mounted. B. B_ Height. The following requirements shall apply: 4-.-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 Packet Pg. 49 height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of_ as c as L 0 N E �L a) Packet Pg. 50 8.A.a 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. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of building -mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine 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. la G 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). 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, IQ they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building. N E a� c Packet Pg. 51 8.A.a a Packet Pg. 52 8.A.a Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §_2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards. N ,4 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 a. 2. B. 2. 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. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with nonreflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure. Height. 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 feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed. Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the structure. Only one extension is permitted per structure. Packet Pg. 53 3. 8.A.a If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical C. 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. G-.-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_ Packet Pg. 54 8.A.a 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 Pg. 55 Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF 8.A.a a� c ca c =a L O N L 0 Y Q U E U) 4- 0 c 0 0 m c m L 0 N E �L a Packet Pg. 56 8.A.a Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §= 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.110 New monopole -mounted macro wireless -facility standards. - A. To A. New monopolesare not per^;++^,- ..,;+",., the greatest extent tech nically^+., , "less +"^ applica Fit has demonstrated thC_A_.t 4, Geverage Objective. There exists a gap i1R service and the prepesed wireless iiEitlAfllrlR:!f1:tiE7TJA,. .I a existing StFUGWFe, building, eF E) feasible, applicants for site eF sites, eF ether _I+.,rr,-,+,,,,, teeh,,,,legies R + requiring a new monopole facilities must build mounts capable of accommodating at least one additional carrier.un the eity, eddat the pi;eant's p ed wareless c:erri,,uinRcatien facility -and I7M.- :t:■srrRr�s, 1101. _rti�M=I - -•-- - -- - Packet Pg. 57 8.A.a B. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height of the zone where the facility is located. C. Monopoles must be completed shrouded. (D^ssible Ce ' ecatien QppeFtunity) All antennas, equipment and cables must be concealed. D. All monopole facilities musts#a4 conform to the following site development standards: 1 N 3. 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. 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 Packet Pg. 58 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-. Peed LiRes @Rd Ceaxial Cables. Peed IiRes and cables must be painted te closely Packet Pg. 59 8.A.a C. FnE)nE)pE)le Review CFmt ,rim The h the r' - neFshall height Feview the an plicatien Type fee III B a new peFF'Ri abeve exceeding r Chapter standards 20.05 is met. Examples maximum ECDC) and shall efevidence ef deter=Nhet#er —demenstFatingthe zene as a er net Type cenditienal each of III use t#e- , c That them height is � ole the minimum necessary errl r to achieve L the ceverage ebbed' ^ O / fA N d 2, That ne existing menepeles, stFuctwes eF alternative site(s) aFe lecated within that meet the i te f-Hifill O geegraphic area applicant's e quirements r N ithe hei dari 1• 4; ts ceveFage r,hie Gtiye, (regardless of the g phm --,I in s of the ,-m+ , O IZ 2 _Th-it ., ie•tiRg m r, height Ld ele s structures a of of a uffir•ir,r,t a U net feasibly he extended +ems a s uffir•ieRt height to mlleet the applicant's m try its E engir eeFing r nts meet r erage ebje ctiye• Cn 4- 0 C ¢ That de have O existing structuFes EIF monepeles net sufficient stFuetural strength .y N to . ert the applicant s antenna and a eillaFy facilities; 3 prepesed V A C d .... c, That the applicant's prepesed antenna ul cause elee-trr)m-,gnetie d C nterfr,Fence with antennas en the existing m eles a structures, r +h r, -a O L weuld iRtp_.pfe_Fp_Ree vdith the / 0 antennas GIR existing structures cause 0 r,d antenna; N P-repes E L d _That a altern-hive teGhRelegy that rdees net r r, the use of a Revv menepele C C ; a �l Costs �e# a� � -+ i e technology that exceed newmonopole lor��nsu y� unsuitable;antenna development shall net be presumed te Fender the technelegy E and Q 7_ The applicant demonstrates otheF limiting factors that Fender existing !_ N E m I and ++ t' + '+ h l t n i oTrop v i c�� ai rcr-.i n 'cr' ctifrz�Or$t�}ei Sites 6 r a�Tcr��-�crciv�cech n e �$�i-e5--l-i-rrStlTcaure. V a+ r Q Packet Pg. 60 -4, G Rerally .,I s-s facilities pl-,ee d e private p er+" must 2-.-The .dor.,c+or or heaFiRg e r .de R d'r R the type of - plic-,+'O .IRitl�7!r . Packet Pg. 61 8.A.a c. The prepesed lecatien allows fee the woreless c .,there facility to a - Acceptable Monopole WCF Unacceptable Monopole WCF 20.50.120 Temporary facilities._ A. ,4 The installation of a "cell -on -wheels" or COWS and the installation site shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. Packet Pg. 62 All COWS and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site w 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the mayor. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §= 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.130 Small Med f eati ". spe �ifie features of the wireless standards and approval process.se�REat+en faefli+. Such .V., difir-Afi ns Unlike macro facilities which are intended to provide cell coverage over large areas, the goal of a small wireless deployment is to provide additional capacity in localized areas, including residential neighborhoods, using smaller antennas and equipment. The intent of this section is to describe the City's location preferences for small cell deployments and provide appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of wireless facilities are minimized and the City's long-term goal of utility undergrounding is not frustrated. A. Permitted locations. The City of Edmonds prefers the use of zoned property rather than the public right-of-way for small wireless facilities. In this way, existing buildings will be used where feasible and individual landowners may gain some financial benefit from the widespread visual intrusion of wireless deplovments into their neighborhoods. Installation on existing building structures will also minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise be placed on existing utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to be located entirely on zoned properties because some property owners within the desired small cell deployment area may not want to participate or because of technological factors. In that instance. a mix of zoned property and right-of- way locations may be used. 1. Small cell attachments to buildings are permitted in anv zone and are not subiect to the dispersion requirement below. 2. Dispersion Requirement: No two small wireless facilities shall be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 3. Installations in the Downtown Business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or through the replacement or new installation of a Sternberg street light designed to contain a small wireless facility. B. Location hiera Wireless providers shall attempt to site their small cell facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences (in descending order starting with the most preferred): 1. Outside the Right-of-Wa a. Location Preference #1- On an existing building. 1) Roof -mounted. a) Small cell facilities may be built to the maximum height of the underlying zone (or use the height exception in Sub (c) below) provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color. architectural stvle and materials. Packet Pg. 63 8.A.a b) Such facilities must be completely concealed and well integrated with the existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop elements such as chimnevs. elevator Denthouses or screened HVAC eauioment. c) Height exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above the underlying zone maximum is 3 feet with a maximum footDrint of 12 sa. ft. in horizontal section. 2) Facade -mounted. a) Small cell antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural theme. b) New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar ornamentation that conceals the antennas should be used if it complements the architecture of the existing building. c) If concealment is not Dossible. the antennas must be camouflaged. The smallest feasible mounting brackets must be used and the antennas must be painted and textured to match the adjacent building surfaces. d) Facade -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the city right- of-way. Antennas may not project into the right-of-way more than twelve (12) inches and shall Drovide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over anv Dedestrian or vehicular right- of-way. e) All other equipment must be located within the building, screened by an existing o parapet, or completely concealed and well integrated with the existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC equipment. Exposed cabling/wiring is prohibited. 0 f) Height exception. Antennas may be located on buildings that are nonconforming for N height provided that they are constructed to be no taller than the adjacent facade or an E L existing parapet. Equipment may be located on a roof behind a parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical expansion of the height nonconformity is prohibited. b. Location Preference #2 - Freestanding small cell The specifications provided in this section are for installations on zoned property only, except as otherwise noted in ECDC 20.50.130.B.2.b. The accompanying diagram shows a typical pole and its elements. 1) Dimensional requirements Packet Pg. 64 8.A.a a) A freestanding small cell may not CANTENNA exceed 30 feet in height measured from top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna_ b) The equipment cabinet must be UPPER POLE between 16 and 20 inches in diameter. c) The upper pole must be scaled to 0.5 to 0.75 times the size of the equipment cabinet with a preferred 10 inch minimum outer diameter. The pole diameter must scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than 1.5 inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper pole. d) The cantenna must have a maximum outer diameter of 14 inches and be FILER SPLICEIPULL tapered to transition from the upper pole. Box EQUIPMENT CABINET The cantenna may not exceed 5 feet 8 FINALIV inches in height.ELECTRICAi�CONDUIT STANDARD 2) Appearance requirements FOUNDATION a) The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to maintain a cohesive appearance. the be b) All small cell carrier equipment must be housed internal to the equipment cabinet or hidden within the cantenna. The cantenna, upper pole and equipment cabinet must be the same color, unless otherwise approved by the Director. c) All hardware connections shall be hidden from view. d) No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole. e) The freestanding small cell must be served by underground power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected. f) May provide space for future collocation by another provider inside the same freestanding small cell pole facilities. 3) Placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located as follows: a) Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law. Packet Pg. 65 b) Within 5 feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within 5 feet of a side property line. c) Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones. d) So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level. e) So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines. f) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. g) With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. h) On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether power is underground or overhead; i) No two freestanding small cell poles may be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 2. Within the right-of-way a. Location Preference #3 — Existine/replaced hollow street lieht sole or utilitv pole: 1) Combination small cell and streetlight pole should be located where an existing CANTENNA streetlight pole can be utilized or removed and replaced with a pole that allows for small cell installation in the LUMINAIRE same location. LUM INA`RE MAST ARM UPPER POLE 2) Pole design shall match the aesthetics of existing streetlights installed adjacent to the pole. 3) Where a Sternbere street lieht exists in the downtown business district (BD) zones, replacement shall be Sternberg model. desiened to contain a small wireless facility. FIBER 4) The small cell components shall be sized �4xcerP►,LL to be visually pleasing. For a combination FINAL EQUIPMENT CABINET pole to be considered visually pleasing, GRADE i C7. ELECTRICAL Packet Pg. 66 CONDUIT STANDARD FOUNDATION the transition between the equipment cabinet and upper pole should be considered. decorative transition shall be installed over the equipment cabinet upper bolts, or decorative base cover shall be installed to match the eauioment cabinet size. 5) The upper pole shall be scaled at 0.5 to 0.75 the size of the equipment cabinet, with a 10- inch minimum outer diameter. All hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat saaces Erreater than 1.5 inches shall exist on the eauioment cabinet to prevent cups, trash, and other objects from being placed on the equipment cabinet. 6) An internal divider shall seaarate electrical wiring and fiber. Der the pole owner. 7) Weatherproof grommets shall be integrated in the pole design to allow cable to exit the Dole, for external shrouds. without water seeaine into the Dole. 8) For installations on existing street lights, the antenna shall either be fully concealed within the pole or placed on top of the pole. A cantenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the top of the pole by more than two (2) inches. The antennas shall be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original pole, including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall be fully concealed and integrated with the pole. 9) Street light pole shall be located as follows: a. In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or vehicular travel. L CD b. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. c. Within the street amenity zone wherever possible. N d. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot •L separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of any tree. e. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. f. Outside 30-foot clear sight triangle (for base cabinets equal to or greater than 18- inches in diameter) at intersection corners. g. 10-feet awav from the intersection of an allev with a street. r 10) All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the light pole. b. Location Preference #4 - Freestanding small cell or new street light 1) Freestanding Small Cell. a) Refer to subsection 20.50.130.B.1.b for dimensional and aDDearance standards. Packet Pg. 67 b) Placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located in compliance 8.A.a the following: i. Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct the legal access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law, violate or conflict with public ROW design standards, specifications, or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health, safety, or welfare. ii. Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones. So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level. iv. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines. V. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. vi. Within the street amenity zone wherever possible. vii. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of anv tree. yiii. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. as L ix. Outside 30-foot clear sight triangle (for base cabinets equal to or greater than 18- CD inches in diameter) at intersection corners. N E �L X. 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street. c A On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether power is undereround or overhead: xii. No two freestanding small cell poles may be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 2) New Street Light. The replacement street light pole requirements are also applicable to the new street light option, except that a street light would be incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the following applies: a) A street light shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the director of public works that a street light is necessary at the location in which the small cell facility is proposed. A street light may be required to be installed instead of a free Packet Pg. 68 standing pole. 8.A.a b) In the downtown business district (BD) zones, new street lights shall be Sternberg model, designed to contain a small wireless facility. c) The cantenna height, including antenna radio equipment, conduit or wires, brackets, transition shroud, and all other hardware required for a complete installation —from the top of the mast arm connection to the top of the cantenna — shall not exceed five 5 feet. c. Location Preference #5 - Existing single-phase power pole (installation on toD of pole): 1. A cantenna may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by more than two (2) inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the applicant can demonstrate that more space is needed. The antennas shall be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the CANTENNA original pole, including colored or (TOP MOUNTED) painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting hardware/brackets from LUMINAIRE 8 MAST the bottom of the antenna to the top of ARM the pole shall be fully concealed. 2. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary through conduit along the outside of the pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number of conduit shall be minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small cell and shall not increase the number of conduit on an existing Dole to more than 2 conduit. SMALL CELL FIBER ELECTRICAL CONDUIT EQUIPMENT SHROUD WITH ANTENNA (SIDE MOUNTED] UTILITY POLE S(CEL ENERGY METER WITH DISCONNECT 4. The visual effect of the small cell facility on all other aspects of the appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 5. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating a small cell facility; provided, that the height of any replacement pole may not exceed fifty (50) feet to the top of the cantenna. 6. The replacement Dole shall comply with the Citv's sidewalk clearance reauirements d c as L 0 0 N E �L a) C and ADA reauirements. Packet Pg. 69 7_ ThP usP of the nnlP fnr the siting of a small rPll farility shall hP rnnsidt-rpd sPrnn site for a small cell facility becomes unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small cell facility and the small cell facility and all associated equipment shall be removed. d. Location Preference #6 - Existing transmission power pole (installation in communication space): 1. Antennas should be placed in an effort to minimize visual clutter and obtrusiveness Only one antenna is permitted on each wooden pole. Z. The inside edge of a side mounted canister antenna/equipment shroud shall project no more than twelve (12) inches from the surface of the wooden pole. 3. Antennas and eauipment located within a unified enclosure shall not exceed four (4) cubic feet. To the extent possible, the unified enclosure shall be placed so as to appear as an integrated part of the pole or behind banners or signs. The unified enclosure may not be placed more than six (6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically reauired and confirmed in writing the pole owner. 4. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in which they are attached. All related equipment shall not be mounted more than six (6) inches SMALL CE FIBER from the surface of the pole, unless ELECTRICAL—,� a further distance is technically required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner. 5. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number of conduit shall be minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small cell and shall not increase the number of conduit on an existing pole to more than 2 conduit. 6. The visual effect of the small cell facility on all other aspects of the appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 7. A wooden bole in a aroaosed location may be realaced with a taller bole for the Packet Pg. 70 purpose of accommodating a small cell facility; provided, that the height of any 8.A.a replacement pole may not extend more than ten (10) feet above the height of the existing pole, unless a further height increase is required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such height increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities. 8. The replacement pole shall comply with the City's sidewalk clearance requirements and ADA requirements. 9. The use of the pole for the siting of a small cell facility shall be considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole serving as the host site for a small cell facility becomes unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole Duraose of accommodating the small cell facilitv and the small cell facilitv and all associated equipment shall be removed. e. Location Preference #7 - Strand -mounted. Small cell facilities mounted on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the following standards: SW FIB E ELE EQUIPMENT SHROUD This graphic is intended to N represent a strand mount antenna. m c m L Co ui Q N E �L a) a) Each strand mounted antenna shall not exceed one (1) cubic feet in volume. b) Only one strand mounted facility is permitted between any two existing poles. c) The strand mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the nearest utility Dole. in no event more than five feet from the Dole unless a greater distance is technicall Packet Pg. 71 necessary or required for safety clearance and confirmed in writing by the pole owner. 8.A.a d) No strand mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the roadwa open to vehicular traffic. e) No strand mounted devices shall be installed on poles with mounted streetlights. f) Ground mounted equipment to accommodate such strand mounted facilities is not permitted, except when placed in pre-existing equipment cabinets, underground or on zoned property. g) Pole mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (6) of subsection (d) above. h) Such strand mounted devices must be installed to cause the least visual impact and with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires (other than the original strand) necessary to meet the technological needs of the facili C. Location Preference Criteria. The following criteria shall be reviewed and responded to by the aDplicant. as applicable. for each proposed small wireless node location. A proposed small wireless facility location shall only be allowed in a lower ranking location as provided in the location hierarchy in subsection B above, if the applicant can demonstrate that all higher ranking locations are infeasible. The following criteria shall be responded to as a minimum submittal requirement. 1. Siting outside the right-of-way: a. Engineering and technical analvses outlining technical Darameters of the services to be Provided, specifically addressing infeasibility of a given location when a node is not proposed to be located outside the right-of-way. Analyses shall be thorough and provide sufficient information to allow for a Third Party Review consistent with 20.50.060.J. b. Applicant/wireless provider must contact all property owners within 150 lineal feet, measured along the right-of-way, in either direction of a proposed small wireless facility location with an offer letter describing the scope of the anticipated deployment, proposed form of easement, the FCC -approved rental amount of $270 per year, or an amount equal to the per pole annual fee charged by PUD, whichever is greater, and the means to accept the offer if the landowner in interested in siting an individual node on his/her property. The offer letter shall be sent via certified mail, shall contain a preaddressed postage paid return envelope, and allow for a minimum 2-week response time. Two separate attempts shall be made by the applicant/wireless provider to make contact with the property owner. If private property owners do not respond by accepting offers, the applicant/wireless provider shall provide an affidavit to the City stating that no offers to locate nodes outside the right-of-way were accepted. This criteria shall be responded to when it is technically feasible to locate a small wireless facility outside the right-of-way. 2. Siting within the right-of-wav: In circumstances where it is not technically feasible to locate the Darticular small a) c as 0 0 N E c Packet Pg. 72 wireless facility anywhere on zoned property, the applicant/wireless provider shall provide an explanation of the technical difficulty in sufficient detail to be peer reviewed. D. Small wireless facility general standards. 1. Ground mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless such facilities are placed underground or the applicant can demonstrate that pole mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible. If ground mounted equipment is necessary, then the applicant must submit a concealment plan. Generators located in the rights-of-wav are Drohibited. 2. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of Chapter 5.30 ECC. 3. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the rights -of -way. 4. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the requirement to remove the abandoned pole. 5. The design criteria as applicable to small cell facilities described herein shall be considered concealment elements and such small cell facilities may only be expanded upon through an eligible facilities request described in Section 20.50.080 ECDC, when the modification does not defeat the concealment elements of the facility. 6. No signage, message, or identification other than the manufacturer's identification or identification required by governing law is allowed to be portrayed on any antenna, and any such signage on equipment enclosures shall be of the minimum amount possible to achieve the intended purpose; provided, that signs are permitted as concealment techniques where appropriate. 7. Antennas and related equipment may not be illuminated except for security reasons, required by a federal or state authority, or unless approved as part of a concealment element plan. 8. Side arm mounts for antennas or equipment are prohibited. 9. Facilities must be located and designed to not obstruct or significantly diminish views of Puget Sound or the Cascade or Olympic Mountains from public streets and public property. 10. Antennas, equipment enclosures, and ancillary equipment, conduit, and cable, shall not dominate the building or pole upon which they are attached. 11. The city may consider the cumulative visual effects of small cells mounted on poles within the rights -of -way when assessing proposed siting locations so as to not adversely affect the visual character of the city. This provision shall neither be applied to limit the number of permits issued when no alternative sites are reasonablv available nor to imDose a technoloeical reauirement on the service Drovider. 12. ADA compliance required. In areas of the city in which utility lines have been undergrounded (undergrounded areas) and where necessary to permit full use of the public right-of-way by pedestrians, bicycles and other users, all ground -mounted equipment must be undergrounded in a vault meeting the city's construction standards to the extent feasible. The location of ground - mounted equipment (to the extent undergrounding such equipment is not technologically feasible), a replacement pole and/or any new pole shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction standards, and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the public right-of-way. 20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use. Packet Pg. 73 8.A.a ,4 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. 9, 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. G 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: 2. 3. wo Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening, cabling and the like from the subject property. 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. If a carrier fails to remove a wireless communication facility in accordance with this section, the o 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. Ord. 3961 § 1 2014. Ord. 3845CD ;v § 2 (Att. A), 20111. 0 N >_ •L Packet Pg. 74 8.A.a § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A),2011T 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. —............................................................................................................................................................................ A, The applicant shall maintain the wireless facility to standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or througha* the time .,f granting a permit condition. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, repair of damaged shrouds or enclosures, painting, structural integrity, and landscaping. B. 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. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 §--2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.160 Definitions. A. Antenna(s). Any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofreguency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. B. ......................................................................... I MO. I . . 9, "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. C. "Collocation G +A-R"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, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure. D. ComDletely concealed facilitv. A WCF where: (A) the antennas. mountine aDDaratus. and anv associated equipment are fully recessed/concealed from all sides with a structure that achieves total integration with the existing building or structure; and (B) all cable is routed internally or completely screened from view; and (C) the associated equipment is completely within the building or structure, placed in an undereround vault. or is within another element such as a bench. mail box or kiosk. E. s- "Distributed antenna system (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. F. Equipment. Any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated Packet Pg. 75 with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a struct is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna. G. "Freestanding small cell pole" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole purpose of supporting small wireless antennas and associated equipment. H "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. 1. F- "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment. J. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. K. Macro cell facilitv (macro facilitv). A large wireless communication facilitv that arovides radio frequency coverage served by a high power cellular system. Generally, macro cell antennas are mounted on ground -based towers, rooftops and other existing structures, at a height that provides a clear view over the surrounding buildings and terrain. Macro cell facilities typically contain antennas that are greater than three (3) cubic feet per antenna and typically cover large geographic areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple wireless service providers. L. H-. "Monopole" means 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 macroPG Pd antennas and their associated equipment. .P* RRa(s) may be extemally rneunted (visible antenna) er internally rneunted (ne visible antennas). M. Poles. Utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support electrical wires, teleahone wires. television cable. liRhtina, or izuide posts: or are constructed for the sole ouraose of supporting a WCF. N. "Satellite earth station antenna" includes any antenna in any zoning district that: 2. 4- Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter; Packet Pg. 76 8.A.a W Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted; 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 Is designed to receive television broadcast signals. O. Small wireless facility (or small cell node). A wireless facility that meets each of the following conditions: 1. The facilities: a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; 2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not more than three cubic feet in volume; 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; 4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under FCC rule; 5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofreauencv radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule. as P. _ "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications* .',,,.,,MM,, aeat; ns servicesCD using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct--to-home satellite services. N E Q. a� c +� "Wireless communication facility (WCF)" means 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. Packet Pg. 77 Security barrier. 0 8.A.a L_ "Wireless communication facility (WCF), building -mounted" means a wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing monopoles. S. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged" means 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. T "Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure" means a small 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 and emergency generators. U. e- "Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole" means a wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.030.'^.�0-. Does not include co -location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. V "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. M Packet Pg. 78 8.A.a 4 "Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure -mounted" means a wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks. X. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications+^'^c^mm,,nmeatmeRS 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. [Ord. 3961 §_ 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § �2 (Att. A), 2011]. m c m L 0 IQ CD E �L a) Page 56 of 56 Packet Pg. 79 8.A.b Chapter 20.50 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Sections: 20.50.010 Purpose. 20.50.020 Applicability. 20.50.030 Exemptions. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. 20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations. 20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests. 20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards. 20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities standards. 20.50.110 New monopole -mounted macro wireless facility standards. 20.50.120 Temporary facilities. 20.50.130 Small wireless standards (small cell). 