Loading...
2019-02-27 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 27, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of February 13, 2019 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Incorporating Small Cell Standards into the Wireless Ordinance (AMD20180010) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 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 27, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/27/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of February 13, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB190213d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 13, 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 Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles, Vice Chair (excused) Mike Rosen (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, LLC, a consulting group for AT&T, said he was present to comment on the proposed small cell updates to the wireless ordinance. He said AT&T would like to express its support for the City's efforts in updating its code and restate its commitment to work with City staff to establish workable policies for all carriers and providers. However, AT&T has significant concerns with the current draft of the wireless code update, which was passed by the City Council on February 121 as an emergency ordinance. Specifically, he identified the following: The current seven -step preference hierarchy requires that carriers locate small cells on private property. Before being allowed to locate on public right-of-way, carriers must demonstrate that it is not possible to go on private property. This requirement is more complex than other jurisdictions require and out of line with any other jurisdiction in Washington State. It would result in more clutter to the street corridor. Requiring that carriers go on private property instead of using a utility pole that could be five or six feet in the right-of-way would encourage carriers to put up poles specifically for small wireless facilities. • The draft code may conflict with the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order. Because of the shot -clock deadlines and increased complexity, it may not be possible to complete the review within the 60-day time Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a period set out by the FCC. It may also enforce burdens not applied to other types of infrastructure deployments such as cable. Mr. Busch summarized that AT&T urges the City to continue working with the industry to develop workable policies. He advised that a phone meeting has been set up for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. to go over the issues with staff. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, supported the comments made by Mr. Bush. She explained that wireless data usage has increased 40-fold since 2010, and the way people use wireless data is changing. Cell phones have become the remote controls of our lives, and the things that are connected to the data network are proliferating. More and more of our lives are becoming connected through technology via wireless data, and that is why it is critical that Edmonds has a workable code and a path forward for this technology. Verizon Wireless is grateful for the engagement that staff has had with the industry to date, but they are concerned because the interim code that was passed on February 121 is inconsistent with Federal Law and it does not provide carriers with a workable path forward for small cell wireless facilities. Verizon Wireless submitted a comment letter that was drafted by Kim Allen of the Wireless Policy Group, and they are looking forward to the meeting with staff tomorrow when they will have a detailed redline prepared to review their concerns line -by-line. She said she is a wireless network professional and a subject matter expert and would be happy to answer the Board's technical questions. She understands the topic is highly technical, and knowledge is required to determine what truly will inhibit the deployment of a technology. She summarized that Verizon's primary concerns have to do with the siting hierarchy, as well as inconsistencies with the most recent FCC order. She said they look forward to continued work with the staff to create a code that is workable for the wireless industry but maintains the character and integrity of the City's values. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. DISCUSSION OF SMALL CELL UPDATES TO WIRELESS ORDINANCE Mr. Clugston provided a map of the current wireless facilities in the City, including those on private property and within the rights -of -way. Currently there are 24 macro sites, and most are on private property. The City expects there will be dozens more macro sites over time. With multiple carriers and the level of deployment required for small cell technology, there could be 100s of small cell sites in the future, as well. He pointed out that the majority of the small cell sites will be located in residential areas, and that is why staff feels the requirements need to be different. Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed updates are on a short timeline, as local jurisdictions must have aesthetic rules in place by April 14, 2019. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance on February 121 as a starting point, recognizing that refinements would need to be made. The interim ordinance included a seven -step preference hierarchy related to location. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for February 27', and the Board could continue its public hearing and discussion to the next meeting before making a recommendation to the City Council. However, the timeline is tight. Mr. Clugston explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came out with an order last October that outlined the ability for local jurisdictions to regulate small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, local requirements must be reasonable, no more burdensome, objective and published in advance. The proposed changes outlined in Attachments 1 and 2 of the Staff Report include aesthetic standards, a master permit requirement for being in the right-of-way, and application requirements. Mr. Clugston explained that, as per the FCC's definition, a small cell facility is a support structure that is about 50 feet tall, antennas no larger than 3 cubic feet in size, and related equipment no greater than 28 cubic feet in size. He provided some examples of how the antennas and equipment might look, noting that it could be concealed, painted to match, etc. By comparison, macro facilities tend to be larger. Ms. McConnell reviewed the proposed location preference hierarchy, noting that a lot of consideration was given to what currently exists within the right-of-way and what's the best use of the right-of-way now and moving forward. There are already a lot of City facilities within the right-of-way, and they are crowded. Staff believes it is important to keep the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a remaining space available for City and public uses. While the proposed hierarchy does not exclude small cell facilities from being located in the right-of-way, it requires that providers first look at locations on private property. The interim ordinance establishes criteria that walks applicants through the process of reviewing, assessing and documenting how the proposal steps down through the hierarchy. She reviewed the proposed hierarchy as follows: • Priority 1 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure. The structures could be either commercial or single-family residential homes. Deployment of small cell facilities will be through residential neighborhoods where they are needed to transfer data and densify the demands for cellular service. • Priority 2 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way on a freestanding small cell pole. If the industry is unable to secure space by working with a private property owner, a freestanding small cell pole could be located on private property within five feet of the right-of-way line. It would be kept out of the right-of-way, but still look as though it is part of the utility corridor. This will require the carriers to work with private property owners prior to submitting an application. Board Member Monroe said he is confused about how an applicant would move through the hierarchy process. He asked if there would be a cost component associated with the application. He also asked how the City would determine whether or not a carrier has done its best to work with a private property owner. Ms. McConnell referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.50.070(H), which outlines the application process. She explained that an applicant would have to exhaust all efforts to locate on private property before being allowed to go to a lower priority of locating on public right-of-way. Chair Cheung summarized that, as currently proposed, it appears that in order to locate a small cell facility within the right- of-way, a carrier would have to obtain statements from all property owners in the area stating they will not let them locate on their property. Ms. McConnell clarified that the industry will identify areas where small cell facilities are needed to accommodate customer demand. The City is asking carriers to contact the property owner in that specific location to see if it is possible to locate on the private property. If they say no, the carrier would need to contact adjacent property owners within 150 feet in all directions. • Priority 3 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing street light pole or utility pole. An applicant would have to go through the established criteria and exhaust all efforts of locating on private property (Priorities 1 and 2) before moving to Priority 3. If it is not possible for an existing pole to accommodate a small cell facility, the pole could be replaced with a new freestanding cell pole or streetlight. This option would allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • Priority 4 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a new freestanding small cell pole or street light. If it has been determined by the Public Works Director that a street light is necessary or beneficial to the public at the location, they would ask for installation of a streetlight versus a freestanding pole. This option would also allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • Priority 5 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing Public Utility District (PUD) single-phase pole. The placement of the antenna would be on top of the pole, so there would still be a streamlined look to the pole. It would look like an extension of the pole versus something hanging off the side. Equipment would be attached to the side of the pole, and there would be conduit running up the pole. The code addresses color matching to the pole so that the conduit and external equipment blends in with the pole. Currently, the utility wires section of the Code (ECDC 18.05) is being updated with similar provisions. • Priority 6 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space). The PUD has indicated that it is not possible to locate antennas on top of transmission poles, so the antennas would be located on the side of the pole within the communication space. Equipment and conduit would be external on the pole. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 • Priority 7 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a strand -mounted installation in communication space. These facilities would actually hang on existing utility wires. As written, antennas can be hung on the wire, but equipment must be on poles. The code would not allow the installation of a strand -mounted facility on an existing wooden pole that already has a street light on it. Ms. McConnell showed a number of pictures to illustrate the clutter that is already on many of the utility poles, emphasizing that the hierarchy is intended to limit additional attachments to the existing wooden poles. She referred to the Sternberg model lighting that is currently located in the downtown core, and noted that there is a Sternberg streetlight model that would allow for containment of small cell facilities. Staff will look into this option further and contact the supplier for more information. As proposed, installations in downtown Edmonds that are not on buildings would need to be on a Sternberg type of light. To maintain the current look and feel, freestanding poles would not be allowed within the downtown core. Ms. McConnell shared pictures to illustrate the different types of installations that are possible including externally mounted antennas on existing wooden poles and streetlights. Again, she noted the extensive amount of conduit and looped wires on many of the installations and advised that the City would not allow external conduit on streetlight installations. She summarized that the code needs to be updated across the board to clean up all utilities in the City, and not just small cell facilities. Requirements will include limiting the amount of conduit, color matching, etc. Mr. Clugston said that, in addition to the location criteria, other proposed amendments are related to eligible facilities requests, permit timelines, and existing macro/monopoles. He explained that the current code references eligible facilities requests for existing approved facilities, and the proposed amendment would add a size limitation. The City receives a number of eligible facilities requests that involve swapping out a large antenna for another large antenna that is similar. Additionally, the FCC order identified time limitations for permit review, and language was added to the code describing how the shot clocks work. For example, the City has 60 days to review eligible facilities request applications, 90 days for new macro facilities that are co -located, 150 days for new macro facilities that are not co -located, 60 days for new small cell facilities that are not co -located and 90 days for small cell facilities located on new poles or structures. The clock starts at the time of application, so the City needs to make sure the application requirements are clear and something that can be met easily. There are very limited circumstances under which the City can pause the shot clock. If the City does not act within 60 days on an eligible facilities request, the application is deemed approved, which means the provider could seek a court order to get the City to move on the permit. There is no "deemed approved" provision yet for macro or small cell facilities, but he anticipates it will happen soon. Mr. Clugston advised that the City has not had problems meeting the timeline for macro facilities, but a significant amount of time will be required to review small cell facility applications. An application batching provision is provided in the code, which allows a provider to submit applications for multiple sites at one time. While there may be some efficiency in looking at multiple sites as opposed to one in a given area, it will require the City to process multiple permits at one time within the timeframe allotted. Mr. Clugston said another main focus of the update is related to new monopoles for macro facilities. The City has not received a request for a new macro facility for at least 15 years, and the proposed changes are fairly straightforward. It would eliminate the exceptions for height and setbacks and require that monopoles must meet zoning for wherever they are located. They will typically be located on commercial properties where additional height is allowed. In addition, the facilities would have to be completely concealed, providing for a cleaner look. A new macro facility would no longer require a Conditional Use Permit. Instead, it would be permitted similar to any other structure allowed in the commercial zone. Mr. Clugston summarized that staff has done its best to prepare the draft code language, recognizing the FCC's requirements yet still trying to make the code specific to Edmonds. He invited the Board Members to ask questions of either staff or the industry representatives who were present in the audience. Board Member Crank said that as she listened to last night's presentation to the City Council, as well as the staffs presentation, she has heard a lot about aesthetics, but not a lot about durability. As she thinks of the areas in Edmonds that often lose power, there might be a disconnect in the sense of making sure that people in those areas are able to use wireless data in instances of emergency. While she supports the aesthetic provisions that will result in clean lines, they may not necessarily fit in wooded, treed areas where there are a lot of private properties. There might not be appropriate locations on Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a private property for small cell facilities to locate, yet they are needed in order to provide wireless data to folks in the area. Ms. McConnell referred to the application requirements in ECDC 20.50.070(H) and explained that when looking at installations outside of the right-of-way, there are provisions written into the code where the carrier could provide an engineering and technical analysis to demonstrate that it is not feasible to locate outside of the right-of-way for these reasons. The applicant would have to submit the analysis as part of their application, and it would allow them to move down the hierarchy list and locate in an area that would be feasible for the type of technology being installed. Board Member Crank asked if this requirement would be considered extraordinary in comparison to other communities. Ms. McConnell answered that there is similar language throughout other jurisdictions, as well. Board Member Crank referred to the industry's comments about the location hierarchy and asked if the concerns are related to the levels, themselves, or the order they are in. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, responded that the hierarchy has accurately outlined the kinds of small cell facilities that exist. Their challenge to the hierarchy is that it prioritizes those that are least likely to be feasible, the most onerous to deploy, and least likely to be technically affordable. She explained that small cell facilities are typically deployed in groups of 10 to 20 at a time. Their range is a few hundred to a few thousand feet, and they are designed such that when the range drops off from one, the signal is picked up by another. They add an underlayer to the macro site network to add capacity without creating interference. To site a small cell facility on a building requires that they bring in new utility services for power and fiber and put nodes on the faces of the buildings. Ms. Vaga explained that, often with small cells, they try to provide ground level or home level capacity in groupings, and bringing in utilities and working with a landlord often pushes it right out of the area where it is cost effective to do that short of a range. The FCC's presumed reasonable attachment rate is $270 a pole, and they have master lease agreements with major pole owners in the area, including Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County PUD, and generally, small cell facilities are deployed by leasing these in groups. They also deploy them where there is already power and fiber (in the right- of-way) so they can avoid unnecessary trenching on private properties. Sometimes buildings will work, but often they won't. She is much more concerned about the requirement to site on private property next to the right-of-way and the requirement to provide documentation that the private property owners have denied their request. That means instead of working with one utility pole owner with set standards, they must work with individual property owners or provide proof that they are unwilling to work with them. The requirement makes the project much more complicated and is inconsistent with what is required in surrounding communities. It's also inconsistent with the FCC's requirements and onerous to a point where it would slow the deployment of the technology into the community of Edmonds. Generally, they work with existing infrastructure. When there are aboveground utilities, they typically site on the poles because that is where the power and fiber is. When locating in the right-of-way, there is an opportunity to point the antennas such that they serve the surrounding community more effectively than tucking them in on private properties and being held to the linear faces of buildings. Ms. Vaga said strand mounts are their most effective solution for a lot of areas, and they are the smallest compact box. Many communities are prioritizing this option. There is a challenge when siting standalone facilities in areas with overhead powerlines. If they are in the right-of-way, they interfere with the lines. If they are on private property, they have to bring the utilities to the private property, which usually disrupts the right-of-way, too. Verizon's strong preference is to work with existing infrastructure. She pointed out that having a preference first for new infrastructure as opposed to going on existing utility poles means that where they are successfully able to site them, you will see a lot more poles in and around the right-of- way and a lot more stuff that is 20 to 30 feet high. This is unnecessary, as they could use the existing infrastructure without needing to put more poles in the ground. Board Member Lovell said he read the proceedings from last night's City Council meeting. Only five members were present and the vote was 3-2 in favor of the interim ordinance. He asked staff to explain why the emergency interim ordinance was needed. Mr. Clugston said it turned out not to be an emergency ordinance because there were not enough Council Members present to vote. It will be adopted after five days. The main intent of the ordinance was to get something on the books and to have a starting point for continued discussion. Board Member Lovell asked if the application process is a new requirement in the code. Mr. Clugston said the application process was already in place for macro facilities, but the application process for small cell facilities would be a little different. The order of preferences is also different. He reviewed ECDC 20.50.050, which outlines the City's preferences for macro installations over the past 10 to 12 years. He said that, generally, these same preferences would hold for small cell facilities. Nearly all of the macro facilities in the City are building mounted, and the first priority for small cell facilities would be Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a building mounted, as well. This priority is particularly desirable in view areas such as the bowl. With the updates to the utility code in ECDC 18.05, the intent is to get utility lines underground. However, antennas for wireless need to be above ground. The intent is to balance these two needs. If it is technically unfeasible to locate on an existing structure or the landlord won't allow it, they can move to another lower priority option. Board Member Lovell asked if the requirement for a master permit is new. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. The provision already exists for other utilities within the right away via a franchise agreement, and the new provision would be specific to small cell installations. Based on the City Council's discussion, Board Member Lovell summarized that certain members of the City Council were rather upset by the fact that the City couldn't charge the utilities for putting stuff in public right-of-way and they wanted to put the small cell facilities on private properties instead. On the other hand, the utilities do not want to locate on private property because it is too expensive or there is no fiber available. They would rather locate on existing poles and infrastructure. From a practical standpoint, he suggested the City should be as strict as possible relative to the waterfront and downtown areas and less restrictive up in the residential areas and let the utilities use what works, provided it is reasonable. In reality, they are dealing with a network that the public relies on, and people do not really understand the technology. All they care about is that they get service. There seems to be a built-in conflict. He predicted that it will not be too far in the future when the City declares the downtown as a historic district, and this will make it even more difficult for any utility infrastructure to locate. There is a very strong desire to preserve the historic nature of the downtown. He expects the carriers will come back to the City with plans for locating on existing structures and poles in the right-of-way because that is where small cell facilities will work the best. Mr. Clugston agreed that is a possibility and acknowledged that locating on existing poles and structures in the right-of-way would be the easiest option for the carriers. However, he is not sure the City should allow the option quite that easily. He commented that the City anticipates redevelopment along Highway 99 that will include new, taller buildings. He questioned if they want small cell facilities located within the right-of-way along Highway 99 or if they would rather have them located on the sides of five or six -story buildings. In the downtown, they would like to see them on buildings. It becomes more of a challenge in the residential areas because there are fewer tall structures to locate on. Mr. Clugston explained that the City is not allowed to charge utilities to use the right-of-way, and there is nothing the City can do to change that situation. The question becomes, if it goes into a residential area, can the mass of units be sited in such a way to reduce the amount of impact on the right-of-way. The intent is to bury utility lines wherever possible. Perhaps in 20 years there will be fewer PUD poles with lines running off them and more freestanding poles every few hundred feet that are camouflaged. He concluded that there is no right answer, but he suggested they try the proposed siting hierarchy. If locating on private property is found to be unfeasible, the right-of-way would still be an option. Chair Cheung asked for clarification about the process an applicant would use to work with private property owners. Mr. Clugston said a lot of work still needs to be done, but the intent is to provide a letter that carriers could use when reaching out to private property owners. He is not sure exactly how the negotiations would work, and there might be some way to provide incentives to private property owners. Chair Cheung expressed his belief that the process seems complicated and could require a carrier to negotiate with dozens of property owners in one area. Some property owners might be opposed to allowing wireless facilities to locate on their homes, yet a neighbor could negotiate to have multiple facilities on top of their house because they want the money. Chair Cheung said that if a carrier can offer whatever compensation they want to a private property owner, it would seem like the providers would offer as low amount as possible, anticipating that everyone would reject the option and they will be allowed to locate in the right-of-way. He expressed his belief that it would be difficult for the City to oversee the bargaining process between a provider and a homeowner. Chair Cheung asked if multiple carriers could locate on the same pole or if their signals would interfere with each other. Rather than having separate locations for each carrier, it would be nice to have them all located on the same infrastructure. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the PUD will only allow one carrier to locate on a utility pole. Ms. Vaga explained that there are certain restrictions related to co -locating on a utility pole in terms of clearance for the different lines. The pole must also remain climbable. In addition, Verizon's target height for small cell installations is between 20 and 40 Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a feet, and pushing higher risks interference with the macro site network. As you push higher on the utility poles, you move out of the range where small cell facilities are most effective. Also, because of the different frequencies and equipment that the carriers utilize, the range of area that each small cell node covers varies. This makes it difficult to have a standard protocol for co -location. Verizon is happy to co -locate where it is feasible, but with small cell facilities, they don't find it feasible very often. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands all of the other issues being discussed, but she came to the meeting thinking the Board was limited to just discussing the design aesthetics of wireless facilities. The specific provision relative to the Sternberg model of streetlight for the downtown is a design aesthetic, as is the requirement that future monopoles must conceal the equipment. However, the provisions relative to siting and the location of the antenna and equipment on a pole are more technical than aesthetic. She commented that the City Attorney is very clear as to what influence the City can and can't have, and the documents he provided prior to the meeting indicate that the FCC requirements trump the City requirements in terms of providing the service to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the Board has not been informed about the position of the City Attorney as to what the Planning Board can and cannot do. While some issues might need attention, they might be outside of the Board's purview to discuss. Mr. Clugston said aesthetics are addressed in ECDC 20.50.130 and includes two parts: location and the actual visual appearance of the facilities. It provides different aesthetic criteria depending on the location of the installation. For example, small cell facilities located outside of the right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure (Priority 1) can be built to the maximum height of the underlying zone or use the height exception in Subsection C, provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and materials. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that she served previously on the Architectural Design Board at a time when the term "aesthetic" was like firecrackers going off throughout the City and State. Yet, she is not sure the term has ever been carefully defined. She asked if the City Attorney has deemed the proposed changes to fall into the category of aesthetics the City can regulate based on the FCC order. Mr. Clugston said staff worked close with the City Attorney to prepare the draft interim and draft ordinances, including the aesthetic components called out in ECDC 20.50.130. There are also amendments related to permitting and timelines, but the bulk of the changes are deemed aesthetics (location and appearance). Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the FCC has already decided that local jurisdictions must allow small cell facilities to locate, and the Board should keep their discussion focused strictly on the aesthetic components that the City has some control over. Small cell facilities are necessary in order to expand the network and provide the service the community desires and needs. Board Member Monroe referred to the diagram provided in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 70), which shows electrical and small cell fiber both connected at the base of the pole. He asked if it is really practical to trench fiber and electrical underground through the right-of-way, or will they likely take it off the existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said it all depends on where the fiber and power are located for the specific pole they need to attach to. Franchise agreements require that new fiber runs must be installed underground. They may attach to an existing pole, but the fiber may be underground in that location. In that case, they would come from the bottom with fiber. There may be overhead power on that same pole, so the power may be pulled from top down. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would allow aerial power and/or fiber when new facilities are connected to poles. Ms. McConnell answered that the fiber for new locations it is not installed by the industry providers and must always come from underground. Board Member Monroe observed that the additional equipment that would be added would be minimal given that all conduit must come from underground. Ms. McConnell pointed out that conduit would still run outside the pole, and antennas would be placed on the poles. The infrastructure attached to an existing wooden pole would be more intrusive compared to a hallow streetlight or freestanding pole where everything is concealed on the inside. Board Member Monroe cautioned that the camouflage that is used to help conduit blend in can often end up looking worse over time than the conduit, itself. He asked if the code addresses this issue. Ms. McConnell said the PUD requires an offset so that the pole can still be climbed. In addition, the City's code requires offsets depending on the type of pole the facility is attaching to. She referred to Item 2 in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 69), which states that equipment shall not be mounted more than 6 inches from the surface of the pole. Item 3 limits the number of conduits allowed on a pole to just two, and the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a PUD's limitation is no more than six. Board Member Monroe asked who would be responsible if a conduit deteriorates and needs to be fixed. Ms. McConnell answered that the owner of that specific equipment would be responsible. She said the goal of the proposed update is to minimize the visual impact as much as possible. . McConnell referred to the earlier concern about the dollar amount that a carrier must offer to private property owners in exchange for locating on his/her property. ECDC 20.50.130(C)(1)(b) on Packet Page 72 requires the provider to offer the FCC -approved rental amount of $270 per year or an amount equal to the per -pole annual fee charged by the PUD, whichever is greater. This section also outlines the steps a carrier would need to take before small cell facilities would be allowed to locate within the right-of-way, and the City's intent is to prepare a standardized offer letter, as well. She acknowledged that the hierarchy approach may require more work and other jurisdictions may not have the same requirements, but staff believes it is right for Edmonds. Board Member Crank asked what happens if someone changes their mind or a property is sold and the new owner no longer wants the wireless facility on their property. Is the offer letter a contract that is binding for a certain amount of time? Ms. McConnell said that is something that still needs to be addressed. Board Member Lovell asked if the City has received any public comments regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Clugston answered that there have been no public comments except those provided by representatives of the wireless industry. However, he anticipates more public input as the proposal moves forward to public hearings. Mr. Clugston advised that a public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for February 27', followed by further discussion by the Board and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. Chair Cheung summarized that the City's only ability is to direct the aesthetics, and the question is whether all of the proposed changes fall within the City's authority. This is an important consideration in order to avoid legal issues that might result if the requirements are determined to impede a carrier's ability to provide service via small cell facilities. While the City Attorney has indicated that all of the proposed changes fall within the City's purview, he would like more time to digest them and consider their potential impacts. Mr. Clugston suggested that the Board invite the City Attorney to attend the public hearing and provide his take on the proposed ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance is still in flux as staff continues to work with the industry representatives over the next few weeks. Staff is also working to address some of the administrative issues. Board Member Crank said she would like more guidance on the specific amendments that will be presented at the public hearing. She questioned if it is reasonable for the Board to just focus on aesthetics at the public hearing when there will be citizens who want to talk about things that are outside of the Board's purview. Mr. Clugston summarized that the interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council and the provisions in Attachment 1 are considered aesthetic regulations that apply to small cell facilities. He agreed that some people may be concerned about the health impacts of wireless facilities. While staff can check to make sure an applicant has met all of the FCC's requirements, the City does not have the ability to further regulate health impacts. At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, Mr. Clugston walked the Commission through the small cell code revisions that are contained in Attachment 1 starting on Packet Page 63. First, he referred to ECDC 20.50.130(A), which outlines the permitted locations for small cell facilities. As proposed, small cell attachments to buildings would be permitted in any zone and would not be subject to the dispersion requirement. The dispersion requirement would prohibit small cell wireless facilities from being located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. For example, a single landowner could not locate multiple freestanding poles next to each other. The dispersion requirement would apply to locations on PUD poles, as well. Lastly, installations in the Downtown Business District would be limited to building attachments or through the replacement or new installation of a Sternberg streetlight. Staff still needs to talk with the streetlight manufacturer to find a design that works with wireless. Next, Mr. Clugston reviewed ECDC 20.50.130(B), which outlines the proposed location hierarchy that was described in detail by Ms. McConnell earlier in the presentation. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Location Preference LA is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the roof of an existing building, and design criteria for roof -mounted installations are provided to ensure they are screened consistent with the existing building and completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. A height exception of 3 feet above the maximum height of the underlying zone is provided, as well. This height exception parallels the height exception currently allowed for chimneys. The maximum footprint of the horizontal section would be limited to 12 square feet. The total area would be 36 feet, which is sufficient to contain the antennas and equipment as per the FCC's information. Location Preference LB is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the fagade of an existing building. Criteria is provided for fagade-mounted installations to ensure that they blend with the architectural theme. New architectural features should be added to conceal the antennas. If that is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. All other equipment would have to be located within the building, screened by an existing parapet or completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. Antennas can be located on buildings that are nonconforming for height, provided they are constructed to be no taller than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Location Preference 2 is to locate on a freestanding pole on private property very near the right-of-way. A graphic was provided to illustrate what that could look like. Height would be limited to 30 feet, and the maximum height in residential zones is currently 25 feet. The provision provides size requirements for the pole, the cantenna and equipment cabinet, as well as appearance criteria that requires that the same pole be used along adjacent blocks and that equipment must be housed internal to the cabinet or hidden in the cantenna. All connections and hardware must be hidden from view, and no equipment can be attached to the outside of the pole. The pole may also provide space for co -location, which may be more of an option than with the PUD pole. The pole must be served by underground power and fiber. Placement requirements are also outlined in this section. The intent is to keep them on private property, but near to the street and side property lines. The poles must be located so they do not impede, obstruct or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular traffic or affect public safety, and they must be within 5 feet of the street or side property line. They would not be allowed in the Downtown Business District or on the front of a structure that is deemed "historic" on a federal, state or local level. Property sight lines must not be impacted and the poles must align with existing trees, utility poles and streetlights. No two freestanding poles can be located within 300 lineal feet of each other. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed size restrictions are consistent with the industry standard. Mr. Clugston answered that they were taken from codes in other jurisdictions and appear to work. However, they may need to be adjusted after staff meets with the industry representatives. Board Member Lovell asked if the carriers would have to have their equipment custom made to meet the City's particular size criteria. Mr. Clugston agreed that is likely. Rather than reviewing the details of the other location preferences again, Ms. McConnell explained that the criteria is all very similar. Concealment is desired where possible. Given the type of infrastructure that the small cell is located on, if it cannot be concealed within a pole color matching or camouflaging would be required. In addition, the number of conduits would be limited and there would be specific criteria for equipment placement. Board Member Lovell asked if there are currently any installations on hollow light poles or utility poles within the City's right-of-way or freestanding small cell poles on private property. Ms. McConnell answered that neither of these installations (diagrams on Packet Pages 64 and 65) exist in the City currently. Board Member Lovell noted that, as proposed, these two options are preferred, which means that the providers would have to have the poles fabricated in order to install the equipment shown in the diagrams. Ms. McConnell agreed but reminded the Board that staff will be meeting with industry representatives, and some of the dimensional requirements may change. Chair Cheung voiced concern that the proposed regulations try to do too much in dictating the actual design of the small cell facilities. He questioned if the City would have the ability to uphold all of the criteria if it is deemed unfeasible by the industry. Ms. McConnell said staff intends to continue to work with the industry representatives to come up with a code that works for Edmonds on the whole, but allows for small cell installations as dictated through the FCC order. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung announced that a public hearing on the Wireless Ordinance for Small Cell Standards is scheduled for February 27r''. The March 13t1i agenda includes a presentation of the City's Sustainability Initiatives and a Parks and Recreation Quarterly Report. The Board's retreat is scheduled for March 27r''. The Board discussed the possibility of moving one of the March 13' agenda items to another meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no comments from Board Members. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/27/2019 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. Report.02.22.19 Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM February 22, 2019 Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report "Keep close to Nature's heart... and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean." -John Muir Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board meets next on February 27, 2019. The agenda includes a public hearing on amending the wireless ordinance for small cell standards. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) F1 An open house in Edmonds is scheduled for March 12 to provide information and receive comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for VISION 2050. VISION 2050 is being developed as the region's long-range plan to keep the central Puget Sound region health and vibrant as it grows. It will replace VISION 2040 (https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents). Several open houses are planned around the region. The one in Edmonds is on March 12 (Tuesday) from 4 to 6 pm at the City Hall Bracket Room. F1 The PSRC Regional Staff Committee met on February 21 to discuss VISION 2050 issues for: o Environment and Climate o Development Patterns o Regional Growth Strategy Alternatives Community Transit Community Transit's evolving plans for future services and facilities will be presented at the February 26 City Council meeting. Anyone interested is welcome to attend or view the presentation online (either live or later). 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a State Legislature The State's 2019 legislative session is in full swing, with numerous bills being discussed on education, land use, housing, climate, and much more. Many of the bills will likely drop off. We will provide information later on what has survived. LOCAL PROJECTS Climate Goals Project Our city's Climate Goals project is currently focused on determining a recommendation for the climate target that Edmonds should try to achieve. The international Paris Accord recommends targeting a temperature increase of no more than 2 degrees centigrade by 2050—with a preference for 1.5 degrees C maximum. The Edmonds Citizens Climate Protection Committee is reviewing the options with City staff and the consultant. Any recommendation will get more public review. In late spring (estimated), the City Council will consider and decide on the target. Other project milestones include: ■ Greenhouse gas inventory (completed) ■ Review and recommendations for policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ■ Developing measures for tracking future greenhouse gas emissions ■ Updating the Climate Action Plan To view the City webpage set up for the project, see: climateaction.edmondswa.gov. OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB has no meeting scheduled in February. Arts Commission The Arts Commission met on February 15, with an agenda that included: ❑ Henbart project presentation ❑ Nominations ❑ Concerts ❑ Capital Projects ❑ Funding & Administration Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board met on February 21, with an agenda that included: ❑ 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. 15 5.A.a Citizens Climate Protection Committee The Committee met in early February regarding the Climate Goals project. It will not have a March meeting but will meet again in early April to further discuss a recommendation for a climate target. 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 February 20, with an agenda that included: ❑ Priorities ❑ Development Feasibility ❑ Arts/Tourism ❑ Business Attraction ❑ Liaison Updates ❑ Roundtable Discussion Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner meets next on February 28, with an agenda that includes: ❑ St. Alban's Episcopal Church is requesting a conditional use permit to allow West Edmonds Co-op Preschool to use the Church's Sunday school wing on weekdays during the school year. The parcel is zoned Single Family Residential (RS-8). ❑ Doug's Lynnwood Mazda & Hyundai is proposing additions to, and remodelling of, two existing auto sales and service buildings at the Doug's Lynnwood Mazda site. The property is zoned General Commercial (CG) and located within the Highway 99 Subarea Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting is March 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, 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 16 5.A.a 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. Tree Board The Tree Board met on February 7, with an agenda that included: ❑ Urban Forest Management Plan 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 met on February 20, with an agenda that included: ❑ Pictures for website ❑ YMCA Symposium ❑ Salmon Work Plan ❑ Gun Violence Discussion ❑ Homework City Council The City Council meeting on February 12 included: ❑ Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review —Review of draft amendments; public hearing to be scheduled ❑ Public Hearing on amending the development code to ensure that residential buildings in the downtown zones have at least one off-street parking space per unit —Adopted ❑ Public Hearing on interim ordinance for small cell standards —adopted; however, another ordinance with any refinements will be proposed for adoption by early April ❑ Crumb Rubber Moratorium extension —Approved ❑ Vacation of portion of Excelsior Place Street —Ordinance approved ❑ 2019 Carryforward budget amendments —Approved ❑ Public utility easement within property frontage of Edmonds Recovery Center on 2121" St. SW —Approved The Feb. 19 City Council meeting included: ❑ Presentation on the Marsh Study being conducted by Windward Environmental —this was a status update on the Marsh Study, which is expected to be completed by late summer 2019 41 Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a ❑ Public hearing on extension of the crumb rubber moratorium (as adopted earlier this month) —No public comments ❑ Review of the WWTP Phase 6 Energy Conservation Project (carbon recovery design) — with Council's general support for the project and concurrence to move contract approval to the next Consent Agenda ❑ Potential process changes for Council Committees —with Council concurrence for an ordinance to be drawn up to have once -a -month Council committees begin at 7:00 pm (with no full Council meetings to occur on such nights, unless a special meeting is called) and to have audio recordings of those meetings available online ❑ Housing discussion —this resulted in Council concurrence to appoint a housing commission based on representation from 7 districts, with more specific details to be refined and decided on at an upcoming Council meeting COMMUNITY CALENDAR • February 23: Clam Chowder Cook -off, 12 — 3pm, Edmonds Yacht Club • February 27 (Rescheduled): Public meeting on "Welcome to Edmonds" sign, 6pm in Plaza Meeting Room, 650 Main St. • March 1: 40t" Annual International Night, ECA, 7-9pm • March 7: State of the City Address, Edmonds Theater at 8:30 am • March 16: Diversity Commission Film, "Just Charlie", Edmonds Theater, 12pm • March 21: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown, 5pm • March 21: Music at the Library, Edmonds Plaza Room, 6:30 pm, "Los Flacos" 51 Packet Pg. 18 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/27/2019 Public Hearing on Incorporating Small Cell Standards into the Wireless Ordinance (AMD20180010) 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. On February 13, the Board reviewed and discussed the interim small cell wireless ordinance approved by Council on February 12 and scheduled a public hearing for February 27. Attachment 1 is the redlined interim ordinance. Attachment 2 is the powerpoint presenation from the 2-13 Board meeting. Attachments 3 & 4 are the minutes from the January 9 and February 13 meetings. Staff Recommendation Take public comment, discuss any refinements to the interim ordinance, and forward back to City Council. Narrative The small cell wireless discussion grew in importance after September 27, 2018 when the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) issued a ruling (Order) titled "Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment". Two summaries of the Order are attached (Attachments 5 and 6). The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for the installation of small wireless facilities. The wireless industry had been lobbying the FCC for some time about how they thought local governments weren't moving quickly enough to facilitate small cell deployment and the Order in turn places a heavy hand on local jurisdictions to ensure deployment is not only allowed, but permitted within specific time frames. While the FCC Order contains several rules that local governments must adhere to, it does provide jurisdictions an opportunity to adopt reasonable aesthetic regulations. This is one of the few areas within the FCC Order that allows the City to make decisions on how small cell deployment (installation) will occur throughout the community. As such, it is critical that the City's small cell code reflects the best approach for the Edmonds community and that the focus does not revolve around what may be best, easiest, or cheapest for the wireless industry. Edmonds has envisioned a siting prioritization that would require the industry to look first at zoned parcels (publicly or privately owned) near their small cell deployment locations rather than default to the right-of-way where the industry would prefer to be. The antennas and equipment would be concealed or camouflaged on the top or sides of buildings or inside a freestanding small cell pole about Packet Pg. 19 6.A 30' tall (on parcels outside the downtown business zones). If the industry does not receive permission from owners of zoned property to locate antennas and equipment, they can then look at locating within the right-of-way either within existing street lights or utility poles, within a freestanding small cell pole, on existing wood utility poles, or attached to utility lines. This siting prioritization provides for an aesthetic approach that seems to fit best in Edmonds, but it should be noted that it appears to put Edmonds on a somewhat unique path - stating a preference for the wireless industry to locate small cells on zoned property rather than within the right-of-way. While the industry has asserted the right-of-way is the most appropriate place to locate small cells, the FCC Order does not appear to require local governments to prioritize use of the right-of-way over zoned property for wireless deployments. The right-of-way needs to be available for small cell deployments, but it does not necessarily have to be the first choice. The hierarchy approach that has been presented to the Planning Board and Council reflects an approach that is compatible with the goals of the Edmonds community as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Culture and Urban Design element indicates: "The man-made environment is an expression of human culture and reflects, in physical form, the social values of the members of the community. The manner in which the man- made elements are integrated into the natural environment helps create the community's special characteristics and contribute to the quality of life in Edmonds." "Although utility wires are placed underground where new development takes place, overhead wires still exist in most of the older parts of the City where they interfere with views and create visual blight". Specifically for "Other Utilities" such as wireless, the Utilities Element states: New utility systems and technologies are constantly developing or evolving. Rather than being reactive, the City should seek to plan for these new services as they develop. Other Utilities Goal A. Provide for public needs while protecting the character of the community and assuring consistency with other plan goals. A.1. New technologies should be planned and carefully researched prior to developing new regulations or reviewing siting proposals. Other Utilities Goal B. Public and private utility plans should be encouraged that identify long-range system needs and that are coordinated with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8.1. All utility projects should be coordinated to provide opportunities for projects to address more than one system improvement or maintenance need. Other Utilities Goal C. Utility structures should be located whenever possible with similar types of structures to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. C.1. When such locations are not available, utility structures should be located or sited so that they are as unobtrusive as possible and are integrated with the design of their site and surrounding area. C.2. Free-standing structures should be discouraged when other siting opportunities are available. Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile have expressed concern about the City's hierarchy approach (Attachments 7 - 12). Clearly their preferred choice for locating small cell is to attach antennas and equipment to existing wood utility poles and utility wires within the City right-of-way. In discussing this topic with industry representatives, they have indicated the City's hierarchy approach will add time to their overall process and deployment would be more expensive if they have to work with private property owners as a first approach. During the Planning Board meeting on February 13, Verizon stated: "Their challenge to Packet Pg. 20 6.A the hierarchy is that it prioritizes those that are least likely to be feasible, the most onerous to deploy, and the least likely to be technically affordable" (Attachment 4, pg. 5). Allowing deployment within the right-of-way and on existing wood poles as a first approach, would limit providers negotiation efforts to the owner of the wood utility poles (PUD and Frontier in Edmonds) and in addition, associated fees would be kept low, as provided by the Order. City staff acknowledges that installation of small cell within the right-of-way may work best from the wireless industry's perspective, but this approach is not necessarily consistent with the best use of City right-of-way nor aesthetically the right approach for the community. The City's interim ordinance describes a preference for location of small cell antennas and equipment with a goal of preserving the right-of-way for other more critical uses as a first priority and in addition, provides consistency with the City's comprehensive plan goals by requiring concealment of antennas and equipment, color matching, etc., to minimize additional clutter within the community. 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. Verizon has provided some additional information related to health impacts in Attachment 13. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Approved interim wireless ordinance redline (Ord. 4141) Attachment 2 - Small Cell PB Presentation 02.13.2019 Attachment 3 - January 9, 2019 PB minutes Attachment 4 - February 13, 2019 PB minutes Attachment 5 - 2018-10-01 Bradley Telecom Advisory (New Wireless Rules) 20181001 Attachment 6 - Next Century Cities Guide -to -FCC -Small -Cell -Order Attachment 7 - Verizon comment letter 252019 PC -signed Attachment 8 - Verizon Small Cell Informational Presentation Attachment 9 - AT&T Edmonds Council Comment Letter (FINAL 02-12-2019) Attachment 10 - ATT Washington Small Cell Presentation (August 2018) Attachment 11- T-Mobile email - Striking the right balance for Small Cell regulations Attachment 12 - T-Mobile info combined Attachment 13 - Verizon regarding health impacts Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a ATTACHMENT A 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 Permit Feq uirements.Permits and shot clocks. 20.50.070 Application requirements. 20.50.080 Review +;Y,.,^ fFam^s.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 nn^,-;fir=at ^^ 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 4eve'^^m^4+ of th-c-competitive wireless communication facilities throughout "- aFketplaee in the city. The purpose of this chapter may be achieved through adherence to the following objectives: 1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property; 2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless_ communication facilities tP' ^.,.,.,.,,,ReeateeRS pFeviders and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and regulations peFtaiRiRg to p ;,I^r;. 3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the Packet Pg. 22 1 6.A.a extent fe a s i b l e 41-e, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare eeMMURitYis minimal; 4. For macro facilities, encourageE ketw ge the location of those v.4r^'^« PAMMI,n;,.-,+;^n facilities in nonresidential areas and allow m a c r o in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional requirements of the communications+^'^^A-.rnr ,,,n"..,+;^^, industry as defined by the Federal Communications Commission; 5. Minimize the total number of macro y.o*r^'^« ^MY,.,,,n;,.atiAR 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^ eFder +^ reduce eumulato ,^ 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 Ee-the ability of the providers of communications+^'^r--Rp.,..,.,,,^;eat;ons services to deploye 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.PrAvirIP a - B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code, Packet Pg. 23 2 6.A.a existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of_ wireless communication facilities+^,.,^rr, AREI ,n+^nn-,S 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 communicationservices 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 to pFehibit er to have the deployment e4ea of prehibiting peFsenal wireless communication facilities. This chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent persenal 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.^ " ease^^"'^ n^ried ef+iffle after an application for a peFFnit is duly filed, taking inte the natuFe and scope of tl�'e­ applica +sue 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. F. c,,C+ti i n 664n9 .,f +h IN41id lee r Hass Tax Relief anal I h rr -,+t. .„n nGt f 2012 n ided the wiFeless iRdHStFY with -additie-Ral flexibility regaFding modification ef existing wiFeless- teleeemmun4eatien facilities. Specifically, the eity may net deny, and shall appreve, any eligible cep, unicatee r- l.t.es must naeet- the -criteria-in ECDC 17 .40, 204. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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 Packet Pg. 24 3 6.A.a 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 aaalication in writine to the citv attornev c/o the citv 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 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 Packet Pg. 25 4 6.A.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.FeF exiStiRg Sites [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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: Packet Pg. 26 5 6.A.a 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), 20111. 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; 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 Packet Pg. 27 ■ 6.A.a 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 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, Packet Pg. 28 7 6.A.a 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. 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 ClocksPeMffit Fequirements. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct m, odify or operatemed+€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 aDDly 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 A20.50.060(B)+14. In the event of uncertainty on Packet Pg. 29 ■ 6.A.a the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The Rditi„Ral , peFFnit types refere.pee.d in Chanter ?n QI GC--Dr-- Type of Wireless /`ew. n-4ion Facility Permits Required Building Per.r.i4 C@HefiItonnal I Ice Der.r.i4 (G II � Right -of -Way Derrr.,4 Building rne-focilitiec nr focili+iec nn_Inno+e rl A.A. ao+ann appliGabl) e �77 unterl stn rSt ure A-Ir menepele New structure _ liti mounted facilities involving structure eplaG8 .,ent � app�G� Y (Type 11) � app4Gable) to obta'n additional height N8W M ele facilities (nele c n6es with height requireM8Rt of Y !oc apppk-able) the underlying zone in EGDG Title N) NeW M ele faGili+ieo /nele a e.Js maximum height of -gne in ECDC Title 191 Tahle A Building Right -of- FCC Shot Request Location Permit Required Way (ROW) Clocks for 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 in elements on private the ROW property Packet Pg. 30 I 6.A.a Table A Building Right -of- FCC Shot Request Location Permit Required Way (ROW) Clocks for 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 the ROW property New small cell facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days freestanding elements on elements in private the ROW small cell pole property Temporary facility Varies Yes, if any Yes, if any Standard elements on elements in permit private the ROW quotes property C. Timelines. 1 _ Marro cell_ The application review period beeins when all reauired 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 reauested information. 2. Small cell. The application review period begins when all required application materials have been Packet Pg. 31 10 6.A.a 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. C—.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.). F--.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. C}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 expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that Packet Pg. 32 11 6.A.a 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. a-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. J-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."'^ ^'+^r^+;^r ^r ehaRg .hall he made +^ plans ^ ed h„ +"^ , Re ORGFease to the height ef a ReRGeRfeFMORg meRepeleis a'�'^ [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.070 Application requirements. ;T,diiAR t6 t h e Y Eq r em E�1T5A-f €ED C 2 9. n � n n �� and �e��vc;A�2��t h t h iQ perm types —refe c Eel . --- Q-9.59.060, the -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 Packet Pg. 33 12 6.A.a 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 undergroundingUndeFg detail; as appnEabi ; 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.Radie 4equency emissiens FepeFt feF the r,r.,r..,sed facility, which shall net be reviewed furtheF by th ei+y-. 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 coav of the offer letter. certified mail receipts. and affidavit from apDlicant statin 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. Packet Pg. 34 13 6.A.a 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 facilitv on anv 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 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 aroaosed 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 aroposed small wireless facilitv location. as measured along the right-of-wav 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 reauired 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 sole owner denvina the reauest 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. WI.Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests. Review tiMe frames 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. Packet Pg. 35 14 6.A.a 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. 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 arocess. even if the structure was not built for the sole or orimary purpose of arovidinR 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 eauioment: 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 Packet Pg. 36 15 6.A.a 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 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. Packet Pg. 37 16 6.A.a 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 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 denv the aaalication. F. Failure to Act. In the event the Director fails to aaarove or denv a reauest 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 writine after the review Deriod has expired (accountine for anv tolline) that the aaalication has been deemed eranted. 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. A. Ce Lecated Facilities (Building and Structure Mounted). I 11 i Packet Pg. 38 17 6.A.a f;4 -* I'+' a:-P(�'GG�*!*t'meTthat -are I'rl-�"T'a'F'r e� nTSt2-ITE� rexiStiR 11 eIe h1Id R strurztyFej Epr b.. Facilities that do Onvelve the not C,,;�,e� substantial ,1neFease-On sTzefa �1- c 1 is "substantialincrease Fnen„pe . seet+e„Te'a7e;Tr Lt • .... .... I MonaW Gf1:tR.�IR:IMa:7Ei:TSZ1�G��i S not to exceed fe Ir 9 FneFe than e n+ shelter• to the be dy the that w. 1 ld l.dn fFern the the +.,weF thAp 0 feet er PAere of m ele pFetrl thap the v.oiddtlh ef the nqeRepele edge of at the level ef urtena FneFe- fee, Ai -ham r,r is exeept that the Fn Yong of the r r,r! Rqay greater, _aptenpa n=^vrn-Meleipne.pt yVeratheF E)Fte eeRAer-A the ft-e�-1♦ a t-A- t-he RqeRepeI1, v a Gaher Dv The Rqe lRt*Rg of the nrepese d -,term wei I'd *n.Xr,l Ae ,,..,--, Xat_i ,n r.11+sid_e +h euFreRt meRepele-site, de -,s the , n+ h 1,nd_ar* r f +h I ;;-;Pd Ar AWApd syFreURGIORg -fin,,.- the +A_;.AV ,r and - aeeess eF utility easemeRtS , n+Iy prepert y re.1 -pi tedP-1 is the site; er e. Pae*!*tmes that a a aFt of a .doStrahll+,,.d _aptenna s ys+,,m, n i.ded +h-,++h 8,A. peTla�i�sh l�rl-r reet the e eq; l;re e�zs Chapter 2��5-EEs�[Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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 Packet Pg. 39 6.A.a 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 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. Packet Pg. 40 19 6.A.a Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF 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 (RS) zones shall satisfy the following requirement: a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single- family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code. 2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with 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 Packet Pg. 41 20 6.A.a 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 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 21 Packet Pg. 42 6.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 the greatest extent technicallv 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). Packet Pg. 43 22 6.A.a to the in that the Femove gap service iin a manner in censideFation of values, 9bjecAives and regulatiens set feFth this chapter, this title, the least ynt wive open the suFreunding area. plan,lecated and the GempFehensive Packet Pg. 44 23 6.A.a Acceptable Monopole WCF 24 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a Unacceptable ^^^,;e-Monopole WCF m L d � V E 0 to help . al the faedit y.O i� C L d If rh f_wa h d R rgr Un.d • l,nrless pro within the right_ the eRGIeSlur must 2 ...�.�...._.._..�.� it ��....... :_ .�_ ..��.......�._:.... �...� �.. i__..�.. ��... ..�....�........�� ...�.,i__...... _.� ��... t� m gFeund, the equipment must be enelesed within an accesseFy stFuGtwe which meets the 7 IL L 4. Feed L6nes and Cea)(gal Cables. Feed must be painted te GIE)sely MatCh MOr/� W the celer scheme of the stru et a whiGh s eFts the antennas � C Cu . .. I.. T ... - . , — a I MI. MIN WIII i nelude,but -aie not limited to, the felleb"a'ing::. � 0 �■rU:rTm".% 2. _ .rrsasraamrsa. . L That Re exiStiRg MORepeles, ' ci !_ „bjeetiye (FegaFdIess « f the geegFaph*c:al be wri dari s f the eity); :a � L O N to i O O L 3 E .7.:Gi� mT3 ��T.�.ri ..�:. 7..S �G.., t�.���rS ��TiT.►�i�ilfi�7 .T.��:� TMI ------ . ...... gvm T_ That- _AA iArtP_.rAatVP teC-h, AjAPEVthhAt-cdee5Ret-Yequire—the of a —A ele is +, c ci;,sclTta �Eests��alteiT,ct+yu—tes�l; Q that exceed -Rem a eF aRtehlRa O E (euek „TeRt Shall Beet be press-imed- tA-Ted dP_. the t-P-ChR llegy URSUit hloure� and V m 4a a StrUetyrprj Arr^Qthp S+tPSvr crrtprnprtgyp to6hTnr^ollegies 6IRS61Tt bile. ER a- E t c� O r� r a Packet Pg. 46 25 6.A.a IMMEWMNSMINM. PY Ad*f*C-AtaAn0 to h„ mArin to sethaek-; ...h„n• b. The -r Reat+e .;II aid ; .ettai�pen spaGeand tFees en the site-,L-� 4--.1 n request f„r a setbac* e „nti„n shall be made at the temp th., onoto-,I nnlieat;^n is submitted. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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 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 Bain some financial benefit from the widesaread visual intrusion of wireless Packet Pg. 47 26 PY Ad*f*C-AtaAn0 to h„ mArin to sethaek-; ...h„n• b. The -r Reat+e .;II aid ; .ettai�pen spaGeand tFees en the site-,L-� 4--.1 n request f„r a setbac* e „nti„n shall be made at the temp th., onoto-,I nnlieat;^n is submitted. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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 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 Bain some financial benefit from the widesaread visual intrusion of wireless Packet Pg. 47 26 6.A.a 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. Disaersion Reauirement: 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 realacement 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 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 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 horizontal section. 2) Facade -mounted. 27 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a 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 heiiaht 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 facade or an existing parapet. Equipment may be located on a roof behind a Daraaet that is nonconformine 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 20.50.130.13.2.b. The accompanying diagram shows a typical pole and its elements. 1) Dimensional requirements a) A freestanding small cell may not exceed 30 feet in height measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna. b) The equipment cabinet must be 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 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a 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 inches in height. 2) Appearance requirements a) The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to maintain a cohesive appearance. b) All small cell carrier eauiament must be housed internal to the eauiament 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 FIBER SPLIMPULL be hidden from view. Box FINAL GRADE d) No equipment may be attached ELECTRICAL-,.,_ to the outside of the pole. CONDUIT CANTENNA UPPER POLE EQUIPMENT CABINET STANDARD FOUNDATION e) The freestanding small cell must be served by underground power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected. Mav provide saace 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 thev in no wav impede. obstruct. or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law. Packet Pg. 50 29 6.A.a 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. 9) 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; 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. 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 facilitv. 30 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.a 4) The small cell components shall be sized to be visuallv aleasina. For a combination pole to be considered visually pleasing, the transition between the eauipment 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 greater than 1.5 inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to prevent cups, trash. and other obiects from beine placed on the equipment cabinet. FIBER SPLICEIPULL Box FINAL GRADE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT CANTENNA LUMINAIRE LUMINAIRE MAST ARM UPPER POLE EQUIPMENT CABINET STANDARD ~ FOUNDATION 6) An internal divider shall separate electrical wiring and fiber, per the pole owner. 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 existine street liehts. the antenna shall either be ful 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 fullv 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. Packet Pg. 52 31 6.A.a 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. 10-feet awav from the intersection of an allev 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) Freestandine Small Cell. a) Refer to subsection 20.50.130.B.1.b for dimensional and appearance standards. b) Placement requirements. Freestanding small cells shall be located in compliance with the followi 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 reauirements. 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. iii. 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 Packet Pg. 53 32 6.A.a 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 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 awav from the intersection of an allev 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 alone the rieht-of-wav 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. Packet Pg. 54 33 6.A.a c. Location Preference #5 - Existing single-phase power pole (installation on top 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 b� 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 I.,,,CANTENNA integrated into the pole design so that it (TOP MOUNTED) appears as a continuation of the original — pole, including colored or painted to LUMINAIRE &MAST - match the pole. All cabling and ARM mounting hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the EQUIPMENT SHROUD WITH ANTENNA (SIDE pole shall be fully concealed. -:F MOUNTED) 2. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary UTILITY POLE 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 EQUIPMENT SHROUD from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole XCEL ENERGY METER WITH DISCONNECT owner. SMALLCELL FIBER 3. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the CONDUIT�L 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. 4. The visual effect of the small cell facility on all other aspects of the aaaearance of the wooden Dole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 34 Packet Pg. 55 6.A.a 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 rnntannn 6. The replacement pole shall comDly with the Citv'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 Drimary function of the Dole. If the Drimary function of a pole serving as the host site for a small cell facility becomes unnecessary, the Dole shall not be retained for the sole Duraose of accommodatine 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 Dlaced 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 of the wooden pole. 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 Dlaced more than six (6) inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner. SMALL CELL FIBER UTILITY POLE EQUIPMENT SHROUD EQUIPMENT SHROUD XCEL ENERGY METER WITH DISCONNECT ELECTRICALS+IL-�4 Packet Pg. 56 35 6.A.a 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 from the surface of the pole. unless a further distance is technicallv 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 Dole. 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 technicallv 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 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 Drovide sufficient separation and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities. 8. The replacement pole shall comply with the City's sidewalk clearance reauirements and ADA reauirements. 9. The use of the Dole for the siting of a small cell facilitv shall be considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a Dole servine as the host site for a small cell facilitv becomes unnecessarv. 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. Packet Pg. 57 36 6.A.a e. Location Preference #7 - Strand -mounted. Small cell facilities mounted on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the following standards: UTILITY POLE EQUIPMENT SHROUD EQUIPMENT SHROU❑ XCEL ENERGY 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 writinla by the pole owner. d) No strand mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the roadway open to vehicular traffic. Packet Pg. 58 37 6.A.a 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. Pole mounted eauipment shall meet the reauirements of subsections (4 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 6 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. Analvses shall be thoroueh and provide sufficient information to allow for a Third Party Review consistent with 20.50.060.J. b. Applicant/wireless provider must contact all Droaerty 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 Packet Pg. 59 IN 6.A.a 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 necessarv. 