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, modification and appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive wireless communication facilities throughout 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 communications facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations; 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the extent feasible, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare is minimal; Page 1 of 39 Packet Pg. 80 8.A.b 4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential areas and allow macro facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; 5. Minimize the total number of macro 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 structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or eliminate additional 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, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any one location, 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. Balance the City's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy 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 people and adjacent properties from tower failure and falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and 12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small cell facilities as evenly as possible throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual impact. 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 wireless communication facilities. C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the development of enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to and any ambiguities herein shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would materially inhibit the deployment of wireless communication facilities. This Page 2 of 39 Packet Pg. 81 8.A.b chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent wireless facilities. D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter 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 federally required time periods. 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 this title, this chapter, the adopted Edmonds comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 20.50.020 Applicability. A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communication 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 (ECDC). B. Environmental. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800. All proposals are subject to the critical areas requirements in Title 23 ECDC and the shoreline master program in Title 24 ECDC. C. Master Permit Agreement Needed. 1. Consistent with chapter 35.99 RCW, any person, corporation or entity that proposes to locate any portion of a wireless communication facility within the city right-of-way must have a valid fully executed master permit with the city before submitting applications for right-of- way construction permits. 2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows to have a complete application: a. make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office; b. submit a proposed master permit form, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall no longer apply in the event that the city council has adopted a standard master permit template; c. submit three valid fully executed master permits that the provider has with other cities in Washington state, PROVIDED THAT, this requirement shall be excused to the extent that the provider does not have sufficient valid master permits in other jurisdictions to meet that requirement; Page 3 of 39 Packet Pg. 82 8.A.b d. submit a map or maps showing provider's current coverage area within the City of Edmonds, distinguishing different types of coverage available (e.g. 3G, 4G, 5G) in various areas of the city, if such distinctions are applicable; e. submit a map showing provider's existing macro and small cell facilities within the City of Edmonds; f. submit a map showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities within the City of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; g. submit a map showing provider's existing fiber connections within the City of Edmonds, whether those connection are owned by the provider or a third party; h. submit a map showing provider's proposed fiber connections within the City of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit, whether those connection are owned by the provider or a third party. 3. After receipt of a complete application, the city attorney and wireless provider shall negotiate the terms of the master permit until they have agreed on terms that can be recommended to the city council for final approval. If the city attorney and wireless provider have not been able to reach agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit within 120 days of the date the complete application was submitted, the wireless provider may submit the provider's proposed master permit form to the council president directly and request that the provider's proposed master permit be added to a forthcoming city council agenda for consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed master permit, including any renewal. 4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative discretion of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be approved by a majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit must be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in subsection C.2.b, above, is merely intended to facilitate future master permit negotiations and should in no way be seen as limiting the city council's legislative discretion to approve or reject a similar master permit that has come before the city council for action. 6. Master permit terms shall not exceed five years. Master permits shall require the City to be indemnified by the provider and that indemnification shall be support by insurance that names the City as an additional insured. D. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior to performing any work within the city right-of-way pursuant to ECDC Title 18. Page 4 of 39 Packet Pg. 83 8.A.b 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. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit and/or right-of-way 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.040 Prohibitions. A. The following wireless communication 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations. A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication 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; Page 5 of 39 Packet Pg. 84 8.A.b 4. A new pole or structure altogether. B. Co -location shall be encouraged for all wireless communication 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 a conditional use permit (CUP) under the provisions of this chapter shall be separated by a minimum of 500 feet from any other facility requiring a 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 Chapter 5.30 ECC, 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 may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material. The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC. 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 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 Page 6 of 39 Packet Pg. 85 8.A.b 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 Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if the director determines the wireless communication 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 Radio Frequency 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 Chapter 20.13 ECDC. 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. b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the perimeter of the enclosure. Page 7 of 39 Packet Pg. 86 8.A.b 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011] 20.50.060 Permits and Shot Clocks. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020.0 and 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 this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or equipment associated with a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the requirements of chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless facilities are expressly exempted from a provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context necessitates that a provision of chapter 18.05 ECDC not apply to wireless facilities. 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 A. 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. Table A Building Right -of- FCC Shot Permit Way (ROW) Clocks for Request Location Required Permit Permit Required Review Eligible facilities request Existing Yes, if on Yes, if in 60 days approved WCF private ROW property New macro facility Collocation Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days elements on elements in private the ROW property Page 8 of 39 Packet Pg. 87 8.A.b Table A Building Right -of- FCC Shot Permit Way (ROW) Clocks for Request Location Required Permit Permit Required Review New macro facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 150 days monopole elements on elements in private the ROW property New small cell facility Collocation Yes, if on Yes, if any 60 days private elements in property the ROW New small cell facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days freestanding elements on elements in small cell pole private the ROW property Temporary facility Varies Yes, if any Yes, if any Standard elements on elements in permit private the ROW quotes property C. Timelines. 1. Macro cell. The application review period begins when all required application materials have been received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of application, the clock stops. The clock restarts when the City receives the applicant's supplemental submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested information. Page 9 of 39 Packet Pg. 88 8.A.b 2. Small cell. The application review period begins when all required application materials have been received and fees paid. If the City determines that the application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days of the date of application, the clock stops. The clock resets to zero (0) when the City receives the applicant's supplemental submission in response to the City's notice of incompleteness. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls (pauses) if the City provides written notice within ten (10) days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested information. D. Batched small cell applications. If an applicant is applying for a small wireless network in a contiguous service area, up to 15 small wireless facilities may be batched into one application, PROVIDED THAT the application fee shall still be calculated as if the applications were submitted separately. The director or his/her designee may approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of the small wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial of one or more small wireless facility locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of other locations or the entire batched application for small wireless facilities. Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures for small wireless facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the City has adequate time to review the new construction sites. E. 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. F. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the director or his/her designee. G. 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.). H. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code. I. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter. J. 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 Page 10 of 39 Packet Pg. 89 8.A.b 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. K. 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. L. Notwithstanding other remedies that may be available under federal law, failure of the City to issue permits within or otherwise comply with the FCC shot clock requirements does not provide a "deemed" grant of approval for macro or small wireless facilities. No work may occur until the permit issues. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.070 Application requirements. The following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless communication 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; Page 11 of 39 Packet Pg. 90 8.A.b 3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding details, as applicable; 4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), 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 (RF) emissions standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an RF engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small cell network will comply with RF standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City recognizes that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC sole jurisdiction in the field of regulation of RF emissions and wireless facilities that meet FCC standards shall not be conditioned or denied on the basis of RF impacts. H. For small cell deployments, the following additional documentation shall be provided as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the site preference criteria set forth in ECDC 20.50.130.A, as applicable: 1. For installations proposed for Location Preference #2: a. A copy of the offer letter, certified mail receipts, and affidavit from applicant stating that no property owners fronting on the same right-of-way within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location accepted offers to locate the small wireless facility on an existing building; or b. An engineering and technical analysis by an engineering data certified Washington licensed engineer stating it is technically infeasible to locate the small wireless facility on an existing building fronting on the same right-of- way within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location. 2. For installations proposed for Location Preference #3: a. Documentation as required in H.1 above; and b. A copy of the offer letter, certified mail receipts, and affidavit from applicant stating that no property owners fronting on the same right-of-way within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location accepted offers to locate a freestanding small cell along the property frontage. 3. For installations proposed for Location Preference #4: a. Documentation as required in H.1 and H.2 above; and b. Evidence that no street light poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way line; or c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small wireless facility on any existing street light poles located within 150 lineal feet of each small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. 4. For installations proposed for Location Preference #5: Page 12 of 39 Packet Pg. 91 8.A.b a. Documentation as required in H.1, H.2, and H.3 above; and b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small cell in the right- of-way could not be met; and c. Confirmation by the director of public works that a new street light was not determined to be needed or could not be located within 150 lineal feet of the proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of- way. 5. For installations proposed for Location Preference #6: a. Documentation as required in H.1, H.2, H.3, and H.4 above; and b. Evidence that no single-phase power poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way line; or c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small wireless facility on any existing single-phase power poles located within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. 6. For installations proposed for Location Preference #7: a. Documentation as required in H.1, H.2, H.3, H.4, and H.5 above; and b. Evidence that no transmission power poles exist within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, measured along the right-of- way; or c. Written documentation from the pole owner denying the request to install the small wireless facility on any existing transmission power poles located within 150 lineal feet of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way. I. Any other documentation deemed necessary for a complete application in a publication issued by the director. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests. This section implements section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which requires the City of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described in this section and do not apply throughout this chapter. 1. Base Station is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation: a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. Page 13 of 39 Packet Pg. 92 8.A.b b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and back-up power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and small cell networks). c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed (with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing that support. The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the City under this section, does not support or house equipment described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section. 2. Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communication purposes. 3. Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: a. Collocation of new transmission equipment; b. Removal of transmission equipment; or c. Replacement of transmission equipment. 4. Eligible Support Structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section; provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the City. 5. Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition. 6. Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 7. Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: Page 14 of 39 Packet Pg. 93 8.A.b a. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it increases the height of the tower by more than ten (10) percent or by the height of one (1) additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten (10) percent or more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. (1) Changes in height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act; b. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than ten (10) feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than six (6) feet; c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than one (1) new equipment cabinet for the technology involved; or, for towers in the public streets and base stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no preexisting ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; d. It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; e. It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or f. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment; provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is noncompliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified above. B. Qualification as an Eligible Facilities Request. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible facilities request, the Director will review the application to determine whether it qualifies as an eligible facilities request. C. Time Frame for Review. Within sixty (60) days of the date on which a network provider submits an eligible facilities request application, the Director must approve the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section. D. Tolling of the Time Frame for Review. The sixty (60) day review period begins to run when the application is submitted, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the Director and Page 15 of 39 Packet Pg. 94 8.A.b the applicant or in cases where the Director determines that the application is incomplete. The time frame for review of an eligible facilities request is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of applications. 1. To toll the time frame for incompleteness, the Director must provide written notice to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the application. 2. The time frame for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the Director's notice of incompleteness. 3. Following a supplemental submission, the Director will notify the applicant within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The time frame is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this subsection. Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that was not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. E. Determination That Application Is Not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the Director determines that the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, the Director must deny the application. F. Failure to Act. In the event the Director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible facilities request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the Director in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted. G. To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping, camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment. 20.50.090 New building -mounted macro 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 nonreflective 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 Page 16 of 39 Packet Pg. 95 8.A.b 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 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. 01 Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF Page 17 of 39 Packet Pg. 96 8.A.b Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro 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 (IRS) 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 nonreflective 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 feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed. Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the structure. 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 Page 18 of 39 Packet Pg. 97 8.A.b 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. Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF Page 19 of 39 Packet Pg. 98 8.A.b Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.110 New monopole -mounted macro wireless facility standards. A. To the greatest extent technically feasible, applicants for new monopole facilities must build mounts capable of accommodating at least one additional carrier. B. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height of the zone where the facility is located. C. Monopoles must be completed shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be concealed. D. All monopole facilities must 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). Page 20 of 39 Packet Pg. 99 8.A.b Acceptable Monopole WCF •t. ZRI. Ailk Unacceptable Monopole WCF 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, and codes, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electric Code. B. All COWs and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site within 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the mayor. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process. Unlike macro facilities which are intended to provide cell coverage over large areas, the goal of a small wireless deployment is to provide additional capacity in localized areas, including residential neighborhoods, using smaller antennas and equipment. The intent of this section is to describe the City's location preferences for small cell deployments and provide appropriate Page 21 of 39 Packet Pg. 100 8.A.b design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of wireless facilities are minimized and the City's long-term goal of utility undergrounding is not frustrated. A. Permitted locations. The City of Edmonds prefers the use of zoned property rather than the public right-of-way for small wireless facilities. In this way, existing buildings will be used where feasible and individual landowners may gain some financial benefit from the widespread visual intrusion of wireless deployments into their neighborhoods. Installation on existing building structures will also minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise be placed on existing utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to be located entirely on zoned properties because some property owners within the desired small cell deployment area may not want to participate or because of technological factors. In that instance, a mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be used. 1. Small cell attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are not subject to the dispersion requirement below. 2. Dispersion Requirement: No two small wireless facilities shall be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 3. Installations in the Downtown Business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or through the replacement or new installation of a Sternberg street light designed to contain a small wireless facility. B. Location hierarchy. Wireless providers shall attempt to site their small cell facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences (in descending order starting with the most preferred): 1. Outside the Right -of -Way Location Preference #1- On an existing building. 1) Roof -mounted. a) Small cell facilities may be built to the maximum height of the underlying zone (or use the height exception in Sub (c) below) provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and materials. b) Such facilities must be completely concealed and well integrated with the existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC equipment. c) Height exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above the underlying zone maximum is 3 feet with a maximum footprint of 12 sq. ft. in Page 22 of 39 Packet Pg. 101 8.A.b horizontal section. 2) Facade -mounted. a) Small cell antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural theme. b) New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar ornamentation that conceals the antennas should be used if it complements the architecture of the existing building. c) If concealment is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. The smallest feasible mounting brackets must be used and the antennas must be painted and textured to match the adjacent building surfaces. d) Facade -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into the city right-of-way. Antennas may not project into the right-of-way more than twelve (12) inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way. e) All other equipment must be located within the building, screened by an existing parapet, or completely concealed and well integrated with the existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC equipment. Exposed cabling/wiring is prohibited. f) Height exception. Antennas may be located on buildings that are nonconforming for height provided that they are constructed to be no taller than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Equipment may be located on a roof behind a parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical expansion of the height nonconformity is prohibited. b. Location Preference #2 - Freestanding small cell The specifications provided in this section are for installations on zoned property only, except as otherwise noted in ECDC 20.50.130.B.2.b. The accompanying diagram shows a typical pole and its elements. 1) Dimensional requirements Page 23 of 39 Packet Pg. 102 8.A.b a) A freestanding small cell may not CANTENNA exceed 30 feet in height measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the , cantenna. b) The equipment cabinet must be UPPER POLE between 16 and 20 inches in diameter. c) The upper pole must be scaled to 0.5 to 0.75 times the size of the equipment cabinet with a preferred 10 inch minimum outer diameter. The pole diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than 1.5 inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper pole. d) The cantenna must have a maximum outer diameter of 14 inches and be tapered to transition from the upper pole. The cantenna may not exceed 5 feet 8 FIBER SPLICEIPULL BOX �"�E O p EQUIPMENT CABINET inches in height. ELECTRICAL-. CONDUIT 2) Appearance requirements STANDARD FOUNDATION a) The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to maintain a cohesive appearance. b) All small cell carrier equipment must be housed internal to the equipment cabinet or hidden within the cantenna. The cantenna, upper pole and equipment cabinet must be the same color, unless otherwise approved by the Director. c) All hardware connections shall be hidden from view. d) No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole. e) The freestanding small cell must be served by underground power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected. f) May provide space for future collocation by another provider inside the same freestanding small cell pole facilities. Page 24 of 39 Packet Pg. 103 8.A.b 3) Placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located as follows: a) Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law b) Within 5 feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within 5 feet of a side property line. c) Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones. d) So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level. e) So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines f) In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. g) With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. h) On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether power is underground or overhead; i) No two freestanding small cell poles may be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 2. Within the right-of-way a. Location Preference #3 — Existing/replaced hollow street light pole or utility pole: 1) Combination small cell and streetlight pole should be located where an existing streetlight pole can be utilized or removed and replaced with a pole that allows for small cell installation in the same location. 2) Pole design shall match the aesthetics of existing streetlights installed adjacent to the pole. Page 25 of 39 Packet Pg. 104 8.A.b 3) Where a Sternberg street light exists in the downtown business district (BD) zones, replacement shall be Sternberg model, designed to contain a small wireless facility. 4) The small cell components shall be sized to be visually pleasing. For a combination pole to be considered visually pleasing, the transition between the equipment cabinet and upper pole should be considered. A decorative transition shall be installed over the equipment cabinet upper bolts, or decorative base cover shall be installed to match the equipment cabinet size. 5) The upper pole shall be scaled at 0.5 to 0.75 the size of the equipment cabinet, with a 10-inch minimum outer diameter. All hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces FIBEF greater than 1.5 inches shall exist on the SPLIC BOX equipment cabinet to prevent cups, FINAL trash, and other objects from being GRAC placed on the equipment cabinet. EXEC CONE 6) An internal divider shall separate electrical wiring and fiber, per the pole owner. ENNA IAIRE IAIRE MAST ARM R POLE IMENT CABINET ]ARD CATION 7) Weatherproof grommets shall be integrated in the pole design to allow cable to exit the pole, for external shrouds, without water seeping into the pole. 8) For installations on existing street lights, the antenna shall either be fully concealed within the pole or placed on top of the pole. A cantenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the top of the pole by more than two (2) inches. The antennas shall be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original pole, including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall be fully concealed and integrated with the pole. Page 26 of 39 Packet Pg. 105 8.A.b 9) Street light pole shall be located as follows: a. In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or vehicular travel. b. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. c. Within the street amenity zone wherever possible. d. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of any tree. e. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. f. Outside 30-foot clear sight triangle (for base cabinets equal to or greater than 18-inches in diameter) at intersection corners. g. 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street. 10) All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the light pole. b. Location Preference #4 - Freestanding small cell or new street light 1) Freestanding Small Cell. a) Refer to subsection 20.50.130.6.1.b for dimensional and appearance standards. b) Placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located in compliance with the following: Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct the legal access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law, violate or conflict with public ROW design standards, specifications, or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health, safety, or welfare. Outside the downtown business district (BD) zones. So as not to be located along the frontage of a Historic building, deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level. iv. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines. V. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights. Page 27 of 39 Packet Pg. 106 8.A.b vi. Within the street amenity zone wherever possible. vii. Equal distance between trees when possible, with a minimum of 15-foot separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the critical root zone of any tree. viii. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities. ix. Outside 30-foot clear sight triangle (for base cabinets equal to or greater than 18-inches in diameter) at intersection corners. X. 10-feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street. xi. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of whether power is underground or overhead; xii. No two freestanding small cell poles may be located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. 2) New Street Light. The replacement street light pole requirements are also applicable to the new street light option, except that a street light would be incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the following applies: a) A street light shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the director of public works that a street light is necessary at the location in which the small cell facility is proposed. A street light may be required to be installed instead of a free standing pole. b) In the downtown business district (BD) zones, new street lights shall be Sternberg model, designed to contain a small wireless facility. c) The cantenna height, including antenna radio equipment, conduit or wires, brackets, transition shroud, and all other hardware required for a complete installation — from the top of the mast arm connection to the top of the cantenna — shall not exceed five (5) feet. c. Location Preference #5 - Existing single-phase power pole (installation on top of pole): Page 28 of 39 Packet Pg. 107 8.A.b 1. A cantenna may not extend more than six (6) feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by more than two (2) inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the applicant can demonstrate that more space is needed. The antennas shall be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original pole, including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall be fully concealed. 2. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in which they are attached. All related equipment shall not be mounted more than six (6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner. 3. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of SMALL CELL the surface of the wooden pole. The FIRER number of conduit shall be minimized to ELECTRICAL the number technically necessary to CONDUIT accommodate a small cell and shall not CANTENNA (TOP MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & MAS ARM EQUIPMENT SHROUD WITH ANTENNA (SIDE MOUNTED) UTILITY POLE EOUIPMENTSHROUD XCEL ENERGY METER WITH DISCONNECT increase the number of conduit on an existing pole to more than 2 conduit. 4. The visual effect of the small cell facility on all other aspects of the appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 5. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating a small cell facility; provided, that the height of any replacement pole may not exceed fifty (50) feet to the top of the cantenna. 6. The replacement pole shall comply with the City's sidewalk clearance requirements and ADA requirements. 7. The use of the pole for the siting of a small cell facility shall be considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole serving as the host site for a small cell facility becomes unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small Page 29 of 39 Packet Pg. 108 8.A.b cell facility and the small cell facility and all associated equipment shall be removed. d. Location Preference #6 - Existing transmission power pole (installation in communication space): 1. Antennas should be placed in an effort to minimize visual clutter and obtrusiveness. Only one antenna is permitted on each wooden pole. 2. The inside edge of a side mounted canister antenna/equipment - -- shroud shall project no more than —�— twelve (12) inches from the surface UTILITY POLE of the wooden pole. -EQUIPMENT SHROUD 3. Antennas and equipment located within a unified enclosure shall not exceed four (4) cubic feet. To the extent possible, the unified enclosure shall be placed so as to appear as an integrated part of the pole or behind banners or signs. The unified enclosure may not be placed more than six (6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required and confirmed in writing EQUIPMENT $HROU❑ by the pole owner. 4. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored or painted to match the XCEL ENERGY METER color of the surface of the wooden WITH DISCONNECT pole in which they are attached. All SMALL CELL related equipment shall not be FIBER mounted more than six (6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless ELECTRICAL a further distance is technically required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner. 5. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the pole. The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number of conduit shall be minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small cell and shall not increase the number of conduit on an existing pole to more than 2 Page 30 of 39 Packet Pg. 109 8.A.b conduit. 6. The visual effect of the small cell facility on all other aspects of the appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 7. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the purpose of accommodating a small cell facility; provided, that the height of any replacement pole may not extend more than ten (10) feet above the height of the existing pole, unless a further height increase is required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such height increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities. 8. The replacement pole shall comply with the City's sidewalk clearance requirements and ADA requirements. 9. The use of the pole for the siting of a small cell facility shall be considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole serving as the host site for a small cell facility becomes unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small cell facility and the small cell facility and all associated equipment shall be removed. e. Location Preference #7 - Strand -mounted. Page 31 of 39 Packet Pg. 110 8.A.b Small cell facilities mounted on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the following standards: UTILITY POLE EQUIPMENT SHROUD �y EQUIPMENT SHROUD xCELENERGY METER WITH DISCONNECT SMALL CELL FIBER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHROUD This graphic is intended to represent a strand mount antenna. a) Each strand mounted antenna shall not exceed one (1) cubic feet in volume b) Only one strand mounted facility is permitted between any two existing poles. c) The strand mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the nearest utility pole, in no event more than five feet from the pole unless a greater distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance and confirmed in writing by the pole owner. d) No strand mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the roadway open to vehicular traffic. e) No strand mounted devices shall be installed on poles with mounted streetlights. Page 32 of 39 Packet Pg. 111 8.A.b f) Ground mounted equipment to accommodate such strand mounted facilities is not permitted, except when placed in pre-existing equipment cabinets, underground or on zoned property. g) Pole mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (6) of subsection (d) above. h) Such strand mounted devices must be installed to cause the least visual impact and with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires (other than the original strand) necessary to meet the technological needs of the facility. C. Location Preference Criteria. The following criteria shall be reviewed and responded to by the applicant, as applicable, for each proposed small wireless node location. A proposed small wireless facility location shall only be allowed in a lower ranking location as provided in the location hierarchy in subsection B above, if the applicant can demonstrate that all higher ranking locations are infeasible. The following criteria shall be responded to as a minimum submittal requirement. 1. Siting outside the right-of-way: a. Engineering and technical analyses outlining technical parameters of the services to be provided, specifically addressing infeasibility of a given location when a node is not proposed to be located outside the right-of-way. Analyses shall be thorough and provide sufficient information to allow for a Third Party Review consistent with 20.50.060.J. b. Applicant/wireless provider must contact all property owners within 150 lineal feet, measured along the right-of-way, in either direction of a proposed small wireless facility location with an offer letter describing the scope of the anticipated deployment, proposed form of easement, the FCC -approved rental amount of $270 per year, or an amount equal to the per pole annual fee charged by PUD, whichever is greater, and the means to accept the offer if the landowner in interested in siting an individual node on his/her property. The offer letter shall be sent via certified mail, shall contain a preaddressed postage paid return envelope, and allow for a minimum 2- week response time. Two separate attempts shall be made by the applicant/wireless provider to make contact with the property owner. If private property owners do not respond by accepting offers, the applicant/wireless provider shall provide an affidavit to the City stating that no offers to locate nodes outside the right-of-way were accepted. This Page 33 of 39 Packet Pg. 112 8.A.b criteria shall be responded to when it is technically feasible to locate a small wireless facility outside the right-of-way. 2. Siting within the right-of-way: In circumstances where it is not technically feasible to locate the particular small wireless facility anywhere on zoned property, the applicant/wireless provider shall provide an explanation of the technical difficulty in sufficient detail to be peer reviewed. D. Small wireless facility general standards. 1. Ground mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless such facilities are placed underground or the applicant can demonstrate that pole mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible. If ground mounted equipment is necessary, then the applicant must submit a concealment plan. Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited. 2. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of Chapter 5.30 ECC. 3. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the rights -of -way. 4. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the requirement to remove the abandoned pole. 5. The design criteria as applicable to small cell facilities described herein shall be considered concealment elements and such small cell facilities may only be expanded upon through an eligible facilities request described in Section 20.50.080 ECDC, when the modification does not defeat the concealment elements of the facility. 6. No signage, message, or identification other than the manufacturer's identification or identification required by governing law is allowed to be portrayed on any antenna, and any such signage on equipment enclosures shall be of the minimum amount possible to achieve the intended purpose; provided, that signs are permitted as concealment techniques where appropriate. 7. Antennas and related equipment may not be illuminated except for security reasons, required by a federal or state authority, or unless approved as part of a concealment element plan. 8. Side arm mounts for antennas or equipment are prohibited. 9. Facilities must be located and designed to not obstruct or significantly diminish views of Puget Sound or the Cascade or Olympic Mountains from public streets and public property. 10. Antennas, equipment enclosures, and ancillary equipment, conduit, and cable, shall not dominate the building or pole upon which they are attached. 11. The city may consider the cumulative visual effects of small cells mounted on poles within the rights -of -way when assessing proposed siting locations so as to not adversely Page 34 of 39 Packet Pg. 113 8.A.b affect the visual character of the city. This provision shall neither be applied to limit the number of permits issued when no alternative sites are reasonably available nor to impose a technological requirement on the service provider. 12. ADA compliance required. In areas of the city in which utility lines have been undergrounded (undergrounded areas) and where necessary to permit full use of the public right-of-way by pedestrians, bicycles and other users, all ground -mounted equipment must be undergrounded in a vault meeting the city's construction standards to the extent feasible. The location of ground -mounted equipment (to the extent undergrounding such equipment is not technologically feasible), a replacement pole and/or any new pole shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction standards, and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe passage within the public right-of-way. 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the wireless facility to standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or through permit condition. Such maintenance shall include, but not be Page 35 of 39 Packet Pg. 114 8.A.b limited to, repair of damaged shrouds or enclosures, 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.160 Definitions. A. Antenna(s). Any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, before the installation of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies. C. "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, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure. D. Completely concealed facility. A WCF where: (A) the antennas, mounting apparatus, and any associated equipment are fully recessed/concealed from all sides with a structure that achieves total integration with the existing building or structure; and (B) all cable is routed internally or completely screened from view; and (C) the associated equipment is completely within the building or structure, placed in an underground vault, or is within another element such as a bench, mail box or kiosk. E. "Distributed antenna system (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. F. Equipment. Any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna. G. "Freestanding small cell pole" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole purpose of supporting small wireless antennas and associated equipment. H "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by diagonal cables. I. "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment. J. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. Page 36 of 39 Packet Pg. 115 8.A.b K. Macro cell facility (macro facility). A large wireless communication facility that provides radio frequency coverage served by a high power cellular system. Generally, macro cell antennas are mounted on ground -based towers, rooftops and other existing structures, at a height that provides a clear view over the surrounding buildings and terrain. Macro cell facilities typically contain antennas that are greater than three (3) cubic feet per antenna and typically cover large geographic areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple wireless service providers. L. "Monopole" means 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 macro antennas and their associated equipment. M. Poles. Utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support electrical wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for the sole purpose of supporting a WCF. N. "Satellite earth station antenna" 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; 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. 0. Small wireless facility (or small cell node). A wireless facility that meets each of the following conditions: 1. The facilities: a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater; 2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not more than three cubic feet in volume; 3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; Page 37 of 39 Packet Pg. 116 8.A.b 4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under FCC rule; 5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule. P. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct -to -home satellite services. Q. "Wireless communication facility (WCF)" means 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. R. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), building -mounted" means a wireless communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas mounted on existing monopoles. S. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged" means 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. T. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure" means a small 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 and emergency generators. U. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole" means a wireless communication facility not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under ECDC 20.50.030. Does not include co -location of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole. V. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. W. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure -mounted" means a wireless communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks. X. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications Page 38 of 39 Packet Pg. 117 8.A.b 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. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. Page 39 of 39 Packet Pg. 118 D tl4i111C4iiiri7i'kwilimWiT66ih�ri7it4iliT4/ TtizidiTt February 13, 2019 E CO) 4- 0 c 0 .N w G Packet Pg. 119 1 - City of Edmonds t Wireless Facilftles Wireless Facility Q FLOW Private Zoning (SDEJ Single Family Multi Family - {Ommaroal Parks and Open Spare Current macro sites... 24 Future macro sites... dozens more? Future small cell sites... 1000s? Ia 'S ' =MEN ■ EREL 3 a do ■ i a wAnd A Af f E ° Packet Pg. 120 8.A.c ■ January 9th —Introduction to Planning Board ■ January 141h — FCC Order went into effect ■ January 15th —Introduction to full Council ■ February 12th — Council public hearing and adoption of interim ordinance ■ February 13th — Review interim ordinance at Planning Board ■ February 28th —Public hearing at Planning Board ■ March and early April — Discussion, refinement and hearing before City Council ■ April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place E ca 4- 0 _ 0 .y N 7 t,1 N G Packet Pg. 121 8.A.c Per FCC, small cell code changes must be: ■ Reasonable ■ No more burdensome than other types of infrastructure deployments ■ Objective ■ Published in advance Proposed changes: ■ Aesthetic standards (20.50.130) ■ Master permit agreement (20.50.020.C) ■ Application requirements (20.50.070.H) E ca 4- 0 0 .y N 7 t,1 N G Packet Pg. 122 1 8.A.c IL. By definition: ■ Height — 50 feet +/- ■ Each antenna — 3 cubic feet ■ Equipment — 28 cubic feet Antenna Equipment G Packet Pg. 123 ➢ Locations outside of the right-of-way are preferred over locations within the right-of-way Locate Outside of the Right -of -Way 1. Existing Building 2. Freestanding Small Cell Pole Locate Within the Right -of -Way 3. Existing Street Light Pole or Utility Pole (hollow poles) 4. New Freestanding Small Cell Pole or Street Light 5. Existing PUD Single -Phase Pole (installation on top of pole) 6. Existing PUD Transmission Pole (installation in communication space) 7. Strand -mounted (installation in communication space) 8.A.c E CO 4- 0 _ 0 .y N 7 t,1 N G Packet Pg. 124 Locate on existing structures 8.A.c E Ca 4- 0 0 .y N 7 t,1 N G Zoned property - Freestanding small cell pole within 5 feet of street and side property lines; - Locate on same side of street as power lines; - Height limit 30 feet Packet Pg. 125 1 i I I 0-i *ir --� Installation on single phase power pole Cantenna in line with pole External conduit External equipment E CO) 4- 0 c 0 .N w G Packet Pg. 127 1 nPnf�fb.