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. eauipment enclosures. and ancillary eauipment. conduit. and cable. shall not dominate the building or pole upon which they are attached. 11. The citv may consider the cumulative visual effects of small cells mounted on Doles within the rights -of -way when assessing proposed siting locations so as to not adversely Packet Pg. 60 39 6.A.a 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. The applicant and/eF ce applicant Fnay apply te alteF the terms ef a eenditienal use peFmit (CUP) by modifying specific featuFes ef the wireless eemmunicatien fac;i1ity. Such medificatieRs- must be submitted to the eity as a new CUP a plicatien. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 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]. Packet Pg. 61 40 6.A.a 20.50.150 Maintenance. A. The applicant shall maintain the wireless facility W£Pto standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or through at the tome „f gFaRtiRg a permit condition. Such maintenance shall include, but not be 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), 20111. 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 types:eutgeing Fadie 4equeney signal. Antennas include, but aFe not limited te, the fellewing ernni diFectienal (eF "whip"), direetienal (eF "panel"), paFabelie (er "dish"), and ancillary 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. "Co-Ilocation" 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. Eauipment. Anv eauipment. switches. wiriniz. cablinE. 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 Dole. fixed into the eround 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. Packet Pg. 62 41 6.A.a F-d. "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. G 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 macroFCC lieensed antennas and their associated equipment.fac es. Antenna(s) Pnay be extewally mounted (visible antenna) eF inteFnally rneuRted (Re visible +,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 su000rting 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. 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 Packet Pg. 63 42 6.A.a 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 radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule. �P. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications+^'^P-^mm--PoeatmeRS services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct- to -home satellite services. t--.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. M-.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. N-.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. QT. "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. �LU. "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. Q7 ._"Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment Packet Pg. 64 43 6.A.a ancillary to a wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors. A-M. "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. S-X."Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications i,,,.,,,,.,,,.,,,n;,.atiens 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]. Packet Pg. 65 44 D tl4i111C4iiiri7i'kwilimWiT66ih�ri7it4iliT4/!«AdiTt February 13, 2019 0 a Packet Pg. 66 Aink Mk@b99 Current macro sites... 24 Future macro sites... dozens more? Future small cell sites... 1000s? - City of Edmonds t Wireless Facilftles Wireless Facility Q FLOW Private Zoning (SaEJ Single Family Multi Family - {Ommaroal Parks and Open Spare Ia 'S ' =MEN ■ EREL 3 a do ■ i a wAnd A Af f Packet Pg. 67 a 6.A.b ■ 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 U a L O m tM S a Packet Pg. 68 6.A.b 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) U IL L O m tM S IL Packet Pg. 69 1 6.A.b By definition: ■ Height — 50 feet +/- ■ Each antenna — 3 cubic feet ■ Equipment — 28 cubic feet f Antenna Equipment U IL L O m C C C a . FJ 4, ' Packet Pg. 70 ➢ 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) 6.A.b U IL L O m tM S IL Packet Pg. 71 Locate on existing structures 6.A.b U IL L O m tM S C C M IL 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. 72 1 i I I 0-i *ir --� Installation on single phase power pole Cantenna in line with pole External conduit External equipment Packet Pg. 74 0 a O Installation on transmission power pole - Antenna in communications space - External conduit - External equipment Antenna Equipment a Packet Pg. 75 1 6.A.b tea-, ow- 1. law a L O m tM S C C M a Strand -mounted facilities - Installation on an existing pole - Antenna in the communications space - External equipment Packet Pg. 76 1 nepsa- MAx�NG CiY,ES 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 Packet Pg. 77 0 a F-�Qo W�-po _' yr L� LI Co ruo Mrr@— � o a a L O m 01 C .0 R a 0 N J M N O � O 1 � R C d N - � L - a m IL � � N C n Ili.. -y1■1tog t Packet Pg. 78 0 6.A.b ■ Eligible Facility Requests ■ Permit Timelines —'Shot Clocks' ■ New Monopoles (Macro) U IL L O m tM S IL Packet Pg. 80 6.A.b For size -limited changes to existing, approved wireless facilities ■ Change should not defeat original concealment or camo strategy ■ Codify existing references into 20.50.080 U a Packet Pg. 81 i 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 s.,4.b Request Location Required Permit Permit Required Review `-' a Eligible facilities request Existing Yes, if on Yes, if in 60 days 0 approved WCF private ROW c property a New macro facility Collocation Yes, if any Yes, if any 90 days N elements on elements inCM r private the ROW property _ ° c New macro facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any 150 days a monopole elements on elements in a private the ROW property co N New small cell facility Collocation Yes, if on Yes, if any 60 days private elements in property the ROW Q New small cell facility New structure or Yes, if any Yes, if any D 90 days freestanding elements on elements in small cell pole private the ROW property Packet Pg. 82 6.A.b 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 - Future monopole installations must be shrouded U a Packet Pg. 83 6.A.c 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. 84 6.A.c 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. 85 6.A.c 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. 86 6.A.c • 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. 87 6.A.c 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. 88 6.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 13, 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 Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles, Vice Chair (excused) Mike Rosen (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, LLC, a consulting group for AT&T, said he was present to comment on the proposed small cell updates to the wireless ordinance. He said AT&T would like to express its support for the City's efforts in updating its code and restate its commitment to work with City staff to establish workable policies for all carriers and providers. However, AT&T has significant concerns with the current draft of the wireless code update, which was passed by the City Council on February 121 as an emergency ordinance. Specifically, he identified the following: The current seven -step preference hierarchy requires that carriers locate small cells on private property. Before being allowed to locate on public right-of-way, carriers must demonstrate that it is not possible to go on private property. This requirement is more complex than other jurisdictions require and out of line with any other jurisdiction in Washington State. It would result in more clutter to the street corridor. Requiring that carriers go on private property instead of using a utility pole that could be five or six feet in the right-of-way would encourage carriers to put up poles specifically for small wireless facilities. • The draft code may conflict with the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order. Because of the shot -clock deadlines and increased complexity, it may not be possible to complete the review within the 60-day time Packet Pg. 89 6.A.d period set out by the FCC. It may also enforce burdens not applied to other types of infrastructure deployments such as cable. Mr. Busch summarized that AT&T urges the City to continue working with the industry to develop workable policies. He advised that a phone meeting has been set up for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. to go over the issues with staff. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, supported the comments made by Mr. Bush. She explained that wireless data usage has increased 40-fold since 2010, and the way people use wireless data is changing. Cell phones have become the remote controls of our lives, and the things that are connected to the data network are proliferating. More and more of our lives are becoming connected through technology via wireless data, and that is why it is critical that Edmonds has a workable code and a path forward for this technology. Verizon Wireless is grateful for the engagement that staff has had with the industry to date, but they are concerned because the interim code that was passed on February 121 is inconsistent with Federal Law and it does not provide carriers with a workable path forward for small cell wireless facilities. Verizon Wireless submitted a comment letter that was drafted by Kim Allen of the Wireless Policy Group, and they are looking forward to the meeting with staff tomorrow when they will have a detailed redline prepared to review their concerns line -by-line. She said she is a wireless network professional and a subject matter expert and would be happy to answer the Board's technical questions. She understands the topic is highly technical, and knowledge is required to determine what truly will inhibit the deployment of a technology. She summarized that Verizon's primary concerns have to do with the siting hierarchy, as well as inconsistencies with the most recent FCC order. She said they look forward to continued work with the staff to create a code that is workable for the wireless industry but maintains the character and integrity of the City's values. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. DISCUSSION OF SMALL CELL UPDATES TO WIRELESS ORDINANCE Mr. Clugston provided a map of the current wireless facilities in the City, including those on private property and within the rights -of -way. Currently there are 24 macro sites, and most are on private property. The City expects there will be dozens more macro sites over time. With multiple carriers and the level of deployment required for small cell technology, there could be 100s of small cell sites in the future, as well. He pointed out that the majority of the small cell sites will be located in residential areas, and that is why staff feels the requirements need to be different. Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed updates are on a short timeline, as local jurisdictions must have aesthetic rules in place by April 14, 2019. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance on February 121 as a starting point, recognizing that refinements would need to be made. The interim ordinance included a seven -step preference hierarchy related to location. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for February 27', and the Board could continue its public hearing and discussion to the next meeting before making a recommendation to the City Council. However, the timeline is tight. Mr. Clugston explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came out with an order last October that outlined the ability for local jurisdictions to regulate small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, local requirements must be reasonable, no more burdensome, objective and published in advance. The proposed changes outlined in Attachments 1 and 2 of the Staff Report include aesthetic standards, a master permit requirement for being in the right-of-way, and application requirements. Mr. Clugston explained that, as per the FCC's definition, a small cell facility is a support structure that is about 50 feet tall, antennas no larger than 3 cubic feet in size, and related equipment no greater than 28 cubic feet in size. He provided some examples of how the antennas and equipment might look, noting that it could be concealed, painted to match, etc. By comparison, macro facilities tend to be larger. Ms. McConnell reviewed the proposed location preference hierarchy, noting that a lot of consideration was given to what currently exists within the right-of-way and what's the best use of the right-of-way now and moving forward. There are already a lot of City facilities within the right-of-way, and they are crowded. Staff believes it is important to keep the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 90 6.A.d remaining space available for City and public uses. While the proposed hierarchy does not exclude small cell facilities from being located in the right-of-way, it requires that providers first look at locations on private property. The interim ordinance establishes criteria that walks applicants through the process of reviewing, assessing and documenting how the proposal steps down through the hierarchy. She reviewed the proposed hierarchy as follows: • Priority 1 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure. The structures could be either commercial or single-family residential homes. Deployment of small cell facilities will be through residential neighborhoods where they are needed to transfer data and densify the demands for cellular service. • Priority 2 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way on a freestanding small cell pole. If the industry is unable to secure space by working with a private property owner, a freestanding small cell pole could be located on private property within five feet of the right-of-way line. It would be kept out of the right-of-way, but still look as though it is part of the utility corridor. This will require the carriers to work with private property owners prior to submitting an application. Board Member Monroe said he is confused about how an applicant would move through the hierarchy process. He asked if there would be a cost component associated with the application. He also asked how the City would determine whether or not a carrier has done its best to work with a private property owner. Ms. McConnell referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.50.070(H), which outlines the application process. She explained that an applicant would have to exhaust all efforts to locate on private property before being allowed to go to a lower priority of locating on public right-of-way. Chair Cheung summarized that, as currently proposed, it appears that in order to locate a small cell facility within the right- of-way, a carrier would have to obtain statements from all property owners in the area stating they will not let them locate on their property. Ms. McConnell clarified that the industry will identify areas where small cell facilities are needed to accommodate customer demand. The City is asking carriers to contact the property owner in that specific location to see if it is possible to locate on the private property. If they say no, the carrier would need to contact adjacent property owners within 150 feet in all directions. • Priority 3 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing street light pole or utility pole. An applicant would have to go through the established criteria and exhaust all efforts of locating on private property (Priorities 1 and 2) before moving to Priority 3. If it is not possible for an existing pole to accommodate a small cell facility, the pole could be replaced with a new freestanding cell pole or streetlight. This option would allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • Priority 4 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a new freestanding small cell pole or street light. If it has been determined by the Public Works Director that a street light is necessary or beneficial to the public at the location, they would ask for installation of a streetlight versus a freestanding pole. This option would also allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • Priority 5 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing Public Utility District (PUD) single-phase pole. The placement of the antenna would be on top of the pole, so there would still be a streamlined look to the pole. It would look like an extension of the pole versus something hanging off the side. Equipment would be attached to the side of the pole, and there would be conduit running up the pole. The code addresses color matching to the pole so that the conduit and external equipment blends in with the pole. Currently, the utility wires section of the Code (ECDC 18.05) is being updated with similar provisions. • Priority 6 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing PUD transmission pole (installation in communication space). The PUD has indicated that it is not possible to locate antennas on top of transmission poles, so the antennas would be located on the side of the pole within the communication space. Equipment and conduit would be external on the pole. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 91 6.A.d • Priority 7 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a strand -mounted installation in communication space. These facilities would actually hang on existing utility wires. As written, antennas can be hung on the wire, but equipment must be on poles. The code would not allow the installation of a strand -mounted facility on an existing wooden pole that already has a street light on it. Ms. McConnell showed a number of pictures to illustrate the clutter that is already on many of the utility poles, emphasizing that the hierarchy is intended to limit additional attachments to the existing wooden poles. She referred to the Sternberg model lighting that is currently located in the downtown core, and noted that there is a Sternberg streetlight model that would allow for containment of small cell facilities. Staff will look into this option further and contact the supplier for more information. As proposed, installations in downtown Edmonds that are not on buildings would need to be on a Sternberg type of light. To maintain the current look and feel, freestanding poles would not be allowed within the downtown core. Ms. McConnell shared pictures to illustrate the different types of installations that are possible including externally mounted antennas on existing wooden poles and streetlights. Again, she noted the extensive amount of conduit and looped wires on many of the installations and advised that the City would not allow external conduit on streetlight installations. She summarized that the code needs to be updated across the board to clean up all utilities in the City, and not just small cell facilities. Requirements will include limiting the amount of conduit, color matching, etc. Mr. Clugston said that, in addition to the location criteria, other proposed amendments are related to eligible facilities requests, permit timelines, and existing macro/monopoles. He explained that the current code references eligible facilities requests for existing approved facilities, and the proposed amendment would add a size limitation. The City receives a number of eligible facilities requests that involve swapping out a large antenna for another large antenna that is similar. Additionally, the FCC order identified time limitations for permit review, and language was added to the code describing how the shot clocks work. For example, the City has 60 days to review eligible facilities request applications, 90 days for new macro facilities that are co -located, 150 days for new macro facilities that are not co -located, 60 days for new small cell facilities that are not co -located and 90 days for small cell facilities located on new poles or structures. The clock starts at the time of application, so the City needs to make sure the application requirements are clear and something that can be met easily. There are very limited circumstances under which the City can pause the shot clock. If the City does not act within 60 days on an eligible facilities request, the application is deemed approved, which means the provider could seek a court order to get the City to move on the permit. There is no "deemed approved" provision yet for macro or small cell facilities, but he anticipates it will happen soon. Mr. Clugston advised that the City has not had problems meeting the timeline for macro facilities, but a significant amount of time will be required to review small cell facility applications. An application batching provision is provided in the code, which allows a provider to submit applications for multiple sites at one time. While there may be some efficiency in looking at multiple sites as opposed to one in a given area, it will require the City to process multiple permits at one time within the timeframe allotted. Mr. Clugston said another main focus of the update is related to new monopoles for macro facilities. The City has not received a request for a new macro facility for at least 15 years, and the proposed changes are fairly straightforward. It would eliminate the exceptions for height and setbacks and require that monopoles must meet zoning for wherever they are located. They will typically be located on commercial properties where additional height is allowed. In addition, the facilities would have to be completely concealed, providing for a cleaner look. A new macro facility would no longer require a Conditional Use Permit. Instead, it would be permitted similar to any other structure allowed in the commercial zone. Mr. Clugston summarized that staff has done its best to prepare the draft code language, recognizing the FCC's requirements yet still trying to make the code specific to Edmonds. He invited the Board Members to ask questions of either staff or the industry representatives who were present in the audience. Board Member Crank said that as she listened to last night's presentation to the City Council, as well as the staffs presentation, she has heard a lot about aesthetics, but not a lot about durability. As she thinks of the areas in Edmonds that often lose power, there might be a disconnect in the sense of making sure that people in those areas are able to use wireless data in instances of emergency. While she supports the aesthetic provisions that will result in clean lines, they may not necessarily fit in wooded, treed areas where there are a lot of private properties. There might not be appropriate locations on Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.d private property for small cell facilities to locate, yet they are needed in order to provide wireless data to folks in the area. Ms. McConnell referred to the application requirements in ECDC 20.50.070(H) and explained that when looking at installations outside of the right-of-way, there are provisions written into the code where the carrier could provide an engineering and technical analysis to demonstrate that it is not feasible to locate outside of the right-of-way for these reasons. The applicant would have to submit the analysis as part of their application, and it would allow them to move down the hierarchy list and locate in an area that would be feasible for the type of technology being installed. Board Member Crank asked if this requirement would be considered extraordinary in comparison to other communities. Ms. McConnell answered that there is similar language throughout other jurisdictions, as well. Board Member Crank referred to the industry's comments about the location hierarchy and asked if the concerns are related to the levels, themselves, or the order they are in. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, responded that the hierarchy has accurately outlined the kinds of small cell facilities that exist. Their challenge to the hierarchy is that it prioritizes those that are least likely to be feasible, the most onerous to deploy, and least likely to be technically affordable. She explained that small cell facilities are typically deployed in groups of 10 to 20 at a time. Their range is a few hundred to a few thousand feet, and they are designed such that when the range drops off from one, the signal is picked up by another. They add an underlayer to the macro site network to add capacity without creating interference. To site a small cell facility on a building requires that they bring in new utility services for power and fiber and put nodes on the faces of the buildings. Ms. Vaga explained that, often with small cells, they try to provide ground level or home level capacity in groupings, and bringing in utilities and working with a landlord often pushes it right out of the area where it is cost effective to do that short of a range. The FCC's presumed reasonable attachment rate is $270 a pole, and they have master lease agreements with major pole owners in the area, including Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County PUD, and generally, small cell facilities are deployed by leasing these in groups. They also deploy them where there is already power and fiber (in the right- of-way) so they can avoid unnecessary trenching on private properties. Sometimes buildings will work, but often they won't. She is much more concerned about the requirement to site on private property next to the right-of-way and the requirement to provide documentation that the private property owners have denied their request. That means instead of working with one utility pole owner with set standards, they must work with individual property owners or provide proof that they are unwilling to work with them. The requirement makes the project much more complicated and is inconsistent with what is required in surrounding communities. It's also inconsistent with the FCC's requirements and onerous to a point where it would slow the deployment of the technology into the community of Edmonds. Generally, they work with existing infrastructure. When there are aboveground utilities, they typically site on the poles because that is where the power and fiber is. When locating in the right-of-way, there is an opportunity to point the antennas such that they serve the surrounding community more effectively than tucking them in on private properties and being held to the linear faces of buildings. Ms. Vaga said strand mounts are their most effective solution for a lot of areas, and they are the smallest compact box. Many communities are prioritizing this option. There is a challenge when siting standalone facilities in areas with overhead powerlines. If they are in the right-of-way, they interfere with the lines. If they are on private property, they have to bring the utilities to the private property, which usually disrupts the right-of-way, too. Verizon's strong preference is to work with existing infrastructure. She pointed out that having a preference first for new infrastructure as opposed to going on existing utility poles means that where they are successfully able to site them, you will see a lot more poles in and around the right-of- way and a lot more stuff that is 20 to 30 feet high. This is unnecessary, as they could use the existing infrastructure without needing to put more poles in the ground. Board Member Lovell said he read the proceedings from last night's City Council meeting. Only five members were present and the vote was 3-2 in favor of the interim ordinance. He asked staff to explain why the emergency interim ordinance was needed. Mr. Clugston said it turned out not to be an emergency ordinance because there were not enough Council Members present to vote. It will be adopted after five days. The main intent of the ordinance was to get something on the books and to have a starting point for continued discussion. Board Member Lovell asked if the application process is a new requirement in the code. Mr. Clugston said the application process was already in place for macro facilities, but the application process for small cell facilities would be a little different. The order of preferences is also different. He reviewed ECDC 20.50.050, which outlines the City's preferences for macro installations over the past 10 to 12 years. He said that, generally, these same preferences would hold for small cell facilities. Nearly all of the macro facilities in the City are building mounted, and the first priority for small cell facilities would be Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 93 6.A.d building mounted, as well. This priority is particularly desirable in view areas such as the bowl. With the updates to the utility code in ECDC 18.05, the intent is to get utility lines underground. However, antennas for wireless need to be above ground. The intent is to balance these two needs. If it is technically unfeasible to locate on an existing structure or the landlord won't allow it, they can move to another lower priority option. Board Member Lovell asked if the requirement for a master permit is new. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. The provision already exists for other utilities within the right away via a franchise agreement, and the new provision would be specific to small cell installations. Based on the City Council's discussion, Board Member Lovell summarized that certain members of the City Council were rather upset by the fact that the City couldn't charge the utilities for putting stuff in public right-of-way and they wanted to put the small cell facilities on private properties instead. On the other hand, the utilities do not want to locate on private property because it is too expensive or there is no fiber available. They would rather locate on existing poles and infrastructure. From a practical standpoint, he suggested the City should be as strict as possible relative to the waterfront and downtown areas and less restrictive up in the residential areas and let the utilities use what works, provided it is reasonable. In reality, they are dealing with a network that the public relies on, and people do not really understand the technology. All they care about is that they get service. There seems to be a built-in conflict. He predicted that it will not be too far in the future when the City declares the downtown as a historic district, and this will make it even more difficult for any utility infrastructure to locate. There is a very strong desire to preserve the historic nature of the downtown. He expects the carriers will come back to the City with plans for locating on existing structures and poles in the right-of-way because that is where small cell facilities will work the best. Mr. Clugston agreed that is a possibility and acknowledged that locating on existing poles and structures in the right-of-way would be the easiest option for the carriers. However, he is not sure the City should allow the option quite that easily. He commented that the City anticipates redevelopment along Highway 99 that will include new, taller buildings. He questioned if they want small cell facilities located within the right-of-way along Highway 99 or if they would rather have them located on the sides of five or six -story buildings. In the downtown, they would like to see them on buildings. It becomes more of a challenge in the residential areas because there are fewer tall structures to locate on. Mr. Clugston explained that the City is not allowed to charge utilities to use the right-of-way, and there is nothing the City can do to change that situation. The question becomes, if it goes into a residential area, can the mass of units be sited in such a way to reduce the amount of impact on the right-of-way. The intent is to bury utility lines wherever possible. Perhaps in 20 years there will be fewer PUD poles with lines running off them and more freestanding poles every few hundred feet that are camouflaged. He concluded that there is no right answer, but he suggested they try the proposed siting hierarchy. If locating on private property is found to be unfeasible, the right-of-way would still be an option. Chair Cheung asked for clarification about the process an applicant would use to work with private property owners. Mr. Clugston said a lot of work still needs to be done, but the intent is to provide a letter that carriers could use when reaching out to private property owners. He is not sure exactly how the negotiations would work, and there might be some way to provide incentives to private property owners. Chair Cheung expressed his belief that the process seems complicated and could require a carrier to negotiate with dozens of property owners in one area. Some property owners might be opposed to allowing wireless facilities to locate on their homes, yet a neighbor could negotiate to have multiple facilities on top of their house because they want the money. Chair Cheung said that if a carrier can offer whatever compensation they want to a private property owner, it would seem like the providers would offer as low amount as possible, anticipating that everyone would reject the option and they will be allowed to locate in the right-of-way. He expressed his belief that it would be difficult for the City to oversee the bargaining process between a provider and a homeowner. Chair Cheung asked if multiple carriers could locate on the same pole or if their signals would interfere with each other. Rather than having separate locations for each carrier, it would be nice to have them all located on the same infrastructure. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the PUD will only allow one carrier to locate on a utility pole. Ms. Vaga explained that there are certain restrictions related to co -locating on a utility pole in terms of clearance for the different lines. The pole must also remain climbable. In addition, Verizon's target height for small cell installations is between 20 and 40 Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.d feet, and pushing higher risks interference with the macro site network. As you push higher on the utility poles, you move out of the range where small cell facilities are most effective. Also, because of the different frequencies and equipment that the carriers utilize, the range of area that each small cell node covers varies. This makes it difficult to have a standard protocol for co -location. Verizon is happy to co -locate where it is feasible, but with small cell facilities, they don't find it feasible very often. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands all of the other issues being discussed, but she came to the meeting thinking the Board was limited to just discussing the design aesthetics of wireless facilities. The specific provision relative to the Sternberg model of streetlight for the downtown is a design aesthetic, as is the requirement that future monopoles must conceal the equipment. However, the provisions relative to siting and the location of the antenna and equipment on a pole are more technical than aesthetic. She commented that the City Attorney is very clear as to what influence the City can and can't have, and the documents he provided prior to the meeting indicate that the FCC requirements trump the City requirements in terms of providing the service to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the Board has not been informed about the position of the City Attorney as to what the Planning Board can and cannot do. While some issues might need attention, they might be outside of the Board's purview to discuss. Mr. Clugston said aesthetics are addressed in ECDC 20.50.130 and includes two parts: location and the actual visual appearance of the facilities. It provides different aesthetic criteria depending on the location of the installation. For example, small cell facilities located outside of the right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure (Priority 1) can be built to the maximum height of the underlying zone or use the height exception in Subsection C, provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and materials. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that she served previously on the Architectural Design Board at a time when the term "aesthetic" was like firecrackers going off throughout the City and State. Yet, she is not sure the term has ever been carefully defined. She asked if the City Attorney has deemed the proposed changes to fall into the category of aesthetics the City can regulate based on the FCC order. Mr. Clugston said staff worked close with the City Attorney to prepare the draft interim and draft ordinances, including the aesthetic components called out in ECDC 20.50.130. There are also amendments related to permitting and timelines, but the bulk of the changes are deemed aesthetics (location and appearance). Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the FCC has already decided that local jurisdictions must allow small cell facilities to locate, and the Board should keep their discussion focused strictly on the aesthetic components that the City has some control over. Small cell facilities are necessary in order to expand the network and provide the service the community desires and needs. Board Member Monroe referred to the diagram provided in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 70), which shows electrical and small cell fiber both connected at the base of the pole. He asked if it is really practical to trench fiber and electrical underground through the right-of-way, or will they likely take it off the existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said it all depends on where the fiber and power are located for the specific pole they need to attach to. Franchise agreements require that new fiber runs must be installed underground. They may attach to an existing pole, but the fiber may be underground in that location. In that case, they would come from the bottom with fiber. There may be overhead power on that same pole, so the power may be pulled from top down. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would allow aerial power and/or fiber when new facilities are connected to poles. Ms. McConnell answered that the fiber for new locations it is not installed by the industry providers and must always come from underground. Board Member Monroe observed that the additional equipment that would be added would be minimal given that all conduit must come from underground. Ms. McConnell pointed out that conduit would still run outside the pole, and antennas would be placed on the poles. The infrastructure attached to an existing wooden pole would be more intrusive compared to a hallow streetlight or freestanding pole where everything is concealed on the inside. Board Member Monroe cautioned that the camouflage that is used to help conduit blend in can often end up looking worse over time than the conduit, itself. He asked if the code addresses this issue. Ms. McConnell said the PUD requires an offset so that the pole can still be climbed. In addition, the City's code requires offsets depending on the type of pole the facility is attaching to. She referred to Item 2 in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 69), which states that equipment shall not be mounted more than 6 inches from the surface of the pole. Item 3 limits the number of conduits allowed on a pole to just two, and the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.d PUD's limitation is no more than six. Board Member Monroe asked who would be responsible if a conduit deteriorates and needs to be fixed. Ms. McConnell answered that the owner of that specific equipment would be responsible. She said the goal of the proposed update is to minimize the visual impact as much as possible. . McConnell referred to the earlier concern about the dollar amount that a carrier must offer to private property owners in exchange for locating on his/her property. ECDC 20.50.130(C)(1)(b) on Packet Page 72 requires the provider to offer the FCC -approved rental amount of $270 per year or an amount equal to the per -pole annual fee charged by the PUD, whichever is greater. This section also outlines the steps a carrier would need to take before small cell facilities would be allowed to locate within the right-of-way, and the City's intent is to prepare a standardized offer letter, as well. She acknowledged that the hierarchy approach may require more work and other jurisdictions may not have the same requirements, but staff believes it is right for Edmonds. Board Member Crank asked what happens if someone changes their mind or a property is sold and the new owner no longer wants the wireless facility on their property. Is the offer letter a contract that is binding for a certain amount of time? Ms. McConnell said that is something that still needs to be addressed. Board Member Lovell asked if the City has received any public comments regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Clugston answered that there have been no public comments except those provided by representatives of the wireless industry. However, he anticipates more public input as the proposal moves forward to public hearings. Mr. Clugston advised that a public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for February 27', followed by further discussion by the Board and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. Chair Cheung summarized that the City's only ability is to direct the aesthetics, and the question is whether all of the proposed changes fall within the City's authority. This is an important consideration in order to avoid legal issues that might result if the requirements are determined to impede a carrier's ability to provide service via small cell facilities. While the City Attorney has indicated that all of the proposed changes fall within the City's purview, he would like more time to digest them and consider their potential impacts. Mr. Clugston suggested that the Board invite the City Attorney to attend the public hearing and provide his take on the proposed ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance is still in flux as staff continues to work with the industry representatives over the next few weeks. Staff is also working to address some of the administrative issues. Board Member Crank said she would like more guidance on the specific amendments that will be presented at the public hearing. She questioned if it is reasonable for the Board to just focus on aesthetics at the public hearing when there will be citizens who want to talk about things that are outside of the Board's purview. Mr. Clugston summarized that the interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council and the provisions in Attachment 1 are considered aesthetic regulations that apply to small cell facilities. He agreed that some people may be concerned about the health impacts of wireless facilities. While staff can check to make sure an applicant has met all of the FCC's requirements, the City does not have the ability to further regulate health impacts. At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, Mr. Clugston walked the Commission through the small cell code revisions that are contained in Attachment 1 starting on Packet Page 63. First, he referred to ECDC 20.50.130(A), which outlines the permitted locations for small cell facilities. As proposed, small cell attachments to buildings would be permitted in any zone and would not be subject to the dispersion requirement. The dispersion requirement would prohibit small cell wireless facilities from being located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. For example, a single landowner could not locate multiple freestanding poles next to each other. The dispersion requirement would apply to locations on PUD poles, as well. Lastly, installations in the Downtown Business District would be limited to building attachments or through the replacement or new installation of a Sternberg streetlight. Staff still needs to talk with the streetlight manufacturer to find a design that works with wireless. Next, Mr. Clugston reviewed ECDC 20.50.130(B), which outlines the proposed location hierarchy that was described in detail by Ms. McConnell earlier in the presentation. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.d Location Preference LA is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the roof of an existing building, and design criteria for roof -mounted installations are provided to ensure they are screened consistent with the existing building and completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. A height exception of 3 feet above the maximum height of the underlying zone is provided, as well. This height exception parallels the height exception currently allowed for chimneys. The maximum footprint of the horizontal section would be limited to 12 square feet. The total area would be 36 feet, which is sufficient to contain the antennas and equipment as per the FCC's information. Location Preference LB is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the fagade of an existing building. Criteria is provided for fagade-mounted installations to ensure that they blend with the architectural theme. New architectural features should be added to conceal the antennas. If that is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. All other equipment would have to be located within the building, screened by an existing parapet or completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. Antennas can be located on buildings that are nonconforming for height, provided they are constructed to be no taller than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Location Preference 2 is to locate on a freestanding pole on private property very near the right-of-way. A graphic was provided to illustrate what that could look like. Height would be limited to 30 feet, and the maximum height in residential zones is currently 25 feet. The provision provides size requirements for the pole, the cantenna and equipment cabinet, as well as appearance criteria that requires that the same pole be used along adjacent blocks and that equipment must be housed internal to the cabinet or hidden in the cantenna. All connections and hardware must be hidden from view, and no equipment can be attached to the outside of the pole. The pole may also provide space for co -location, which may be more of an option than with the PUD pole. The pole must be served by underground power and fiber. Placement requirements are also outlined in this section. The intent is to keep them on private property, but near to the street and side property lines. The poles must be located so they do not impede, obstruct or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular traffic or affect public safety, and they must be within 5 feet of the street or side property line. They would not be allowed in the Downtown Business District or on the front of a structure that is deemed "historic" on a federal, state or local level. Property sight lines must not be impacted and the poles must align with existing trees, utility poles and streetlights. No two freestanding poles can be located within 300 lineal feet of each other. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed size restrictions are consistent with the industry standard. Mr. Clugston answered that they were taken from codes in other jurisdictions and appear to work. However, they may need to be adjusted after staff meets with the industry representatives. Board Member Lovell asked if the carriers would have to have their equipment custom made to meet the City's particular size criteria. Mr. Clugston agreed that is likely. Rather than reviewing the details of the other location preferences again, Ms. McConnell explained that the criteria is all very similar. Concealment is desired where possible. Given the type of infrastructure that the small cell is located on, if it cannot be concealed within a pole color matching or camouflaging would be required. In addition, the number of conduits would be limited and there would be specific criteria for equipment placement. Board Member Lovell asked if there are currently any installations on hollow light poles or utility poles within the City's right-of-way or freestanding small cell poles on private property. Ms. McConnell answered that neither of these installations (diagrams on Packet Pages 64 and 65) exist in the City currently. Board Member Lovell noted that, as proposed, these two options are preferred, which means that the providers would have to have the poles fabricated in order to install the equipment shown in the diagrams. Ms. McConnell agreed but reminded the Board that staff will be meeting with industry representatives, and some of the dimensional requirements may change. Chair Cheung voiced concern that the proposed regulations try to do too much in dictating the actual design of the small cell facilities. He questioned if the City would have the ability to uphold all of the criteria if it is deemed unfeasible by the industry. Ms. McConnell said staff intends to continue to work with the industry representatives to come up with a code that works for Edmonds on the whole, but allows for small cell installations as dictated through the FCC order. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.e I Bradley To: Interested Clients TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY From: Mike Bradley, Michael Athay and Vince Rotty Re: New Federal Small Wireless Facilities Rules for State and Local Governments Date: October 1, 2018 The FCC released a new 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 the installation of small wireless facilities on public property and other property located inside and outside the public rights -of -way ("ROW"). The FCC did not address whether the Order applies to local government agencies, such as a municipal utility that is legally independent from the municipality, as well as to the municipality itself. The rules are based on a new FCC interpretation of Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. New Federal Test to Determine Reasonable Small Wireless Facilities Fees The FCC has developed three criteria to determine whether fees related to collocating small wireless facilities inside and outside the ROW in state and local government statutes and ordinances comply with Sections 253 and 332(c)(7). Fees are presumed "reasonable" under these Sections if- ' The Order can be found at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-facilitates-wireless-infrastructure-deployment-5g 2 The FCC in 47 CFR 1.6002(1) defines Small Wireless Facilities as follows: Small wireless facilities, consistent with section 1.1312(e)(2), are facilities that meet each of the following conditions: (1) The facilities— (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas as defined in section 1.1320(d), or are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or (iii) 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 associated antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in section 1.1320(d)), is no 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 part 17 of this chapter; (5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and (6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in section 1.1307(b). Bradley Berkland Hagen & Herbst, LLC 2145 Woodlane Drive I Suite 106 I Woodbury, MN 55125 I (651) 379-0900 I BradleyLawMN.co Packet Pg. 98 6.A.e • Test for Reasonable Small Wireless Facilities Fees o Approximation of Cost. Fees Must Be a Reasonable Approximation of the State or Local Government's Actual and Reasonable Costs; o Objectively Reasonable. Only "Objectively Reasonable" Costs are Factored into those Fees; and o Nondiscriminatory. The fees are No Higher than the Fees Charged to Similarly - Situated Competitors in Similar Situations. This new cost -based test applies to the following types of fees: • ROW access fees; • Fees for the use of government property in the ROW, such as o Light Poles; o Traffic Lights; o Utility Poles; o Other similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities. • Application or review fees and similar fees imposed by a state or local government as part of their regulation of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities inside and outside the ROW Order at ¶ 50. Presumably Reasonable Fees — De Facto Caps The FCC has found the following to be presumptively fair and reasonable cost -based fees under Sections 253(c) and not an effective prohibition under Sections 253 and 332(c)(7). The FCC states these new presumptively reasonable fees were based on its review of its pole attachment rate formula, as well as small cell legislation in twenty states, local legislation from certain municipalities in states that have not passed small cell legislation, and comments in the record. Order at ¶¶ 78-79. Subject to the limited exception described below, these fees appear intended to cap wireless facility fees. • Non -Recurring Application Fees. o Single Application. $500 for a single up -front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities; o Additional Applications. An additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, or o New Pole. $1,000 for non -recurring fees for a new pole (i.e., not a collocation) intended to support one or more Small Wireless Facilities • Recurring Fees o $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees, ■ Includes any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally -owned structures in the ROW. 2 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.e Authority to Charge Higher Fees The FCC recognized that there are "limited circumstances" in which a locality could prevail in charging fees that exceed the FCC's presumptively reasonable fees by showing that such fees are • A Reasonable Approximation of Costs, • Those Costs Themselves are Reasonable, and • The Fees Are Non -Discriminatory. According to the FCC, this allows "localities to charge fees above [the foregoing] levels upon this showing [and] recognizes local variances in costs." Order at ¶ 80. These fees are set at 2018 dollar values. It would seem reasonable for these fees to increase over time in accordance with the local consumer price index. Of course, there are other local factors that may be considered to justify fees higher than the FCC's presumptively reasonable fees. Aesthetics Requirements Sharply Limited The FCC also addressed aesthetic considerations related to small wireless facilities. Aesthetics requirements are not preempted if they are • Reasonable • No More Burdensome than those Applied to Other Types of Infrastructure Deployments • Objective • Published in Advance. Aesthetic requirements that are reasonable, technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out -of -character deployments are also permissible. Aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible. Order at ¶¶ 84-90. 