-o io�`1C1� �1�1�3iiUCO O Installation on transmission power pole - Antenna in communications space - External conduit - External equipment Antenna Equipment G Packet Pg. 128 1 J_� J -�I�1 ,lI ow- 1. law G Strand -mounted facilities - Installation on an existing pole - Antenna in the communications space - External equipment Packet Pg. 129 1 nepsa- MAx�NG CiY,E:S SMAf�TERK Historic preservation is an important and growing concern of many municipalities, as cities seek to differentiate themselves and compete for citizens, business and revenue while maintaining the historic and authentic appearance that often defines who they are, '%- nepsa solutions can provide municipalities with concerns around historic preservation with a range of custom -solutions for: Arts districts Historic districts 0 Gaslight districts e) Waterfront and residential enclaves nepsa solutions has partnered with several major street lighting SternbergLighting manufacturers, including Sternberg Lighting, one of the nation's ESTAOLISeED F123 I EUP[OTEE OWNER premiere designers and manufacturers of decorative street lighting and architectural street furniture, a leader in the industry since 1923. With the addition of Sternberg Lighting, nepsa solutions has extended its ability to provide a one - stop, custom solution for mobile network operators and municipalities requiring the design and fabrication skills necessary to install Small Cell infrastructure that meets the most stringent a historical requirements. MEN Sternberg's Decorative Street lighting and architectural products are well -received by public works officials in many state and local municipalities across the country. Applications include streetscapes, downtown revitalization projects, parks, train stations, not to mention shopping centers, golf courses, hotels, colleges, banks and more. COMPANY CLIENTS SOLUTIONS FAQ CONTACT US Sternberg Models currently used in downtown Edmonds G Packet Pg. 130 F-�QoW�-Po_I LL �� co rur-�o CO) 4- 0 0 .N N 7 t) N O� O N M J � O � O C d N d � L __. a m IL R M d n 1■1 v Oki. vvk�-. ilk 1M -togQ Packet Pg. 131 m E CO) 4- 0 c 0 .N w G i Packet Pg. 132 ■ Eligible Facility Requests ■ Permit Timelines —'Shot Clocks' ■ New Monopoles (Macro) E 4- 0 0 �N N 7 t,1 N G Packet Pg. 133 FCC -required review timelines... ■ Clock starts at application ■ Clock may be tolled/paused, under limited circumstances ■ Deemed approved? ■ Update 20.50.060 Building Right -of- FCC S Permit Way (ROW) Clocks 8.,4.c Request Location Required Permit Permit Required Review E Eligible facilities request Existing Yes, if on Yes, if in 60 days c approved WCF private ROW N property N 0 on New macro facility Collocation Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days N elements on elements in M N private the ROW c property _ d as New macro facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 150 days IL m monopole elements on elements in a private the ROW property E co New small cell facility Collocation Yes, if on Yes, if any 60 days private elements in property the ROW d E New small cell facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days freestanding elements on elements in I a small cell pole private the ROW property Packet Pg. 135 8.A.c Treat like other structures ■ Must meet zoning height & setbacks ■ Must be completely concealed ■ No CUP required ■ Update 20.50.110 �10 Formerly acceptable monopole installations - ., �.. - �fi_,._ Future monopole installations must be shrouded 0 Packet Pg. 136 8.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 9, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) Mike Rosen (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder As discussed at the last meeting, Board Member Lovell announced that the final report from the Economic Development Commission's subcommittee that was charged with reviewing the City's Strategic Action Plan is now available. In the report, each of the action items were assigned a status. He agreed to email the report to staff to forward to the Board Members. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: SMALL CELL WIRELESS STANDARDS Introduction on small cell wireless and the Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Discussion on incorporating small cell standards into the City's wireless code (ECDC 20.50) and possible interim ordinance. Ms. McConnell announced that the FCC released a new "Order" on September 27, 2018, adopting new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for the installation of new small cell facilities. The Order goes into effect Packet Pg. 137 8.A.d on January 141, and local jurisdictions have until April 141 to adopt aesthetic rules relative to small cell facilities. She explained that small cell facilities are mounted on structures that are 50 feet or less in height. They work best at lower levels, which is different than macro cell facilities that function best at higher levels. The Order also limits the size of the equipment and antenna. She provided a graphic to illustrate the differences between macro cell and small cell facility types, summarizing that small cell facilities are used in densely populated areas to obtain faster data transfer. Ms. McConnell provided pictures of existing macro cell facilities in Edmonds, noting how the antenna and equipment are clustered together on the top of poles. She also provided pictures of small cell facilities located in other cities (there are none in Edmonds). She noted how some are located on existing poles and appear chunky and unattractive while others are located on existing buildings and appear to blend in. She also provided examples of small cell facilities located on standalone poles or streetlights, with all of the wires and equipment enclosed within the poles. Board Member Lovell commented that the standalone poles are definitely more attractive, but they must be costlier, too. Ms. McConnell agreed that standalone poles will likely cost more. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers to use standalone options in areas where new development occurs. Ms. McConnell agreed that is an option. She explained that the location of small cell sites will be determined by the specific providers (carriers) based on what is needed in order for an area to function well from a utility standpoint. Carriers do not typically share a single site since they all run on different frequencies. Chair Cheung asked who would be responsible for maintaining the facilities that are located on existing structures. Ms. McConnell responded that the City has not assessed the capacity of its current signal lights to accommodate small cell facilities. However, small cell facilities can be placed on existing Public Utility District (PUD) poles via a lease agreement. Although the City would require a permit, the pole would continue to be under the PUD's ownership and responsibility. Board Member Monroe asked if locating small cell facilities on existing structures would be governed by a Franchise Agreement. Ms. McConnell said it would actually require a Master Use Agreement, which is very similar to a Franchise Agreement. The Master Use Agreement would establish ownership and address the maintenance requirements. Ms. McConnell advised that the FCC's Order allows state and local jurisdictions to put aesthetic requirements in place for small cell facilities, but they must be reasonable, objective, and no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments. They must also be published in advance. Undergrounding requirements may be permissible, as long as they do not effectively prohibit the use or materially inhibit wireless facilities. Minimum spacing requirements are also permissible. For example, local governments have required installations to be sited a certain distance away from other facilities to avoid excessive overhead clutter that would be visible from public areas. Chair Cheung asked about the typical range of a small cell facility. Ms. McConnell answered that she has heard anywhere from a block to '/4 mile, depending on the density and where the demands are. The macro cell facilities handle a large portion of the needs, but as technology advances, the demand will continue to increase, particularly in densely populated areas, and small cell facilities will be needed, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if it is possible that multiple carriers will want to locate a small cell facility on a single block. Ms. McConnell advised that would be possible unless the City establishes some spacing requirements. While the FCC's ruling requires the City to allow small cell facilities, it also gives it the opportunity to mitigate the impacts to a degree. Board Member Monroe observed that technological advancements have necessitated the need for the FCC's Order. As the carriers discover through experience, testing and development that certain system works, they go to the FCC for approval. Although the City has the ability to regulate aesthetics and location to some degree, it cannot prohibit the use. He said he anticipates additional FCC orders as technology and demand changes over time, and the City will be required to accommodate the new equipment. By requiring a permit, carriers must submit plans that address the City's aesthetic and location requirements. Vice Chair Robles cautioned that small cell facilities could also be used to enable new technology that the City may not want, such as autonomous vehicles. He also asked if the FCC has addressed potential health and safety hazards that might be associated with small cell facilities. He pointed out that the small cell facilities are located closer to the ground and in Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 138 8.A.d densely populated areas, which may create health issues. He asked if the City has the ability to mitigate potential health hazards. He recalled that the City recently banned crumb rubber sports fields based on unsettled science. Ms. McConnell explained that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to regulate the health aspect of wireless facilities, but the FCC has regulations in place for their installation and all must comply. The City currently has provisions in the Wireless Communications Code that requires carriers to submit documentation to show that they have complied with the FCC regulations, as well. Her understanding is that while there may be more small cell facilities and they are closer to the ground, the frequency output is much less than that of the macro cell facilities. Vice Chair Robles noted that there are other alternatives such as fiberoptic and Wi-Fi, but they likely aren't as convenient for the carriers. He asked if there are feasibility studies to back up and support small cell technology. Again, Ms. McConnell reminded the Board that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to implement health regulations for wireless facilities. However, the City can require documentation from the carriers to ensure the FCC standards are adhered to. Board Member Rubenkonig asked what would encourage carriers to install the newer standalone poles or light standards. Ms. McConnell answered that staff s draft proposal would establish general citing criteria and a priority order for installation. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that it would be better for the regulations to call out the aesthetic requirements rather than focusing on specific products because technology will continue to change over time. She asked who would be responsible for removing old technology when it becomes obsolete and is no longer used. Ms. McConnell explained that if a wireless facility is attached to an existing structure, the required Master Use Agreement would address this issue. Ms. McConnell reviewed that the current Wireless Code (ECDC 20.50) provides general siting criteria that deals with wireless facilities, but not specifically small cell facilities. Currently the location of wireless facilities is encouraged in non- residential areas and monopoles are prohibited in residential and multi -family zones, the downtown waterfront activity center, the public and open space zones and within the rights -of -way. The current regulations also establish a priority order for locating wireless facilities. Staff is proposing additional provisions specifically related to small cell facilities given the anticipated need and demand. She reviewed the draft proposal, specifically noting the priority order for installation as follows: • Priority 1 — Locate outside of the rights -of -way within zoned property on an existing structure or a standalone pole or streetlight. With standalone poles and streetlights, the equipment and wires can be concealed inside the poles. If located on an existing building, the equipment could be camouflaged to be less obvious. As proposed, the facility must be located within 5 feet of a right-of-way so it lines up with the existing utility corridor. Board Member Monroe asked if the City could require that the connecting wires be placed underground. Ms. McConnell answered that if there are no overhead power lines, the City could require that the wires that serve the facility be placed underground through the Master Use Agreement. She provided examples of facilities located on existing structures, as well as facilities located on standalone poles and streetlights. Priority 2 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing streetlights or traffic signal lights or new standalone poles or streetlights. The first priority would be to locate on an existing structure, with the wires and equipment being concealed inside or on the top of the pole. The City has not done an assessment of its signal lights to determine if they can accommodate the wires and equipment associated with a wireless facility. The second option would be to locate on a new standalone pole or new streetlight. It may make more sense to install a streetlight that would serve a function beyond just a wireless facility. She provided examples of different installations within the rights -of -way on existing streetlights and traffic signal lights. She also provided examples of standalone poles and streetlights. She noted the Sternberg model of streetlight that is currently used in downtown Edmonds and suggested that should be the model used by carriers to be consistent with the existing character. • Priority 3 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing wooden utility poles. The PUD has explained that if a wireless facility is installed on a single-phase pole, they can be located on top of the pole. However, they can only be located within the communications space on transmission poles. In both instances, the equipment and conduit would be placed on the outside of the pole. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 139 8.A.d • Priority 4 — Allow strand -mounted facilities. The antennas would be installed on existing utility wires and not on the poles. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers to locate small cell facilities on existing streetlight poles rather than utility poles in the downtown. Ms. McConnell said that is the intent of the draft priorities. Board Member Monroe asked how the City would decide if a carrier can move from a higher priority to a lower priority. He specifically asked if cost would be a factor in the decision. Ms. McConnell acknowledged that Priority 1 would cost more than Priorities 2 and 3, but cost would not be a factor when deciding whether or not an applicant can meet the higher priority installation. Board Member Monroe asked what situation would warrant allowing a small cell facility to locate within the public right-of- way as opposed to private property. Ms. McConnell answered that there might not be a feasible space for a facility to locate on private property or a carrier may be unable to negotiate an agreement with a private property owner to locate a facility where it is needed. As per the proposed installation priorities, a carrier would have to document the steps taken to locate consistent with Priority 1 before being allowed to consider Priority 2 and 3 options. Board Member Rubenkonig asked about the process for allowing additional height beyond the 35-foot height limit in order for a small cell facility to be located on top of an existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said the draft code could establish a height limit, but by definition, small cell facilities must be located no higher than 50 feet and most of the existing power poles are between 45 and 50 feet in height. Board Member Monroe questioned why strand -mounted facilities would be considered less desirable than facilities mounted on existing utility poles. Ms. McConnell cautioned that the graphics were pulled from a number of jurisdictions to illustrate a variety of installation types. The size of the equipment and the angle at which the photographs were taken can make it difficult to compare the different types of installation. She suggested the Board should focus on the location of the equipment and where the conduit is placed rather than the size of the equipment since strand -mounted equipment is not necessarily smaller than pole -mounted equipment. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be helpful for staff to provide additional photographs to illustrate the differences and allow the Board to make a more informed recommendation. Ms. McConnell summarized that one carrier has attempted to make an application with the City for a small cell facility, but the application has not been accepted for review because the required Master Use Agreement is not yet in place and the City is working to iron out its regulations. Again, she advised that the FCC's regulations go into effect on January 141, and it is imperative for the City to get regulations in place to begin accepting applications no later than April 14'. She advised that staff would introduce the draft regulations to the full City Council on January 151. A public hearing and a proposal for an interim ordinance for small cell aesthetic regulations is scheduled to go before the City Council on February 5r''. The Board will continue its review, including refinements to the interim ordinance for the next few months and then hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The intent is to have a public hearing before the City Council, followed by final adoption of a permanent ordinance by April 2"d. She emphasized that if the City does not adopt a permanent ordinance by the April 14t' deadline, it will have lost its opportunity to regulate small cell aesthetics and permits would be processed based on the current regulations only. Ms. McConnell advised that when the proposed regulations were presented to the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee, the Council President indicated support for the installation priorities and criteria that are intended to make small cell facilities as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Again, she reminded the Board that the City does not have the choice about whether to allow small cell facilities or not. Staff if doing its best to understand the FCC's standards and come up with regulations for Edmonds. She invited the Board to provide feedback and suggestions as the process continues. Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed installation priorities but felt the City would have difficulty getting the carriers to install new poles because it will be less costly to use existing infrastructure. He also expressed his belief that the City would be remiss if the draft regulations do not address view impacts, as well. Putting up new streetlights to accommodate small cell facilities will provide an added benefit to the community, but it may be cost prohibitive and difficult to obtain. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 140 8.A.d Vice Chair Robles commended staff for taking on the issue. The City has been backed into a corner, and staff has had to come up with regulations that balance a variety of priorities. He suggested they also consider the following: • What happens if someone hits a pole that has a small cell facility located on it? Would the liability be externalized on the public? Will the driver's insurance be required to pay for the pole to be replaced and for the loss of service? • If the City were to establish its own Wi-fi network, would the carriers view this as sabotaging their business? • Can the presence of a small cell facility on a public structure delay the undergrounding of wires? • Is there a plan to put the wires underground whenever possible? • Who would pay for the streetlight poles and installation, the City or the carrier? • Who would be responsible for removing derelict antennas that are no longer being used, and how would the City identify equipment that needs to be removed? • What is the public recourse relative to the noise and potential nuisance associated with a small cell facility? • Can a citizen mount a small cell facility on his/her own home as a revenue source? Board Member Lovell asked how many different carriers might be interested in locating small cell facilities in Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered that there at least 3 or 4 carriers that could come to Edmonds, but there may be more. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Board went through a similar process several years ago when updating the current Wireless Communications Code. As discussed at that time, there is not a lot the City can do to regulate the use. It is a private industry that is licensed by the Federal Government to provide a service that is paid for by the public. The public has created a demand for the service, and the public may not be happy if the City chooses to oppose or be unreasonable about the carriers' ability to install the equipment needed. The proposed priorities force carriers to utilize existing infrastructure whenever possible, and that is about the best the City can do. Chair Cheung agreed with Board Member Monroe that the regulations should make it clear that views should not be obstructed, and the proposed regulations should find ways to minimize the visual impacts. He suggested that the public will likely be concerned about health impacts, as well. While the regulations cannot stop small cell facilities from being located in the City, it would be helpful to provide available studies and/or data to help alleviate some of the public's concerns related to health. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung announced that the January 23Cd agenda will include a presentation on a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change for the Meadowdale Marine Area from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space and a zoning change for the marine tidelands from RSW-12 to Marine Resource (ECDC 16.70). The agenda will also include a continued discussion on the wireless ordinance for small cell standards. When the Board continues its discussion related to small cell standards, Board Member Lovell asked that staff provide additional examples of the types of installations that might be located in Edmonds. In addition to the items listed on the Board's extended agenda, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board consider the following topics: • An annual report from the Public Works Department relative to the Transportation Improvement Plan. • A quarterly report from the Planning Division. • Reports from other City Departments. For example, the community has expressed an interest in what is taking place at the Police Department. • Items discussed at the Board's retreat that need to be added to the agenda. • Special presentations from invited guests related to specific topics. • A report from the Planning Division regarding the built environment (i.e. how many projects and project descriptions). • The impact of recent zoning changes along Highway 99. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 141 8.A.e Verizon Small Cell Program li r izo1 1 ` © 2017 Verizon. This document is the property of Verizon and may not be used, modified or further distributed without Verizon's written permission. Packet Pg. 142 What is a Small Cell? Macrocell 1 .... .... .... ■. Small Cells ... �I11i ■!■■ Vef izorV Packet Pg. 143 Why the Need? From 2010 — 2016: Mobile data useQ35 times 52%+ American Households Wireless -only Average American Household: 13 Connected Devices 4- 0 0 N U) verizon I Packet Pg. 144 Why the Need? 92% of Millennials have a Smartphone 76% of 911 Calls Ili Originate from a Cell hone g p Machine to Machine Connections Projected to Increase from � 36M in 2013 to 263M in 2018 4- 0 0 N U) verizonv' Packet Pg. 145 What is The Impact of Insufficient Capacity? Slow Data Speeds t f Increased •_ • Load Times Buffering... Verizon/ Disruption to Video Calls Dropped or Incomplete Calls Connection Problems SLOW , INTERNET, Packet Pg. 146 Why Deploy Small Cell? Gaps in Coverage Terrain Challenges Tall Buildings Large Areas Residential c verizoW I Packet Pg. 147 Small vs. Macro Cell — Install 1 to 3 Small Antennas (less than 3 cubic feet) Small Radio Enclosure No Ground Cabinets 4- 0 0 N 3 to 12 Large Antenna o (averaging 6 to 8 feet tal 4 to 6 Large Cabinets on Adjacent Property verizom' I Packet Pg. 148 Small vs. Macro Cell -Antenna Typical Small Cell Antenna • -2 ft. in Height • 1 to 3 per Pole • Install Height of 20 to 40 ft. • No Ground Cabinet Macro Antenna 8 ft. i .r: Small Cell Antenna 2 ft. Typical Macro Cell Antenna • 6 or 8 ft. in Height • 6 to 12 per pole • Install Height 80 to 200 ft. • 2 to 4 Large Ground Cabinets or in an Equipment Room 4- 0 0 N U) verizoW I Packet Pg. 149 Small vs. Macro Cell — Pole Height Smal=Cell Macro Cell Tim aRAD c verizon Packet Pg. 150 Small Cell Components Fiber & Coax Conduit Power Conduit Power Disconnect Antennas Dark Fiber (leased from 3rd party) Radios & Fiber Termination Bo) 4- 0 0 N U) verizon Packet Pg. 151 RO VA =AP �OR. r , Ilk IN .�" _. � Al zgm r+ �! � ,i.; yr •nR �,.a..�� .� •..R- ,s.," ��111 1 � .��•�°� � A, Y •: , WOW—_ FG. First Bellevue Installation - Archerline Bellevue, WA (North Bellevue) verizonv' 15 Nodes - PSE Poles 4- 0 0 N U) Packet Pg. 154 First Bellevue Installation - Archerline 4- 0 N U) ' m 12 y' U) G AL 1411 verizon Packet Pg. 155 First Bellevue Installation — Archerline c t verizoW Packet Pg. 156 fa Z y. 7 " r .h OL 14 19 T .i Light Standard s e q- verizon"/ r�n�.vm r', rowraaw, W REP4AGEMER`rPQLE VERODN Q KIR4AAND- WA CONCEPT DESIGN T c s V r Q Packet Pg. 158 Light Standard 4- 0 0 N U) verizonv' Packet Pg. 159 Light Standard a verizon I Packet Pg. 160 Light Standard PROPOSED V City of Bellevue Puget Sound Energy �A] Antrnna ^^� AJYTFLL CiwY3[0%05Fk0- 24"Hx14"w 28 ina a ?6} Radio 7203 - — 7811-11x788"Lx 3W"❑ (Simulation) 1c) VISQDne[t Box 915"Ht9.00LX5-250 (Simulation) WT. taa PRQPOSED verizonv Packet Pg. 161 Light Standard Minneapolis, MN Kansas City, KS LO Y r- d E V r r Q E c.i a Vef izom' Packet Pg. 162 Wireless Only Pole Denver, CO Equipment Inside of Pole Base c verizon I Packet Pg. 163 E (Simulation) Strand Mount - Seattle Trial Combined antenna and radio units are mounted to a bracket that his hung on the fiber strand. Fiber runs into the radios from nearby fiber termination box. Conduit contains power lines running from the supply space to the power disconnect and then to the antenna and radio units. The power disconnect is mounted to the pole 4- 0 0 N U) Vef izom' Packet Pg. 165 Strand Mount — Specifications PrynQR LPES [EYP} t _____ _____ _____ _____ Epp qF IX6lIhF SCL JII.nT' PpE N -1 FAL OF FIX51k1 r !AW 61'TI�G %ARE C.L 1j--10 iUCL 4' W Sii,C .A099 9k4 [iW} CPK5 LYu EiJPNRi 1➢3--1' iUCL nunlix: WIlN Fxn:Rx::-TnEEE unnE —Pam: rN,::..YxEaD. nIM RqM NER,G � 9 m m w OEIE W4 ) — ]—.. (I Tl W _ \ PRpvOSm +rtxm.n x%b' xcL EASEIY" MPE [IXHE1'E%N � 4&L 3'b" LTA P'P CF PPOPoSm YE9mON MIY. XFSE�WFT FM o'F4E a1TFT %IEE]E3R �wTErwV AEn uvR A-0� •6L aFET REOJFE]IQAS EIEr: u.Ex�EnYEMM eQRI1 MnFlnFw Y. •911� yCL ' PPCPOSm 'hiQfwl %Fg1EE5 •E>IIEAIEN PR.^P05EI hN2.Xl %1RQEi �uE1P'uJxxu IET tt] rT I: SITn%J] uOUM1'PIfET hfR1=JC FlEEA RCNE ti6L ' 'ittR L PROPOSES �4Sd2�N 1nRQlSS 61 m.n. ; ::. rc. r: W—CE' 11 1-P FCR FOA1£F SERNCE gyp. .xQ {iy ZY FOx Ptl•R nr urmXaVRRu �M1Qs 36iiOY of Plia><lsm xi1 -0' •GL EG G %1RE COL Lm] :� T OF EfIST1C E NL iA4'-0- AGL lOP OF EASTW SCL 11RISiT 'CLE N -19 AGL. —_—_—_—_ CEMIEh CF fYHEY1C CfhXS MW 3A IARL EIBIIM1G C<Ass aYt Cr*^7 CIg99 lfdl 911PPORF -II ARL IX511xG mGp+}.iri'� R t ♦Emcun fEDEss Er A.CS n:nE:i �Exw( -Irt1 'F?iNEiYFJl] f4 I�TW 33"-i- AGL PRCp�]5ty F 'I r33T'-i- AGL IX5Tx4 PhaPgq ton-n An.L unm urEs fTxPX� PROMSE] A Mk %I�1E54 {s1 cu M N -U 7r M. iIS Y. faR M1%ER SF E xu f+7 sY Ppi PPnxER m x1TFNu�11hy un RS MglrxE� �Exuax 1NRELE53 tl9Cplrl E%Fv A2'-IQ' AGL A WOO 4lR a1Y NL iD F— rXeQEa VF/+F�,L m 3]_x-d' AGL. ET PROPCOfT vEPoiCH 3arRY CF PRCP9'iP c verizom, Packet Pg. 166 Strand Mount - Simulation 4- 0 0 N U) verizonv' I Packet Pg. 167 8.A.e 4- 0 c O U) U) C c Thank O ou. U) a) L a. O E L O W C U m E U) c O N �L Y Q rizon-I I Packet Pg. 168 8.A.f W PG GROUP LLWIRELESS POLICY February 5, 2019 Via Email Mayor Dave Earling Edmonds City Council Dear Mayor Earling and Councilmembers, Re: Edmonds WA Wireless Code Update -February 5, 2019 Thank you for the opportunity to provide continued feedback on the wireless code update. Verizon worked closely with staff in September of last year to work through some serious feasibility issues with the draft code. After those initial meetings, we understood that staff would be working on a new draft that would address the feasibility challenges and provide an efficient process to deploy small wireless facilities in Edmonds. The current draft for consideration this evening does not address those issues and is in direct conflict with the recent FCC Order addressing the regulation of small wireless facilities, "Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (September 26, 2018)" ("Order"), that took effect on January 14, 2019. In view of this, Verizon is requesting that adoption be delayed so that staff and the wireless carriers can work together to ensure that the code you adopt is compliant with federal law, is workable for the wireless carriers, and reflects the aesthetic values of the community. This new technology is vital to address the coverage and capacity needs of Verizon's customers More people are using more wireless devices to do more things than ever before, like streaming video and uploading images. In fact, wireless data usage tripled from 2013 to 2015 and is forecast to multiply seven -fold from 2015 to 2019. Verizon is working to stay ahead of the demand by adding small cells to connect people where they need it most. The low visual profile of small cells makes them an excellent solution for delivering capacity and coverage to residential neighborhoods. Small cells will also deliver connections for "smart communities" services to boost the flow and safety of vehicle traffic, manage resources like PO Box 34628 - #75604 Seattle, WA 98124 kim.allen@wirelesspolicy.com www.wirelesspolicy.com t 425.628.2666 f 206.219.6717 Packet Pg. 169 8.A.f February 5, 2019 Page 2 light, power and water and improve the quality of life of Verizon's customers. Moreover, this technology is key to preparing Verizon's network infrastructure so that it is capable of offering 5G wireless connections when it becomes commercially available. Small Cell Need and Benefits We are in a period of tremendous growth in wireless data use. To put it simply, more people are using more wireless devices to do more things in more places than ever before. In 2016, mobile data use was 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. In 2015, the average smart phone used 3.7GB of data each month. That is expected to increase nearly 6-fold by 2021, when average use is expected to be about 22GB per month. But it isn't just our phones. Machine -to -Machine connections are projected to increase from 36M in 2013 to 263M in 2018. That is a 7-fold increase in just 5 years. • This growth is happening because the ways that we use our wireless data are changing. Our phones are not just phones anymore. They are the remote controls for our lives. And it isn't just Facebook, and streaming video. More and more people are using wireless data to stay connected from any location. Devices that have never been wireless before are wireless now and require expanding the capacity in the existing network to function reliably. Some smart device examples: lights, cameras, watches, traffic signals, trashcans, refrigerators and home heating. Reliable and robust wireless services are essential to effective telecommuting, which reduces traffic congestion and improves quality of life. People use wireless service to stay connected with friends and family locally, nationally, and around the world. Home automation is allowing people to control lights, appliances, and security systems remotely. Smart Communities solutions are improving safety and allowing our cities to operate more efficiently • Wireless data is important for public health and safety. 76% of 911 calls originate from cell phones, and it is now common for first responders to use wireless data networks from devices in their vehicles and on their person when responding to a crisis. • Wide ranges of medical devices are connected to wireless networks, helping doctors to more effectively treat their patients. Devices include smart heart monitors and insulin pumps. • 52% of American households are wireless only for voice service. More than 70% of all adults aged 25-34, and of adults renting their homes, are living in wireless -only households. Packet Pg. 170 8.A.f February 5, 2019 Page 3 People are using mobile devices more than ever before, and that trend is expected to continue. 1 With such a pressing need for additional capacity, we want to work with the city to make sure the city's draft small cell code will facilitate deployment of this much -needed infrastructure. Requested revisions to the draft code. While there has been insufficient time provided to perform a comprehensive, line by line redline of the code because the code was not made available online until after close of business on Friday, we have identified some of the provisions of the code, by way of example, that could materially inhibit the deployment of small wireless facilities in Edmonds: Seven -Step Preference Hierarchy The right of way is the most appropriate place for small wireless facilities, where there is vertical infrastructure and power. Every small wireless facility requires both of these elements. The small size of these facilities makes private property leasing impractical for owners and would require applicants to pull additional power lines onto private property. The need to propagate signal in many directions makes attachment to buildings a poor way to deliver service, especially where the inside of the building is the coverage/capacity objective. The proposed code, however, requires that an applicant demonstrate that there are no locations outside the right of way that can be used for a small wireless facility before gaining access to existing poles in the right of way. The FCC Order recognizes that this infrastructure is best suited for deployment in the right of way and prohibits cities from imposing unreasonable restrictions on these deployments. See Order, Paragraphs 92-97. The Order also requires that regulations for small wireless facilities be no more burdensome than those imposed on similar infrastructure in the right of way. To the extent that electric and cable facilities are not required to rule out private property sites before accessing the right of way, it cannot be required for small wireless facilities. 