6 Month Deadline to Publish Aesthetics Requirements. The FCC directed that local governments that wish to establish and publish compliant aesthetic standards must do so no longer than 180 days after publication of the Order in the Federal Register. Order at ¶ 89. Undergrounding Many local jurisdictions have adopted undergrounding provisions that require infrastructure to be deployed below ground based, at least in some circumstances, on the locality's aesthetic concerns. The FCC recognized that these requirements may well be permissible under state law as a general matter. However, such requirements must also survive Packet Pg. 100 6.A.e the provisions of Section 253. Order at 190. Specifically, the following would not survive Section 253 and are therefore preempted: • Effective Prohibition. A requirement that all wireless facilities be deployed underground would amount to an "effective prohibition" on deployment under Section 253 given the propagation characteristics of wireless signals.3 Materially Inhibits Wireless Service. A requirement that materially inhibits wireless service, even if it does not go so far as requiring that all wireless facilities be deployed underground, also would be considered an effective prohibition of service. Thus, the same criteria discussed above in the context of aesthetic requirements generally would apply to state or local undergrounding requirements. Minimum Spacing Requirements Some local governments require the spacing of small wireless facilities installations be sited at least 100, 500, or 1,000 feet, or some other minimum distance, away from other facilities, "ostensibly to avoid excessive overhead "clutter" that would be visible from public areas." Order at ¶ 91. The FCC acknowledged that such requirements may be reasonable aesthetic requirements. Id. To be compliant with Section 253, these requirements must be reviewed under the same standards for aesthetic requirements as those discussed above. Id. Local Governments Acting in their Regulatory Capacity The FCC determined in the Order that state and local governments act within their regulatory capacity, rather than their proprietary capacity, when acting on small wireless facility permitting applications. The provisions here described therefore apply to local government terms for access to public ROW that they own or control, and to their terms for use of or attachment to government -owned property within the ROW, such as light poles, traffic lights, utility poles, "and similar property suitable for hosting Small Wireless Facilities." See Order at ¶¶ 92-97. New 332(c)(7) Shot Clocks Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7), the FCC created two new shot clocks for local government action on small wireless facilities. Order at ¶¶ 104-112. • New 332(c)(7) Small Wireless Facilities Shot Clocks o Collocation Application — 60 days o New Structure Application — 90 days 3 The FCC noted agreement with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observation that, "[i]f an ordinance required, for instance, that all facilities be underground and the plaintiff introduced evidence that, to operate, wireless facilities must be above ground, the ordinance would effectively prohibit it from providing services." See Sprint Telephony PCS LP v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 580 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Order at ¶ 90. M Packet Pg. 101 6.A.e These shot clocks apply to both single and batched applications. Order at ¶ 114. And they apply to all local government authorizations required of the applicant. Order at ¶ 144. Any state law shot clocks remain effective. That is, the remedies provided in the Order are "independent of, and in addition to, any remedies that may be available under state or local law, and "an applicant may pursue any such remedies where the siting authority fails to act within those shot clocks." However, the applicant must wait until the shot clock period provided in the Order has expired to bring suit (as described below) for a "failure to act." See Order at ¶ 147. Tolling for Incomplete Small Wireless Facilities Applications The shot clock rules do recognize to a degree that siting applications must be complete to be considered. For small cell applications, shot clocks are reset, not tolled, if the municipality notifies the applicant within 10 days after submission that the application is incomplete. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the shot clock would toll —not reset —if the siting authority provides written notice within 10 days that a supplemental submission did not provide the requested information. See Order at ¶ 143. • New Small Wireless Tolling Rules o Review Application for Completeness - 10 Days o Shot Clock Reset — Upon Submittal of Requested Information While the FCC encouraged pre -application discussions between an applicant and local government, it found that mandatory pre -application procedures and requirements do not toll the shot clocks. See Order at ¶¶ 145-146. Remedies for Failing to Comply with Shot Clocks The FCC identified expedited judicial review and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as the remedies for violation of the rules provided in the Order, including shot clocks. Order at ¶ 121. Note that the Order does not provide for a "deemed granted" remedy — i.e. failure to comply with shot clocks (or other provisions) does not automatically result in the application being deemed to be granted without the municipality's decision. Existing 332(c)(7) Macrocell Shot Clocks Clarified The FCC clarified that the shot clocks provided in Section 332(c)(7) in a separate 2009 FCC Order did not relate to small cell wireless facilities. In this Order, the FCC codified those shot clocks and clarified that they relate to macrocell wireless facilities. Order at ¶ 139; 47 CFR 1.6001-1.6003. • Macrocell Shot Clock o Collocation Applications — 90 days o New Structure Applications — 150 days 5 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.e Impact on Existing Agreements The FCC did not expressly exempt or "grandfather" existing agreements from this Order Order at ¶ 66. The Order's effect on any particular existing agreement will depend upon all the facts and circumstances of that specific case. Id. "Without examining the particular features of an agreement, including any exchanges of value that might not be reflected by looking at fee provisions alone, we cannot state that today's decision does or does not impact any particular agreement entered into before this decision." Id. Effective Date The Order is effective 90 days following publication in the Federal Registration. Order at ¶ 153. Recommendation We recommend that all local governments review their existing small wireless ordinances, regulations and practices for compliance with this new FCC Order. We further recommend all local governments immediately begin developing and adopting written aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities since the Order requires they be published within 180 days of the publication of the Order in the Federal Register. Please let us know if you need our assistance in understanding the Order and its application to your jurisdiction, or in reviewing and modifying your existing ordinances, regulations and regulatory processes to comply with the Order. Disclaimer This advisory is a publication of Bradley Berkland Hagen & Herbst, LLC. Our purpose in publishing this advisory is to inform our clients and friends of recent legal developments. It is not intended, nor should it be used, as a substitute for specific legal advice as legal counsel may only be given in response to inquiries regarding particular situations. 0 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.f December 20, 2018 Summary of Final FCC Small Cell Order Next _Century Cities Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84 Prepared in collaboration with Mark Del Bianco, Principal, Law Office of Mark C. Del Bianco DISCLAIMER: This document is intended to be a tool for education and information. It offers a summary of the FCC order. This document is not intended to provide legal advice, or to be a legal analysis or a comprehensive list of all potential outcomes of this order. We offer this information for reference purposes only, as a starting point for analysis by interested parties. At its September 2018 open meeting, the FCC adopted a report and order (collectively, the "Order") in its ongoing proceeding to streamline the rollout of infrastructure for broadband services, including small cells for 4G and 5G wireless service.[i] This summary addresses the effect of the Order on the issues of most importance to NCC members that have or are considering enacting small cell ordinances, or have or will be negotiating agreements with carriers or infrastructure providers such as Mobilitie or Crown Castle. The Order has two parts: (1) an new set of regulations (the "Rules") that govern shot clocks and other limited aspects of the rollout of small wireless facilities (a/k/a "small cells") and (2) a Declaratory Ruling that does not enact any new regulations but is the FCC's interpretation of how the provisions of Section 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act that limit state or local regulations that "effectively prohibit" the provision of wireless services should be applied.[ii] The Declaratory Ruling portion of the Order adopts the position that a state or local government need only "materially inhibit" a particular small wireless facility deployment in order for its action to constitute an "effective prohibition" under Section 253 or 332(c)(7). Based on this conclusion, the Declaratory Ruling provides guidance on fees local governments may charge and on how they may regulate ancillary rollout issues such as tower spacing, equipment design and other aesthetic concerns. In lay terms, this means the FCC is making it easier for private companies to take local governments to court if they believe municipal policies are effectively prohibiting network investment. Packet Pg. 104 6.A.f Key Takeaways from the Order • The Order is a blatant effort by the FCC to strengthen the hand of carriers in negotiations with local governments over small cell deployment and to limit the ability of local governments to negotiate in the public interest around small cells. • The good news is that the FCC has left local governments with some power and flexibility to enact reasonable regulations governing small cell deployments. With the right approach and partner, local governments have a higher hill to climb but can still negotiate win -win outcomes that benefit carriers while addressing citizens' concerns. • Local governments should immediately take proactive steps to maintain their leverage in possible negotiations with carriers. • Local governments should move expeditiously to enact zoning and other regulations to address issues of importance to their community. These may include application processing cost recovery, antenna design, location and spacing, additional pole and equipment aesthetic requirements, and other factors of local concern. • In particular, setting out and standardizing aesthetic requirements, including pre - approval of antenna, equipment cabinet and street furniture designs where appropriate, will make it easier for local governments to process applications reasonably expeditiously and to defend challenged siting decisions or failures to meet shot clock deadlines. Key Issues for Members What types of facilities does the Order apply to? The Order applies to all types of facilities used to provide wireless services. There are specific shot clock and other rules that govern certain small wireless facilities, i.e., generally those less than 50 feet tall and on which the antenna size is less than 3 cubic feet. What happens if a local government already has an agreement with a carrier or infrastructure provider that covers small wireless facilities? The FCC did not address whether existing agreements are preempted by the Order. While existing agreements were not explicitly grandfathered, there is no obvious means of voiding them. The result is that local governments should be able to keep existing agreements. In order to preempt existing agreements involving private parties, the FCC would have to make certain findings that doing so was in the public interest. It did not do so in the Order. Further evidence that the FCC did not intend to preempt existing agreements is its expressed intent in the Order to facilitate "mutually agreed solutions." Packet Pg. 105 6.A.f • Any attempt to preempt an existing agreement would require the carrier to file a lawsuit against the municipality, which seems very unlikely. • Even if a carrier filed a case, we do not believe it would be able to convince a court to void a freely negotiated commercial agreement. Going forward, can a local government negotiate new agreements with carriers or infrastructure providers? If so, are there issues that cannot be addressed in an agreement? Yes, local governments can still negotiate with carriers and infrastructure providers. Nothing in the Order preempts local governments' ability to negotiate future agreements in order to provide a mutually acceptable process for deployment of small cells.[iii] However, the Rules and presumptions created by the Order give carriers more leverage when negotiating with local governments and reduce the ability of local governments to enact regulations that achieve desirable outcomes when carriers are unwilling to engage in good faith negotiations, or to negotiate at all. The Declaratory Ruling provides guidance on some parameters of the deployment of small cells, including such factors as the cost, aesthetic requirements and location, but it does not prohibit local governments or carriers from reaching their own arrangements on these or any other factors. This means that if a local government wants to follow the Lincoln model of offering very rapid permitting in return for fees higher than the FCC sets, it may still do so. Are there limits on the amounts that local governments can charge for small cell application and use fees? • There is a presumed safe harbor for application and use fees, but no specific cap on fees. • The safe harbor amounts are (a) $500 for a single up -front application that includes up to five Small Wireless Facilities, with an additional $100 for each Small Wireless Facility beyond five, and (b) $270 per Small Wireless Facility per year for all recurring fees, including any possible ROW access fee or fee for attachment to municipally -owned structures in the ROW. • The FCC views these amounts as safe harbors because it believes they are low enough that no carrier would challenge them if they were imposed unilaterally in a local government's regulations. • Nothing in the Order prevents a local government from charging higher fees. However, under the FCC's framework, if a carrier files a lawsuit challenging the fees imposed by a local government, the burden would be on the local government to demonstrate that the amount is a reasonable approximation of its costs and that its costs are reasonable. • The FCC did not specify a methodology for calculating cost, or what expenses could be included. • We believe that the revenue -reducing effect of a cost -based methodology will be much greater for usage fees than for application fees, because usage fees are recurring. Packet Pg. 106 6.A.f Can a local government require in -kind contributions or set application or use fees at levels to achieve social goals such as closing the digital divide? If a court were to accept the FCC conclusion that fees must be cost -based, local governments would not be able to require in -kind contributions or set application or usage fees above cost. Local governments can still negotiate agreements containing provisions for non - cost -based fees (as San Jose and Honolulu did), but the Order attempts to remove most of a local government's negotiating leverage on these issues, so there will now be little incentive for a provider to agree to do so. What are the new application shot clocks? The Rules create four new shot clocks: § Collocation of small wireless facilities: Local government has 60 days to act upon to an application § Collocation of facilities other than small wireless facilities: 90 days. § Construction of new small wireless facilities: 90 days. § Construction of new facilities other than small wireless facilities: 150 days. The Rules also provide for the resetting or pausing of the shot clock when a local government determines that an application is incomplete. If a municipality determines that an application is materially incomplete within ten day of filing and notifies the applicant of the deficiencies, the shot clock restarts when the completed application is filed. In order to prevent last minute "pausing" of the shot clock by local governments, an incompleteness determination must be made by the 30th day after an application is filed, and within 10 days after resubmission if a re -submitted application is still incomplete. What is the legal effect of the new shot clocks? • The shot clock deadlines have no direct legal effect. • If an application is not acted on within the deadline, nothing happens unless a carrier either commences a formal complaint proceeding at the FCC or files a case in state or federal court. In either case, the carrier would have to demonstrate that the failure to act on the application amounts to an "effective prohibition" on wireless service under Section 253 or 332. • Either process will take months, perhaps years. • The Order recognizes that the shot clock is only a presumption, and that local governments have the ability to demonstrate to a court that the delay is reasonable under the circumstances. • If a court finds that a shot clock violation is an effective prohibition, it will most likely order the local government simply to make a decision by a specific date in the near future; a court is very unlikely to order a local government to grant a specific application. • We believe that carriers prefer certainty and rather than litigate over a few shot clock violations will be willing to negotiate a reasonable time for guaranteed local government action on applications. Packet Pg. 107 6.A.f Do different shot clock deadlines apply when multiple applications are filed at the same time (batched)? • No. • However, the FCC acknowledged that batched applications could strain local governments' resources and potentially justify a failure to meet shot clock deadlines.[iv] • We believe that in any carrier lawsuit that was based on a failure to meet the shot clock deadlines on a large batch of applications, a court would be very sympathetic to a local government's argument that the batch application had caused a legitimate overload on its permitting resources. What types of local government permits/authorizations do the new shot clocks apply to? The Rule applies to any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify wireless service facilities, including a zoning permit, a building permit, an electrical permit, a road closure permit, and an architectural or engineering permit. The Order does not specify whether or how the shot clocks apply to requests to use light poles and other government facilities, whether located in or outside the right of way. May a local government still take aesthetics into account in its small cell zoning regulations? • Yes. • Aesthetic requirements must be reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to similar types of infrastructure deployments (e.g., equipment cabinet size and color requirements would need to be similar to those for telco or cable company cabinets), and published in advance.[v] May a local government require minimum spacing between small wireless facilities? • Yes. The Order considers spacing requirements to be a subset of aesthetics requirements, and thus subject to same standard. • The Order gives no guidance on what might be a reasonable spacing distance. What if a local government has an undergrounding requirement for all utilities? Regulations requiring all utility facilities (including antennas) to be placed underground would effectively prohibit wireless services because antennas have to be placed above ground in order to function. Regulations requiring all wireless equipment other than antennas to be placed underground would be permissible, so long as they are applied on a non- discriminatory basis to other service providers, e.g. telco and cable companies. It is not clear what sorts of poles or other above ground antenna facilities a local government would have to allow access to in order to avoid being considered "effectively prohibiting wireless service." Packet Pg. 108 6.A.f Bottom Line • This order significantly diminishes local decision making, but does not eliminate it. • Local governments cannot say no to all small cell antennas within specific neighborhoods or other areas of their communities. • Local governments can charge more than the recommended permitting fees and annual fees, but may have to show how the fees correlate with the local government's cost for managing the permitting and right of way. • The order decreases a community's capacity to receive recompense for the use of their right of way that is in excess of the cost of managing that right of way. • Local governments that are prepared by proactively putting in place policies and procedures will be able to retain some local control. • If you have an existing agreement, we believe it will be hard for a vendor to justify a request to change that agreement and it seems unlikely that the courts would side with them. • There will very likely be court challenges to this order. Important Tips and Action Steps • ANTENNA PLACEMENT - you cannot say no to any antennas on poles in an area. However, you can say no to a specific placement as long as there is a reasonable alternative. • UNDERGROUND - you cannot require that all of this infrastructure be placed underground, but you may be able to require that all but the antenna be placed underground. However, if you are planning to do so, you must do so for ALL utilities and you must have an ordinance in place. • STREET FURNITURE - you can require that street furniture have a certain aesthetic and a setback from the street (for both aesthetic and public safety reasons, such as to prevent loss of parking due to inability to open car doors). You must have an ordinance in place that applies to ALL utilities' street furniture in the local government's right of way. • SHROUDING - You can require a certain aesthetic for certain neighborhoods and certain types of poles. If these requirements are in place in advance of a carrier approaching you, you are less likely to experience push back and your position will be more defensible if challenged in court. • PERMITTING - The time to revise and organize your permitting process is now. If your permitting process includes a plan to adhere to the shot clocks in the order, you will more likely be able to meet them. • SHOT CLOCK DEADLINES - The deadlines may be difficult to meet, but there is NO DEEMED GRANTED provision in this order. Batch permitting may be particularly problematic for local governments as the scope of such requests can overwhelm a permitting department, but if you work in good faith, keep the carrier updated, and are still unable to meet the deadline, it is likely the carrier will work with you. If instead they take you to court, your due diligence and proactive efforts will work in your favor. • APPLICATION COSTS - The costs listed in the order are for guidance. If you stay at or below them, your fees very likely will not be challenged in court. However, you can charge more if you have evidence that your costs are higher. Packet Pg. 109 6.A.f Including your engineering costs, permitting staff costs, and post -installation inspection costs may justify a higher application fee. If those costs are reasonable, the fee is unlikely to be challenged and if challenged, will likely be upheld even under the FCC's test. ANNUAL ROW FEE - If at or below the cost specified by the order ($270/year), this fee will very likely be unchallenged by carriers. If higher, a court may require the local government to justify the fee as being directly related to cost. NEGOTIATING - Remember that one of the single most valuable characteristics of your permitting from the carrier perspective is predictability. If you can give a high degree of certainty that permits will be finished in a predictable manner, carriers will be much more willing to negotiate for higher fees or more public interest requirements than those set by the FCC. Frequently Asked Questions What happens if a municipality is in negotiations with a carrier and they demand that the agreement provisions on such issues as fees, spacing and aesthetic requirements follow the "guidelines" in the FCC small cell Order? In that case, the municipality has two or perhaps three options. First, the municipality can capitulate to the carrier's claims about what the Order requires. Obviously, we do not believe any municipality should do so. The second option is for the municipality to abandon the negotiation process and instead act unilaterally to adopt an ordinance, a set