2. Section 20.50.020(C) requires proprietary coverage maps and build out plans that neighboring cities are not requiring to obtain a master permit for small wireless facilities. Typically, in this region, master permits are granted city wide with design typicals appended. When individual pole locations are later identified, the location and design is part of the application for a small wireless permit that checks to see if the design is substantially similar to one of the design typicals in the master permit. ' A Wireless Trends compilation with the sources for these statistics is attached for your reference. Packet Pg. 171 8.A.f February 5, 2019 Page 4 3. Section 20.50.020(C) The Master Permit section also includes time frames that are incompatible with the federal shot clocks which require all approvals completed within 60 days for attachment to an existing structure and 90 days for a new pole 4. Section 20.50.130 Small Cells The size restrictions for equipment are impermissibly restrictive; the FCC allows for up to 28 cubic feet of equipment for each site. The proposed design requirements use older examples of 4G only poles from the city of Denver, which has much different topography and vegetation than Edmonds. The requirement to place antennas in a cantenna, for example is infeasible for 5G deployments, which require exposed panel antennas due to the nature of the signal This restriction would materially inhibit, if not prevent the deployment of 5G technology in Edmonds, in violation of the FCC Order's requirement that regulations not materially inhibit the provision of wireless service. While we appreciate the city's desire to adopt an interim code to comply with the FCC Order, the draft presented does not achieve that objective. Verizon would appreciate more time to continuing to work with the city to develop a code that preserves the look and feel of your community, while providing an efficient, workable and federally compliant process to deliver the service your residents, visitors and businesses have come to expect. A Verizon representative will be at your meeting to answer questions and provide information, as needed. Sincerely. Kim Allen, Senior Vice President Wireless Policy Group, LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless Packet Pg. 172 8.A.f verizonv Wire. talk Trtol ly S zo17 In 2015, the average smartphone in North America consumed 3.7 GB of data per month, and this is expected to increase to 22 GB per month by 2021. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (CDC's 2016 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July -December) For Millennials (those born between 1982 and 2004), the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile -only households. That number is another significant jump up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016) More than 70% of all adults aged 25-34 and of adults renting their homes were living in wireless -only households. (National i , _.. ,,lterview Surv, ,y, . —eless Substitution: )rly Releas( )f Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July -December 2016.) In 2016, wireless data traffic reached yet another record high. In all, traffic totaled 13.72 trillion MBs—the equivalent of 1.58 million years of streaming HD video - an increase of 4.07 trillion megabytes over 2015. Over the past two years, data use has increased 238 percent. (2w i U I IA vvireless bnapsnot, May zu-1 i & UQJGU U11 UOL11110LUO II Vm t IG U.J. Ueiiuiar IVIUI Ill IIy Data Usage Estimate tool, available at https://www.uscellular.com/data/ data-estimator.html) 2016 mobile data use is 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017) There are now more wireless devices than Americans, with about 1.2 devices for every person in the country. That makes the wireless platform nearly ubiquitous: 95 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone. Compare that to the 78 percent of Americans who own a computer. .... _.._. _ _.. _ _, -._., 2017 & Pew Research Center, Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) Wireless -powered smart city solutions could produce $160 billion in benefits and savings from lower energy use, reduced traffic congestion, and decreased fuel costs. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Accenture, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities (January 2017) available at https:// www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-smart-cities.) Connected devices could create $305 billion in annual savings for the healthcare industry. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & David H. Roman and Kyle D. Conlee, The Digital Revolution Comes to US Healthcare: Technology, Incentives Align to Shake Up the Status Quo, Goldman Sachs Equity Report, Internet of Things Volume 5 (June 29, 2015) available at http:// massdigitalhealth.org/digital-revolution- comes-us-healthcare. Self -driving cars could save 21,700 lives and $447 billion per year. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May Packet Pg. 173 8.A.f 2017 & Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara Kockelman, "Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations for Capitalizing on Self -Driven Vehicles," Eno Center for Transportation (2013), available at https://www. enotrans.org/etl-material/preparing-a-nation-for- autonomous-vehicles-opportunities-barriers-and-policy-recommendations/) The number of IoT devices worldwide will conservatively surpass 20 billion by the year 2020, (2) and this increase in connectivity stands to add roughly $2.7 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2030. kz-„ , , ,, , i , vVireless Snapshot, May 2017 & D_ Michael Mandt , Progressive Polic; institute, -ong Term U.S. Productivity Growth and Mobile Broadband: The Road Ahead (March 2016) available at http://www.progressivepol icy.org/wp-contentlupload s/2016/03/2016.03-Mandel_Long-term-US-Productivity- Growth-and-Mobile-Broad band_The-Road-Ahead.pdf) In 2021, video will account for around 70% of mobile data traffic. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Across income levels, a significant majority of Americans now have smartphones, with 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year and 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year owning smartphones.9 And since 2011, the number of individuals making under $30,000 per year who own a smartphone has grown by 42 percent. ,2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheeVmobile/) Today, just over half-50.8 percent —of American households only have a mobile voice connection.13 For Millennials, the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile -only households. That number is up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & FCC, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016)) Millennials lead smartphone adoption, with 92 percent of 18-29 year olds having a smartphone, followed by 88 percent of 30-49 year olds, and 74 percent of 50-64 year olds. With respect to race, smartphone ownership cuts across the board, with approximately 72 percent of African -Americans, 75 percent of Hispanics, and 77 percent of whites in the U.S. having smartphones. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/) Teens have increased smartphone TV/video viewing 85% in 4 years. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Teen usage of cellular data for smartphone video has grown 127% in 15 months. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 20' 76% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (National Highway Traffic Administration, February, 2016) More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections (RootMetrics, June 2015) 35% of Americans reach for their smartphone first in the morning (CTIA, July 2015) 2- Packet Pg. 174 8.A.f Machine -to -machine connections are projected to rise from 36 million in 2013 to 263 million in 2018. (Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights 2013-2018, at "United States — 2018 Forecast Highlights and 2013 Year in Review) By 2020, more than 34 billion internet-connected devices will be installed globally — that's more than 4 devices for every human on earth. (Business Insider, May 20, 2016) 3 Packet Pg. 175 8.A.f verizonv Oav4p r, 2017 More than 50% of parents believe that schools should make more use of mobile devices in education. 20,000 learning apps are available for Pads. 72% of iTunes top selling educational apps are designed for preschoolers and elementary students. 600+ school districts replaced text books with tablets in classrooms. 77% of parents think tablets are beneficial to kids. 74% of school administrators feel digital content increases student engagement. 70% of teens use cellphones to help with homework. Source: CTIA's Infographics Today's Wireless Family, October, 2017 Packet Pg. 176 8.A.f veraonv Heafn, "%.& Safefy .J vuftt, 2-017 Wireless technology has been in widespread use since the 1940's. The technology is constantly reviewed by organizations world-wide. The technology typically operates at a fraction of the power guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commission for safe operation. FCC Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS (personal communication service) cell sites have shown that ground -level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC. (FCC Consumer Facts) FCC guidelines are based on federal health and safety agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and non -governmental organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). WHO Recent surveys indicate that RF exposures from base stations and wireless devices in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards." Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. (World Health Organization Fact Sheet) Packet Pg. 177 8.A.f verizonJ I mfxor�� of W i red e yy w-kv age, -fo- H s, a ,-& 13"ery Oav4;)�er 2-017 Around 52 percent of American households are now wireless only for voice service. (CDC's 2016 Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July -December) 90% of US households use wireless service. With this increase in demand from users at home and those who work from home comes the need for more facilities to meet the customer needs. Citizens need access to 911 and reverse 911 and wireless may be their only connection. (CTIA, June 2015) Across income levels, a significant majority of Americans now have smartphones. 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year own smartphones. And 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year are smartphone owners — which marks a 42 percent growth in ownership at this income level since 2011. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheeUmobile/) A 2015 survey found that cellular service is of major importance to homebuyers. It was more important than schools when looking for a home (cellular service ranked 76% versus 60% for schools). Cellular coverage trailed only crime rates (96%), local taxes (90%), and amenities like parks and shops (84%). Among Millennials, 83% said cell service was the most important fact in purchasing a home. (RootMetrics & Money, June 2, 2015) "..the fastest type of high speed Internet available, can add $5,437 to the price of a $175,000 home —about as much as a fireplace, or half the value of a bathroom." (WSJ, "How Fast Internet Affects Home Prices", June 30, 2015") The Surprising Thing Home Buyers Care About More than Schools Packet Pg. 178 8.A.f verizonv W i rett,yy Tr2h-.d y J u*,-e, 2-017 In 2016, wireless data traffic reached yet another record high. In all, traffic totaled 13.72 trillion MBs—the equivalent of 1.58 million years of streaming HD video - an increase of 4.07 trillion megabytes over 2015. Over the past two years, data use has increased 238 percent. (20'1 t U i A vVireiess Snapshot, May 201 t & Daseu On esurnaLus irum the U.S. uuiiuiar ivwnmiy Data Usage Estimate tool, available at https://www.uscellular.com/data/ data-estimator.html) 2016 mobile data use is 35 times the volume of traffic in 2010. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017) There are now more wireless devices than Americans, with about 1.2 devices for every person in the country. That makes the wireless platform nearly ubiquitous: 95 percent of U.S. adults own a cellphone. Compare that to the 78 percent of Americans who own a computer. <<U I I �., I Ih V611CICJJ 011uv , 1—Y (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.r)ewinternet.ora/fact-shept/mr)hile/) Wireless -powered smart city solutions could produce $160 billion in benefits and savings from lower energy use, reduced traffic congestion, and decreased fuel costs. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Accenture, Smart Cities: How 5G Can Help Municipalities Become Vibrant Smart Cities (January 2017) available at https:// www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-smart-cities.) Connected devices could create $305 billion in annual savings for the healthcare industry. 12017 CTIA vvireiess -)napsnoi, may zu i r & uavia r7. Roman and Kyle U. Gonlee, I he Digital Revolution Gomes to US Healthcare: Technology, Incentives Align to Shake Up the Status Quo, Goldman Sachs Equity Report, Internet of Things Volume 5 (June 29, 2015) available at http:// massdigitalhealth.org/digital-revolution- comes-us-healthcare. Self -driving cars could save 21,700 lives and $447 billion per year. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara Kockelman, "Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations for Capitalizing on Self -Driven Vehicles," Eno Center for Transportation (2013), available at https://www. enotrans.org/etl-material/preparing-a-nation-for- autonomous-vehicles-opportunities-barriers-and-policy-recommendations/) The number of IoT devices worldwide will conservatively surpass 20 billion by the year 2020, (2) and this increase in connectivity stands to add roughly $2.7 trillion to U.S. GDP by 2030. �2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, may 2U1I & Ur. Michael Mandel, Progressive Policy Institute, long Perm U.S. Productivity Growth and Mobile Broadband: The Road Ahead (March 2016) available at http://www.progressivepol icy. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016.03-Mandel_Long-term-US-Productivity- Growth-and-Mobile-Broadband_The-Road-Ahead.pdf) In 2021, video will account for around 70% of mobile data traffic. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Packet Pg. 179 8.A.f Across income levels, a significant majority of Americans now have smartphones, with 64 percent of people making less than $30,000 a year and 93 percent of people earning more than $75,000 a year owning smartphones.9 And since 2011, the number of individuals making under $30,000 per year who own a smartphone has grown by42 percent. <<'JI,taI Ih VVIICICJJ Oflal zoIUl, IVIay LU I, a r-Cvv I,Csearcn uenier, ivivuiic Cdla J11UUL kidl1. I L, /-u , , ,, available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheeVmobile/) Today, just over half-50.8 percent —of American households only have a mobile voice connection.13 For Millennials, the number increases to over two-thirds who live in mobile -only households. That number is up from 10.5% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2011. (2011 uTIA Wireless �)napsnot, May 2017 & rGC, Annual Report and Analysis ui competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Nineteenth Report, DA 16-1061 (Sep. 23, 2016)) Millennials lead smartphone adoption, with 92 percent of 18-29 year olds having a smartphone, followed by 88 percent of 30-49 year olds, and 74 percent of 50-64 year olds. With respect to race, smartphone ownership cuts across the board, with approximately 72 percent of African -Americans, 75 percent of Hispanics, and 77 percent of whites in the U.S. having smartphones. (2017 CTIA Wireless Snapshot, May 2017 & Pew Research Center, "Mobile Fact Sheet" (Jan. 12, 2017), available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheeYmobile/) Teens have increased smartphone TV/video viewing 85% in 4 years. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2016) Teen usage of cellular data for smartphone video has grown 127% in 15 months. (Ericsson Mobility Report, June zu in) 76% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone (National Highway Traffic Administration, February, 2016) More than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong cellular connections (RootMetrics, June 2015) 35% of Americans reach for their smartphone first in the morning (CTIA, July 2015) Machine -to -machine connections are projected to rise from 36 million in 2013 to 263 million in 2018. (Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights 2013-2018, at "United States — 2018 Forecast Highlights and 2013 Year in Review) By 2020, more than 34 billion internet-connected devices will be installed globally — that's more than 4 devices for every human on earth. (Business Insider, May 20, 2016) 2- Packet Pg. 180 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/13/2019 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting. Attachments: 02-13-2019 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 181 OY F.➢M N pLANNN9 BOARD 7911 Extended Agenda February 13, 2019 Meeting Item FEBUARY, 2019 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change February 1. Discussion on wireless ordinance for small cell standards 13 February 1. Public Hearing on wireless ordinance for small cell standards 27 2. MARCH, 2019 March 1. City Sustainability Initiatives Presentation 13 2. Parks & Rec Quarterly Report March RETREAT 27 APRIL, 2019 April 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Map change for the Haines 10 Wharf area from Mixed -Use Commercial to Open -space. (Tentative) April 1. 24 MAY, 2019 May 1. 8 May 1. 22 a Packet Pg. 182 Rtems ana pates are 9.A.a to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2019 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) Packet Pg. 183