of regulations or a model franchise agreement (if it has a franchising process in place) that it believes is consistent with the desires of its residents and at the same time presents a low (and thus acceptable) risk of a court challenge. If a municipality has already negotiated a small cell facility agreement with one or more carriers/infrastructure providers, it has a third option. It can adopt an ordinance or draft a template agreement reflecting essentially the same terms as the executed agreement. In either case, it becomes much more difficult (albeit not impossible) for other carriers to challenge the model agreement or ordinance on its face because it contains essentially the same terms that the first carrier has already agreed do not effectively prohibit it from providing a wireless service. What are municipalities doing to prepare for the Jan 13 deadline? Most NCC members seem to be either negotiating agreements with carriers, taking unilateral steps to develop and put in place a process for consideration of applications to place small cell wireless facilities, or doing both simultaneously. If a municipality enters into an agreement with a carrier and then the Order is overturned, is the municipality stuck with the agreement? The answer in general is yes. No municipality is required to enter into any agreement with a carrier or infrastructure provider. If a municipality does so voluntarily, it will almost certainly be held to the terms of the agreement by a court. However, a municipality might be able to resolve this problem by including in the agreement a clause voiding the agreement or requiring its modification, in the event of a regulatory change (including the Packet Pg. 110 6.A.f overturning of the Order). Many types of telecommunications agreements contain such regulatory change clauses because parties recognize that the wording or scope of specific provisions in the agreement has been dictated by the then -existing telecommunications regulatory scheme, and should be changed if the regulations change. If a municipality enacts an ordinance and then the Order is overturned, can it adjust the ordinance? Yes. However, unless the original ordinance specifically permits retroactive application of aesthetic or other requirements, existing wireless facilities approved under the first ordinance may be effectively grandfathered. Almost certainly, neither application nor usage fee increases could be applied retroactively. What is the risk if a municipality does not have an ordinance in place prior to the Jan 13 deadline? The only risk we are aware of for a municipality that has no process in place to consider applications for placement of small cell wireless facilities is the risk that it will be sued in state or federal court by a carrier arguing that the failure constitutes a municipality action that "effectively prohibits" it from providing wireless service. In the short term (say 180 days after January 13), there is very little risk that a carrier will bring such a lawsuit. There is little benefit to a carrier in doing so. The only relief a carrier could get in such a case would be an order requiring the municipality to enact an ordinance within a certain period of time. A court could not order the placement of specific antennas or create its own process for a municipality to follow. If a municipality is taking observable public steps to develop an ordinance, a lawsuit is unlikely and it is even more unlikely that a judge would rule against a municipality. In the longer term (say after mid-2019), the risk of a lawsuit will increase and it becomes less defensible for a municipality not to have an approval process in place (or at least publicly in development). That is why we recommend that municipalities publicly begin developing a process for small cell facility regulation now. Doing so will allow adequate time for consideration of all the issues and the development of a policy that reflects residents' concerns, while at the same time providing for placement of infrastructure for the next generation of wireless services. The Order identifies application and usage fee amounts that are neither caps nor safe harbors, but simply what the FCC believes are levels at which carriers will not file legal challenges. What local government usage fees are covered by these FCC "guidelines"? The Order identifies $270 per year as a presumptively reasonable annual usage fee. This covers the right to attach an antenna to a pole or other facility and to locate associated equipment nearby. But if a municipality is providing not just the right to place antennas on municipally -owned poles, but ancillary facilities or services (such as access to electricity, existing underground ducts and underground casements at each pole), the FCC fee "guidelines" do not apply and the municipality can set the usage fees at any level it wishes. Municipalities should not be misled by carriers falsely claiming that the FCC's $270 annual usage fee includes anything other than the right to mount an antenna on a pole and put equipment nearby. Packet Pg. 111 6.A.f Does the Order impose non-discrimination requirements, i.e., does it require municipalities to treat wireless carriers the same as they treat electric companies, cable companies or other utilities? No. The non-discrimination requirements identified in the Order are the FCC's interpretations of the language of Sections 253 and 332(C)(7), and are limited in scope. Section 253(a) addresses only state or local government actions (including discrimination) that effectively prohibit "any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," while Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) is even narrower: only actions that effectively prohibit "personal wireless services," which is a small subset of telecommunications service. Thus, Section 253 only limits discrimination between providers of "telecommunications service," and the only type of discrimination that could potentially be problematic under Section 332(C)(7) would discrimination between "competing wireless services." Therefore, the Order does not (and the FCC could not) prohibit discrimination in fees, aesthetic requirements and application requirements as between wireless carriers and companies that do not provide "telecommunications service," a category that includes not only traditional utilities, but also cable companies and even wireline broadband Internet access providers (which under current FCC rules are not providers of telecommunications services). How does the Order's interpretation of the "effective prohibition" language affect the ability of localities to regulate the number or location of small cell wireless antennas? If a carrier has full geographic coverage already, can a locality require it to justify the need to add additional capacity? In the Small Cell Order, the FCC reaffirmed its interpretation that a locality can violate the "effective prohibition" language of Sections 253 and 332 by enacting regulations that merely "materially inhibit" the ability of wireless carriers to provide services. It specifically included in this category local regulations that affect carriers' ability to densify their networks or to add capacity to their networks. If this interpretation survives on appeal, then it would be unlikely that a locality could successfully defend a broad regulation that required a carrier to justify every requested small cell facility placement. However, NCC believes that a regulation that allows for reasonable rollout of small cell facilities based on objective criteria that reflect community concerns would be consistent with the FCC's interpretation. Such a regulation should not be seen as "materially inhibiting" any carrier's ability to offer its services, so long as a reasonable number of potential wireless facility locations would be available under the objective criteria. Such a regulation would be even more defensible if it has a "safety valve" that allows a carrier to meet capacity needs by allowing for placement of additional wireless facilities that do not meet the objective criteria. The regulation could even place the burden on the carrier to demonstrate the need for any additional non -compliant facility. A single "safety valve" decision would involve a limited geographic area and would be fact -specific, and should not be challengeable as a "material inhibition" on provision of wireless service in the locality. Jul Packet Pg. 112 6.A.f Endnotes [i] Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79; WC Docket No. 17-84 (the "Order"). [ii] 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." Section 332(c)(7) provides that gghe 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." [iii] However, parts of the Declaratory Ruling and even the proposed Rules acknowledge the ability of local governments and carriers to negotiate outcomes different from those envisioned in the Declaratory Ruling. For example, with regard to proposals to allow local governments to implement best practices or an informal dispute resolution process, the FCC stated "Although we do not at this time adopt these proposals, we note that the steps taken in this order are intended to facilitate cooperation between parties to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. For example, as explained below, mutual agreement between the parties will toll the running of the shot clock period, thereby allowing parties to resolve disagreements in a collaborative, instead of an adversarial, setting." Order, ¶ 127. That reference is to proposed 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(d), which allows local governments and carriers to agree to toll (i.e., lengthen) the shot clock period for any type of wireless facility. Similarly, nothing in the Declaratory Ruling prohibits local governments from reaching agreements with carriers and infrastructure providers that contain provisions fleshing out (or even departing from) the broad FCC guidelines on cost, aesthetic requirements, antenna location and other factors. [iv] The FCC noted that under its "approach, in extraordinary cases, a siting authority, as discussed below, can rebut the presumption of reasonableness of the applicable shot clock period where a batch application causes legitimate overload on the siting authority's resources. Thus, contrary to some localities' arguments, our approach provides for a certain degree of flexibility to account for exceptional circumstances. The siting authority then will have an opportunity to rebut the presumption of effective prohibition by demonstrating that the failure to act was reasonable under the circumstances and, therefore, did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing new services or improving existing services. Order, ¶¶ 110-112. [v] The Order's discussion of the first two factors is brief and provides little guidance: [A]esthetic requirements that are reasonable in that they are reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out -of -character deployments are also permissible. In assessing whether this standard has been met, aesthetic requirements that are more burdensome than those the state or locality applies to similar infrastructure deployments are not permissible, because such discriminatory Packet Pg. 113 6.A.f application evidences that the requirements are not, in fact, reasonable and directed at remedying the impact of the wireless infrastructure deployment. Order, ¶ 84. Packet Pg. 114 6.A.g 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. 115 6.A.g 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. 116 6.A.g 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. 117 6.A.g 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. 118 6.A.g 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. 119 6.A.g 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. 120 6.A.g 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. 121 6.A.g 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. 122 6.A.g 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. 123 6.A.g 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. 124 6.A.g 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. 125 6.A.g 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. 126 6.A.h Verizon Small Cell Program L M O m S M a 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. 127 What is a Small Cell? Macrocell 1 .... .... .... ■. Small Cells ... �.� Bonn OIL a11i BB■■ a UA M Vef izorV Packet Pg. 128 Why the Need? From 2010 — 2016: Mobile data useQ35 times 52%+ American Households Wireless -only Average American Household: 13 Connected Devices 0 m verizon I Packet Pg. 129 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 l� 0 m verizonv' Packet Pg. 130 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. 131 0 Why Deploy Small Cell? Gaps in Coverage Terrain Challenges Tall Buildings Large Areas Residential M O ca IM M a verizoW I Packet Pg. 132 Small vs. Macro Cell - Install 1 to 3 Small Antennas (less than 3 cubic feet) Small Radio Enclosure No Ground Cabinets M O m a 3 to 12 Large Antenna (averaging 6 to 8 feet tal a 4 to 6 Large Cabinets on Adjacent Property verizom' I Packet Pg. 133 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 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 'd verizoW I Packet Pg. 134 Small vs. Macro Cell - Pole Height Smal=Cell Macro Cell Tim aRAD M O ca IM M a verizon Packet Pg. 135 Small Cell Components Fiber & Coax Conduit Power Conduit Power Disconnect Antennas Dark Fiber (leased from 3rd party) Radios & Fiber Termination Bo) 0 m verizon Packet Pg. 136 L I" 4- At- :� qp AP -04 �-aRo VA �. . % _ ,� Ilk -Ts ,i t r•. :v�r`{��� �4i i d f �dray� �� �� �1• a� _. a ..... �p� � .� , r. k+� � .�.�� ..,pis„ •. Q. �. ,� ; , ." i P • auL. e� . t _ 4 a r � >Y ' �` '„^ a .. - 'p j •�� � :.'i::P�•-.'�- wwWWr i',,����•''R_ _.£.-'��,'?YK�r `711R �.��y �-�L �i . 4 to ':li �� '.� �!'riA��•1�• Y � � . FG. First Bellevue Installation - Archerline a Bellevue, WA (North Bellevue) verizom' 15 Nodes - PSE Poles Packet Pg. 139 First Bellevue I — Archerline ] c verizon Packet Pg. 140 First Bellevue Installation - Archerline I verizoW Packet Pg. 141 Fes;" ',-� � ��' ^� . '. •� ,� -.: _ �' :4C i 19 Light Standard W RE>'4AGEMER7PQLE VERODN Q KIR4AAND- WA CONCEPT DESIGN TT� I•_ Simulation M O ca IM M a verizon"/ Packet Pg. 143 Light Standard m 0 co a c 0 m c m d L IL c 0 r m E L 0 �d♦ V m E cn C 0 N �L co E t (i a C d E t V a verizonv' Packet Pg. 144 Light Standard m 0 co a c 0 m c m d L IL c 0 r m E L 0 �d♦ V m E cn C 0 N �L co E t (i a C d E t V a verizon I Packet Pg. 145 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. 146 Light Standard Minneapolis, MN Kansas City, KS a Vef izoW Packet Pg. 147 Wireless Only Pole Denver, CO Equipment Inside of Pole Base M O Ca IM M a verizon I Packet Pg. 148 E J (Simulation) F - "ram! •Sr�-�r�� �:�. � -' � . ` 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 Vef izom' Packet Pg. 150 Strand Mount — Specifications EnR�PM�. PrynQR LPES [EYP} t _____ _____ _____ _____ Epp qF IX6lIhF SCL JII.nT' PpE N -1 FAL _ r1_hTFk OF FIX51k1 !AW 61'TI�G %ARE C.L 1j--10 iUCL 4' a� .A099 9AR L}+Py ■Yx r 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 afFlY REOJFE]IQAS EIEr: u�Ex�EnYEMM eQRI1 MnFlnFw Y. •911� yCL ' PPCPOSm 'hiQfwl %Fg1EE5 •E>IIEAIEN PR.^P056 hN2.Xl %1RQEi �uE1P'uJxxu IET tt] rT I: SITn%J] uOUM1'PIfET hfR1=JC FlEEA RCNE ti6L ' 'ittR L PR�P056 �4Sd2�X1111RQ1S5 61 m.n. ; ::. rc. r: W—CE' 11 1-P PCR FCA1£R SERNCE gyp. .xQ {fy ZY Epv Ptl•R F urmXaVRRu �M1Qs 36iiOY of Plia><lsm xi1 -0' •GL EG511XC %1RE COL Lr(P) — OF ExIST1C 'MAE ML y iA4'-0- AGL Y lOP OF EASTW SCL 11RISiT 'CLE N -19 AGL. —_—_—_—_ CEMIEh CF fYHEY1C CfhXS MW 3A IARL ElB11M1G � ,� ET*^7 -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 PLR rvxv. m x1TFNu�11hy un RS MglrxE� �Exuax 1NRELE53 tl9Cplrl E%Fv A2'-IQ' AGL A WOO 4lR a1Y NL iD F— rXeQEa VF/+P�,L m 3]_x-d' AGL. ET P— vEPoiCH 3arRY CF PRCP9'iP m 0 CO Im S m a verizom, Packet Pg. 151 Strand Mount - Simulation (Simulation) M O ca IM M a verizonv' I Packet Pg. 152 6.A.h L O m R O Thank you. +�+ N N L a 0) U Go i E L Q d E L V a Q rizon-I I Packet Pg. 153 6.A.i W hG GROUP LLWIRELESS POLICY February 12, 2019 The Honorable Dave Earling, Mayor Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 VIA EMAIL - councilRedmondswa.gov RE: Small Wireless Facilities Interim Code Changes (ECDC 20.50) Agenda Item #7.2 - February 12, 2019 Dear Mayor Earling and Councilors: On behalf of AT&T, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed interim code changes adopting small wireless regulations for the City of Edmonds (the "City"). AT&T supports the City's efforts to update its wireless code to conform with federal law and reflect the latest in wireless technology. AT&T intends to continue to provide detailed comments and suggested changes as the City's code update process continues. This letter focuses on the City's proposed "seven -step preference hierarchy" for small wireless facilities, with which AT&T has numerous, significant concerns. AT&T strongly urges the City to meet with industry representatives to obtain feedback on this extraordinarily complex and impractical approach before proceeding further with a permanent ordinance reliant on this model. This approach is a substantial departure from the draft ordinance for which AT&T provided detailed input to City staff following an industry meeting last fall, and a new stakeholders meeting is thus warranted. (fax) 206.219.6717 www.wirelesspolicy.com Packet Pg. 154 6.A.i February 12, 2019 Page 2 As you know, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") recently adopted an Order' addressing a local jurisdiction's regulation of small wireless facility deployment. Much of the FCC Order went into effect on January 14, 2019. Under the FCC Order, aesthetic regulations for small wireless facilities apply to the extent they are reasonable, technically feasible, objective, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and published in to advance.2 Each small wireless facility standard must be technically feasible for all ,W.1110 M V--1 The City's proposed seven -step preference hierarchy requires that small wireless facilities be located on private property, rather than in the right-of-way, unless the applicant can justify their location in the right-of-way. Among other concerns, the proposed hierarchy: • Is unnecessarily complex, raising concerns about how the City's process can comply with the review timelines ("shot clocks") adopted by the FCC. The proposed mandatory correspondence extending an offer to property owners adjacent to the right-of-way, with a minimum two -week response time, will commence the 60- or 90-day shot clock applicable to small wireless facilities.3 • Easily leads to a more cluttered street corridor, by setting a preference for an entirely new pole, located within five feet of the right-of-way, over shared use of existing infrastructure in the right-of-way. Instead of preferring joint use of existing infrastructure, with standards no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments (as required by the FCC Order), the proposed hierarchy requires unnecessary duplication of vertical infrastructure. • Is completely out of line with how other Washington cities are regulating small wireless facilities. • Is contrary to the FCC Order, which provides that aesthetic standards be no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments. Further, the preferred small wireless designs, which are from the City of Denver and based on standards from an electric utility with requirements different from Snohomish Public Utility District, are not technically feasible. Among other concerns, the dimensional requirements for antennas foreclose AT&T's use of its standard canister antenna. As another example, for installations in the communication space 1 Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sept. 27, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 51867 (Oct. 15, 2018)("FCC Order"). z FCC Order, paras. 86-87. 3 FCC Order, para. 145. Packet Pg. 155 6.A.i February 12, 2019 Page 3 of a power pole, the code limits the number of antennas to only one per pole. Carriers must have the flexibility to upgrade small wireless sites with new technology, and upgrades to 5G require the addition of an antenna. AT&T strongly urges the City to work with the wireless carriers and Snohomish Public Utility District to develop feasible standards that will facilitate the delivery of improved wireless service to the Edmonds community. We appreciate your consideration of our comments and for all of the efforts by Edmonds' leaders and staff to establish workable policies for wireless providers, including AT&T, and the people living and working in the City. AT&T looks forward to participating in the upcoming code change process. Please let us know if you have any questions. Gregg Busch of Wireless Policy Group will be attending your hearing tonight on behalf of AT&T. Sincerely, rr l� Meridee st meridee.pabst@wirelesspolicy.com 425-628-2660 cc: Michael Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Packet Pg. 156 4 off 1� "Ilk., k Nks, AT&T Small Cells — Washington Enhancing our network to meet consumer demand today while preparing for the technologies and innovations of tomorrow. Carol Tagayun— AT& i External Attairs Ken Lyons — Wireless Policy Group `u © 2016 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, Globe logo, Mobilizing Your World and DIRECTV are registered trademarks and service marks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. ��� L Consumer and business demand for wireless data is on the rise. f., 3 ■ may, •00 -I T"'SaL:x L 3 CO 0 - cv � a Packet Pg. 159 The number of mobile subscribers in the U.S. 0 has increased by more than 4x since 1999 ca 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 4-1 75 50 25 181 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 26.8% 55.6% 74,3% 97.2% 127.2% 155.6% 4 Source: FCC Local Telephone Competition and Voice Telephone Services Reports ® 2017 AT&T intellectual Property. All Rights reserved. r- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 June2015 E(D 188.1% 212.9% 227.9% 244.2% 257.8% 273.2% 282.5% 289.8% 304.7% 309.9% Packet Pg. 160 6.A.j Consumer and business demand for wireless data is on the rise 2007 2017 © 2018 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T, the AT&T logo and all other AT&T marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies. The information contained herein is not an offer, commitment, representation or warranty by AT&T and is subject to change. Packet Pg. 161 6.A.j Ways to Increase Wireless Network Capacity 0 0 m a Denlov more spectrum Spectrum is not readily available + N a 0 Imarove spectrum efficiencv ( ) (( )) Repurposing existing spectrum L e.g., 3G carves for LTE a U �a E c Add more macro (cell sites) cells Optimal for low concentration areasiL N a 0 (4)Add more small cells Offloads surrounding macro sites ��>>((j))��� ���,�(T) a E uCU 6 Packet Pg. 162 Macro Site 6.A.j u u a Packet Pg. 163 L What is a Small Cell? A new network architecture is needed Small cells are flexible. tareeted network solutions that cover a radius up to 1200+ fee & can be readily deployed to specific locatioi Iincluding: Where customers are prone to experiencE connectivity issues Heavily populated areas that need more network capacity Areas that can't effectively be served by a traditional macro cell This allows us to provide a better LTE experience today while also allowing us to prepare for the technologies of the future such as 5G, smart cities and new developments in the Internet of Things (IoT). This photo depicts an example of what a small cell could look like. Actual size, shape a dimensions may vary by location.* The footprint, or service area, of a site is determined by height and by frequency band t ( 0.5to20miles 01 500 to 1200 ft }1 I� I 250 to 750 ft • Heights and service areas are approximations • Small cell sites supplement vs. replace macrocell sites Macrocell (4G LTE) The common form factor for wireless 75 to 400 feet communication. Higher height and lower frequencies used result in the larger service area. Current Small Cell (4G LTE) Uses the some frequencies as macrocells, in addition to utilizing 30 to 60 feet unlicensed spectrum. Due to lower height, footprint is smaller. Increases capacity or coverage in target areas. Future Small Cell (5G) Very high frequencies enabled by future 5G technology will result in a smaller 30 to 60 feet footprint, but can be used to meet the exponential increased capacity demand. These frequencies are not used for wireless service today. u a Packet Pg. 166 6.A.j Different technology, different process 80 ft 30 ft Small Cell 6 ft Macro Cel 11 This slide depicts a graphical representation of small cells and macro cells. The actual equipment, size and design may vary. a u Packet Pg. 167 W. . . . . . . . . . . . Y f r.t• .r h. y- Y Ar V +� _ Alt'- _ . J West cilc e, . ...... ... 6.A.j Indianapolis, IN 14 ucu u a Packet Pg. 170 o ' pe 4 r. ♦1 } `. p.. ��• 4a." L' to I ,r. T +ram = 6.A.j MOBILIZING YOUR WORLD' u Packet Pg. 172 6.A.k Clugston, Michael a� U From: Atkins, Linda <lindaatkins@dwt.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 3:21 PM E To: McConnell, Jeanie; Clugston, Michael; Taraday, Jeff c Subject: Striking the right balance for Small Cells regulation Attachments: Bellevue Ord 6454 small cells.PDF; Normandy Park Ordinance 00990 2018 Small Cell ROW Chaper 4.pdf, Normandy Park Ordinance 00979 2018 Title 18 Zoning.pdf; Redmond 2_12_19_Attachment A.pdf a Around the country, and in Washington State, virtually all jurisdictions understand that the right of way T is the most appropriate place for small cells, from both the perspective of the jurisdiction and the m perspective of the wireless providers. Allowing access to the right of way for small cells is required CID both by the September 2018 FCC Order and RCW 35.99.040. c ° T-Mobile would encourage the City of Edmonds to revisit its proposed ordinance hierarchy, and look a for other approaches which strike a better balance. Among the other jurisdictions with recent ordinances adopted or under consideration are Bellevue, Normandy Park and Redmond. ° Linda White Atkins I Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 1 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 646-6115 1 Fax: (425) 646-6199 1 Mobile: (425) 417-5618 Email: lindaatkins(a)dwt.com I Website: www.dwt.com Bio: www.dwt.com/people/LindaWhiteAtkins Anchorage I Bellevue I Los Angeles I New York I Portland I San Francisco I Seattle I Washington, D.C. Packet Pg. 173 Creating Opportunity for Consumers, Business & Government mom li s� !// I®/ 1' I NO o on NO INININ Oft lam lam Fl ■� IL a� c E 0 0 0 CI 0 a c a� E CU QI Packet Pg. 174 6.A.1 Wireless Infrastructure Shapes Forward Thinking Communities While Meeting Local Needs For local governments to meet the demands of their residents and businesses, reliable wireless infrastructure is a requirement. To address the most pressing challenges facing communities across America - from public safety, to access to health care and transportation, to economic development - wireless infrastructure must be part of the equation. A Look Ahead Robust wireless networks improve connectivity and are essential to the next generation of wireless connectivity: 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT).* Local policies can accelerate or delaythe successful build -out of wireless networks. In fact, informed decisions by county, township and city leaders can help meet residents' future mobile needs while better positioning communities to solve any number of public service requirements. 5G: The Fifth Generation of wireless network technologies. IntemetofThings: The network of everyday devices — appliances, gas & water meters, candy machines and industry technologies — that transmit data through mobile and internet connections. 0 IL L 0 m a� c c 0 a m c E 0 0 0 .5 m 0 2 H Packet Pg. 175 6.A.1 X r t Working Together Expands Opportunity Communities and wireless carriers need to work together to embrace this telecommunications revolution. The support of local governments is critical to developing dependable, replicable policies, ordinances, and practices that allow for new infrastructure to be built. Jurisdictions that have enacted reasonable siting -related policies will benefit sooner from T-Mobile's investments. J Packet Pg. 176 6.A.1 Mobile Networks Support Local Initiatives Strong, reliable wireless networks play a pivotal role in cultivating local business development, promoting — eGovernment initiatives and delivering public services. �a E W Mobile connectivity is used more than we ever imagined. Here are a few examples: c 0 c Public Safety 4 ,y 911 In addition to 911 calls, mobile apps for safety help educators alert parents, students and = , teachers when necessary. Search and rescue teams use mobile phone GPS to track missing � hikers. Amber Alerts send an urgent bulletin to assist in the recovery of an abducted child. Ride a sharing apps can provide a safe late -night ride home. 'a M O Health CO The new field of mobile health is changing how public health and medical problems are c identified, prevented and treated. Health issues can now be researched and tracked using mobile device data. That information can then be delivered to the right people when it is a needed, no matter where they are located. a� c Transportation E Mobile connectivity is the engine behind innovations like smart parking and traffic controls, self- w r driving cars, ride sharing apps, and immediate access to schedules for public transportation. E O Energy Wireless technology is a key to reducing energy usage and offers the most reliable, economical way to manage renewable energy systems, even in harsh environments. The Internet of Things allows for smart waste management, and for gas and electric meters to relay information. 2;i Natural Disasters & Extreme Weather In the event of a natural disaster or extreme weather, Wireless Emergency Alerts let you know of a threatening situation. Reverse 911 allows authorities to notify large groups of residents in the event of an emergency or when a tragedy has occurred, and new applications like the Facebook disaster maps assist responders during natural disasters. Packet Pg. 177 •R : d HALL � m IC E 0 0 Results of a survey by the Center for Digital Government _ demonstrate why connectivity is important to public officials: • 90% of government decision -makers polled believe communication networks are a requirement for attracting H new businesses to their jurisdictions N ' r ' • 81 % said high-performance networks support economic growth and competitiveness ' • 94% said the future of eGovernment requires ubiquitous network connectivity m r r Q "High-performance networks are every bit as important to the future strength of cities and counties as other infrastructure systems, including transportation, r water and waste." - Center for Digital Government Q Packet Pg. 178 6.A.1 Coverage & Capacity are Critical for Wireless Networks Ever had what looks like five bars of coverage on your mobile phone, yet can't send a text message or photo? This is because there is a finite amount of network capacity. As with traffic congestion, when too much information is jammed into the network pipe, the speed of the network can slow down, just like rush hour on the local Interstate. To address the network issues created by this demand, current and future wireless connectivity technologies require multiple solutions. Macro cell sites, small cells, Wi-Fi, and distributed antenna systems are a few examples. Together, these types of infrastructure create the coverage and capacity essential for a successful network for millions of satisfied users. Conventional Antennas Address Coverage & Capacity Needs Traditional macro sites are installed on rooftops, building facades, monopoles and other steel structures. These traditional antenna support structures handle many users across a general geographic footprint. They provide coverage and capacity. Packet Pg. 179 6.A.1 Small Cells in Public Right -of -Way Pave the Wayto 5G Before capacity limits are reached, it is often necessary to build a denser network. This is a key benefit of small cell technologies. Small cell antennas are designed to be mounted to light standards and utility poles and be located along transportation corridors, streets, and places where people gather. Designed to handle the newest 4G technologies - and soon -to -be -deployed next generation 5G technologies - small cells are low -power, cover a small geographic footprint, and have a smallerform factorthan most traditional equipment. More Spectrum Improves Network Capacity Reliable broadband coverage, especially in America's rural communities, is a top priority forT-Mobile. In early 2017, T-Mobile acquired 600 MHz low band spectrum that covers the entire continental United States. This low band spectrum - which travels farther and provides better connectivity inside homes, offices, schools and buildings - will result in strong coverage, especially in rural areas. This means more consumers will have higher quality wireless services. Packet Pg. 180 Wireless Networks Depend on Infrastructure 6.A.1 �a E E ' , 0 E •L �a a� x _U 01 m E E f6 a E 0 U 0 E Land -based infrastructure is essential to make mobile networks function -one can't work without the other. Network equipment 0 includes cables, antennas, radios, electric power, switches, and backhaul (fast connectivity back to the core network). :F Multiple Factors Determine Cell Site Location and Type: ATOPOGRAPHYAND OTHER OBSTACLES Wireless networks depend on radio waves that travel through the air. Radio engineers must plan for radio signal interruptions that topography - and other obstacles like buildings and leaves on trees - can cause. REGULATORY LW REQUIREMENTS T-Mobile meets all local, state and federal agency regulations. We encourage our siting teams to work with local governments when ordinances are discussed and written. Ip SIGNAL HANDOFF The signals from one cell site must overlap with the signals of the next site to maintain wireless connectivity as users move from one place to the next. H N E PROPERTY U AVAILABILITY r w Q In addition to the science that goes into properly locating a cell CD site, T-Mobile must find a property E owner willing to lease property for �U ca antennas and other equipment. Q Packet Pg. 181 Radio Waves are a Finite Resource Radio frequency (RF) energy and wireless technologies have been used for more than a centu wireless telegraph. The bands of spectrum used byT-Mobile are licensed by the Federal Comr distinct band (e.g. 600, 700, 1900, 2100 MHz) requires unique technologies and deployment Quick Facts About Radio Waves: 0.1 % of federal limit "Measurements made neartypical installations, especially those with tower - mounted antennas, have shown that ground -level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC's limits for safe exposure." (Federal Communications Commission) 011 Compare devices "The ground -level emissions from a typical T-Mobile macro site antenna are lower than the ground -level electromagnetic emissions from many household devices - such as a Bluetooth headset or Wi-Fi router." (Andrew H. Thatcher, Certified Health Physicist) 6.A.1 Wireless is Much More than Mobile Phones In addition to sending voice, text messages, photos and videos wirelessly, radio waves also enable all kinds of electronic devices used in our homes like internet-connected thermostats, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, security cameras and appliances. Broadcast television signals, as well as AM and FM radio waves use different bands of spectrum than T-Mobile - and they are transmitted with a much stronger signal strength. T-Mobile's complex national wireless network includes: MACRO SITE MACRO ANTENNA SITES A traditional macro cell site (usually 50'to 175' tall) is a support structure with multiple antennas connected to low powered radio transmitters and receivers. BASE STATION BACKHAUL BACKHAUL High-speed connectivity, usually via fiber optic cable, is built from cell sites back to the core telecommunications network. BASE STATION SWITCH PUBLIC TELEPHONE OUTDOOR INDOOR NETWORK SMALL CELLS SMALL CELLS SWITCH OUTDOOR SMALL CELLS INDOOR SMALL CELLS Base stations house radio transceivers and amplifiers that connect the antennas and a high-speed link (usually fiber optic cable) back to the legacy telephone network. Switches channel incoming data from multiple locations and send the information to its intended destination anywhere in the world. Outdoor small cells are typically placed in the public right-of-way — like street light standards or utility poles. Small cells handle greater capacity demands resulting from more users requiring more data through the network. Small cell networks and distributed antenna systems are deployed to meet capacity needs in large venues like stadiums, offices, airports, train stations, university campuses and shopping malls. Packet Pg. 183 T Mobile is Ready to Partner The intensity of consumer demand and the advance of technology create greater needs to deploy wireless network technologies. When innovation outpaces regulatory standards, it is critical that businesses, governments and constituents work together. T-Mobile is committed to this collaboration and will invest in sharing information and recommendations. We often assist local governments and planners to establish clear policies and local ordinances that allow fortoday's network expansions and the next generation of wireless technologies. Contact Us T-Mobile's local teams are wireless experts with knowledge of the unique network needs in each community, and are supported by strong regional and national teams. We live and work in many diverse communities across the United States — and we are ready to work with you. You can learn more at HowMobileWorks.com, or reach us by sending an email to: SitingRelations@T-Mobile.com. Packet Pg. 184 i W. 02017 T MOBILE USA, INC. 12920 SE 38TH STREET BELLEVUE, WA 98006 SitingRelations@T-Mobile.com HowMobileWorksxom O T • •Mobile. I metroPCS. LEI WORLD'S MOST ,M For the ninth straight year, T-Mobile has been recognized by Ethisphere as one of the World's Most Ethical o ETHICAL Companies. The program honors companies that excel in three primary areas: 1) Promoting ethical business c� COMPANIES' WWW.ETHISPHERE.COM standards, 2) enabling managers and employees to make good choices, and 3) shaping future industry standards by forging tomorrow's best practices today. Standard support structures are optimal for meeting customer demand. A standard wireless facility with antennas mounted on a monopole or other type of tower, is most often the best technology choice based on network design and radio frequency science. These sites typically range from 50' to 150' high and signals can travel up to several miles - depending on geography and topography. Versatility for coverage and capacity. To meet massive customer demand for reliable coverage, T-Mobile° is constantly expanding and upgrading its network technologies and geographic reach. Quick facts: Macro Cells The original sites - often called towers - can provide several miles of coverage. The standard monopole is most often the best choice for coverage and capacity. MENEM Small Cells Small cells, often deployed in the public right-of-way, add capacity to T-Mobile's network for more users. Monopoles range from 50'-1 50'high with a coverage radius ranging from less than a mile up to several miles. Pico Cells Short distance antennas cover an area of less than 250 yards. 6.A.1 Specific factors drive technology choices. T-Mobile's engineers make technology decisions based on a number of technical factors including: • Service reliability • Coverage objectives • Capacity needs • Future network expansion • Enhanced 9-1-1 requirements • Ease of service, maintenance and site modernization • Ease of system installation S Femto Cells Can be set up by the end user in a home or office. 11 Packet Pg. 186 Small cell and DAS are specialized deployments. Distributed antenna system (DAS) network nodes and radio equipment can be placed on telephone poles, streetlights and other structures in a Right of Way. Small cell and DAS deployments are also used in large venues - like stadiums, shopping malls, and concert halls - where large crowds of customers will want to simultaneously access T-Mobile's network. Small Cell Benefits & Challenges COVERAGE CAPACITY & REACH Coverage in hard -to -reach locations: Small cell deployments offer Man-made and naturally occurring greater capacity with lower power obstacles to radio waves — and in antennas. While the reach of the some instances, aesthetics — are considerations for using small cell and DAS technologies. radio waves is a fraction of macro cell sites, the smaller footprint means more antennas are closer to where mobile devices are used — which improves service quality. The Telecommunications Act. NEW INFRASTRUCTURE Some small cell deployments can include the development of new infrastructure that necessitates sidewalk and roadwork construction. With thousands of network engineering and operations personnel, T-Mobile's experts design and manage our own wireless network. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees federal telecommunications law, has regulations stating that licensed wireless carriers are entitled to make technological and operational decisions free from state & local government directives. Special circumstances. The above photo shows one node of a distributed antenna system (DAS). This is used in special circumstances when geography ortopography make it difficult to deploy a standard site. Building -Mounted antennas. The flush mounted antennas on the hospital building faQade are painted to match the exterior. This is an example of a technology choice that can be deployed when there are limited locations for wireless sites in or near residential neighborhoods — or when existing infrastructure can be used. Q OHowMobileWorks.com 6.A.1 Increased demand for wireless services American's demands for mobile services shows no sign of slowing. According to a 2018 Pew Research Center survey, 95% of American's own a cellphone and most of those - 77% are smartphones. Mobile networks have shifted from being predominately voice networks to transporting data - video, texts, photos, and live streaming events. Only 3-5% of traffic on T-Mobile's network comes from voice services. With increased data usage, all that extra data can quickly overload a cell site's capacity. To meet customer demand, T-Mobile must increase coverage and capacity with denser networks, infrastructure, and radio technologies that solve the complex challenges of transporting vast amounts of data. Traditional macro cell sites, small cells and distributed antenna systems are a few examples of infrastructure needed to provide wireless services. Adding capacity to relieve wireless congestion Ever had what looks like five bars of coverage on your mobile phone but you can't send a text, make a call or access an app? That's because there is a finite amount of network capacity. Wireless congestion happens when too many people try to use the same cell site at once. Just like traffic congestion on a road, when too much information is being transmitted over a wireless network the speed of the network slows down. Coverage and capacity have similarities to a city bus. The bus may have a route that allows you to go all over town — that's the coverage — but if the bus only holds fifty people and a hundred people want to ride then there's not enough capacity. The same holds true for mobile service: When there is too much congestion on the network, the speed slows down. This is due to a finite amount of spectrum carrying digital traffic. Additional infrastructure and technologies may be needed to more efficiently use the spectrum and add more users to the system. COVERAGE Coverage is the geographic area that is served by wireless infrastructure. Q CAPACITY Capacity is the amount of data and voice traffic that can be efficiently transferred across the network for mobile use. Packet Pg. 188 Spectrum is the lifeblood of the industry All wireless communication signals travel over the air via radio frequency, which is also called spectrum. A television broadcast, a radio program, a GPS device and even your cell phone service all use spectrum — invisible airwaves to transmit bits of data. Spectrum is a finite resource and essential for so many vital communications services, but it holds no value until it is harnessed by mobile operators, creating valued services. A great way to relieve wireless congestion is to add new infrastructure To improve coverage and capacity it is often necessary to build denser wireless networks. New innovations, like small cells, allow T-Mobile to add more capacity in densely populated or high traffic areas, which can mean better service for everyone. Small cell antennas are designed to be mounted on light standards or utility poles and be located along busy streets and places where people gather. Paving the way to 5G Most American consumers experience wireless connectivity on 4G networks. The impact of 4G on daily life is clear — this connectivity has enabled innovations in our modern digital economy like mobile broadband, and it has spurred companies to offer conveniences like ride -sharing services and smart home products. The emerging standard in voice and data telecommunications — 5G — is poised to transform America's reliance on densely populated wireless infrastructure. T-Mobile's vision is to use 4G and 5G technologies to offer nationwide coverage and reliable capacity to bring consumers and businesses un-paralleled speeds and access to mobile broadband services. Designed to handle current 4G wireless standards, and soon to be deployed 5G, small cells are low -power, cover a small geographic footprint, and have a smaller form factor than most traditional equipment. Small cells are needed to help with today's capacity issues and they will be important to support the proliferation of wireless -enabled devices called the Internet of Things — cars, drones, clothing, phones and more. Packet Pg. 189 I ,�� a •, w • II Americans are becoming increasingly dependent on wireless technology. According to a 2018 CTIA State of Wireless report, Americans are embracing the power of wireless connectivity as data use year -over - year has increased 40 times since 2010. In 2017, U.S. wireless networks carried an additional 2 trillion megabits of data — totaling 15.7 trillion' megabits, an annual record. That's equivalent to every American binge -watching Netflix for sixteen hours. Most American's experience wireless connectivity over a 4G LTE network and it's done a good job connecting everyone. The next -generation wireless networks — 5G — will connect everyone and everything. What is 5G? The next standard in wirelesses technology is called fifth generation, or 5G for short. This wireless technology will impact every industry. 5G is a game changer, it will enable self -driving cars, remote surgeries using virtual reality equipment, present new options for public safety, improve oversight over agriculture goods and unlock the full commercial potential of drones. 5G will make all of that possible. Our current 4G service doesn't have the bandwidth to connect the number of sensors, thermostats, cars and robots expected for the coming 5G revolution. 5G will be 10 times faster than our current speeds: imagine being able to download to your device a feature length movie in 15 seconds. This new standard will be available in 2020 but just like any new technology it will take some time for it to be available nationwide. Many industries are already planning for and testing this new technology, including T-Mobile. Investing in America's future 5G network For 5G to succeed it is necessary to add wireless infrastructure and spectrum. Technologies like small cells, millimeter wave, and MIMO will be used for spectrum efficiency and to densify the current cell network to bring 5G to life. Handset makers will also need to develop 5G capable phones which are expected in 2019. 6.A.1 The Internet of Things 5G's faster speeds and better connectivity will enable the Internet of Things (IoT), in which everything from home appliance, to implanted medical devices are connected to the internet. 5G will fully tap the potential for wearables, asset tracking, energy usage, remote surgery and self - driving cars. Q Sept2018 Packet Pg. 190 The economic impact of 5G The wireless industry is always innovating and growing. The investments needed for 5G are poised to transform the mobile ecosystem, our way of life and our economy. The coming 5G revolution will be a driving force of the U.S. economy and the foundation for many future innovations. An Accenture2 report prepared for CTIA estimates that the impact in the U.S. from deploying 5G will: • Generate $275 billion in investment • Create 3 million new jobs, and • Contribute $500 billion in economic growth. T-Mobile's 5G strategy T-Mobile is building out the infrastructure necessaryto deploy 5G and will use multiple spectrum bands to launch service nationwide by 2020. The company has signed multi -billion dollar investments with wireless infrastructure providers Nokia and Ericsson to accelerate the deployment of 5G. Both companies will provide T-Mobile with the latest 5G hardware and software technologies to deliver high data speeds, extremely low latency, high -reliability and energy efficiency. Using 5G, T-Mobile will develop, test and launch the next generation of connectivity services that enables a range of industries to offer innovative solutions, including enterprise, utilities, transportation, health, manufacturing, retail, agriculture and government. The five generations of wireless technology About every ten years an updatec wireless standard is introduced to take advantage of new innovations. Here's a look at the evolution of wireless standards. 1G Cell phones began with 1 G in the 1980's. They were voice only, analog technology. W In 1991 cell phones went from analog to digital and enabled text messaging and basic data services. 3G Introduced in 1998, 3G ushered in faster data -transmission speed like video calling, mobile internet and streaming audio and video. 4G The current standard released in 2008, allows for high-speed internet and high -capacity mobile multimedia, faster mobile broadband, and data -intensive applications. 5G An evolving standard that will improve on 4G and be a revolutio in technology — connecting trillions of devices and offering faster speeds and better mobility. Q 1. https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CTIA_State-of-Wireless-2018_0710.pdf 2. https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CTIA_State-of-Wireless-2018_0710.pdf Fla HowMobileWorks.conJ= Packet Pg. 191 T - -Mobile Small Cells RTI loft :1. 'j '�"' } ~ '�'` • k 4' k� . '' � • -�� Ufa_-.,�yl • 4 T . •Mob NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT JMMIL_ O 0) C LMRAH R Utility Pole Mounting m Band 2S RRH AprStaie Kcrc 6` 12.1 � � J . a -0 L M L0.4Ani f s', 6" O m a1 7705 SAR-4 O Bond 68 RRH R (L 05-*0?r' -0 SAR-O 4) C E O V 6" Pole Climbing Standoff O Adds support for bolting to pole $,8,borrs Sleek design O Creates uniformity Antennas and radios in close proximit} for improved function (faster data speeds) y a Can blend with existing infrastructure Packet Pg. 193 T ..Mob NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Aw' a Packet Pg. 194 37.9 DE -FAIL 30° DE -FAIL D RRH Connections SCALE 1 : G ` 1.8 (Clearance) F NAME: 5irol Mau DWG:S080830-C AGT 12/20/2017 4 ' ' ill 1 - 45° Max At Angle 5CALE 1 : 6 \ r F Sheei 1 s r'j T . •Mob 6.A.1 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT O O C �L m d X V a Aw- Packet Pg. 195 Salt Lake City Installation a 11 ■ 11 Il ■ 11 11 • 11 7] l11,,umm n■n �I �mmy u ■ u m III m I pill iu u�r 1 AIL 7�:: ■� •• ■■ ■■ ;ml� 11 ■ 11 W 11� 12 T-Mobile Confidential ---III III It III 6.A.m Clugston, Michael From: Marino, Kari <kari.c.marino@verizon.com> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 11:01 AM To: Williams, Phil Cc: Taraday, Jeff, McConnell, Jeanie; Clugston, Michael; Kim Allen; Lelah Vaga Subject: Re: [E] Fwd: Watch: Firefighters Report Neurological Damage After Cell Tower Installation Near Their Station — Collective Evolution Attachments: Health effects LOC.pdf Phil, Thank you for bringing this to my attention. There is a lot of information available that can cause concern related to RF safety. I want to assure you, the council, and city staff, that Verizon Wireless has a comprehensive compliance program designed to ensure that VZW complies with all FCC standards & regulations. The FCC has imposed safety guidelines that Verizon has implemented and follows to ensure that it meets and, in fact, operates well below the thresholds set by the FCC. Leading regulatory and public health agencies have been tracking scientific studies on possible health effects that have been conducted by health and governmental agencies worldwide for decades. Those agencies include the FCC and the World Health Organization (WHO). I have attached a list sources that cover the subject of RF safety, including the FDA, OSHA, NIHS. In particular, I direct your attention to the study by the National Institute of Health /National Cancer Institute (https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/htmI/brain.htm1). As you can see in the attached picture of the trend chart (below) from the study, Brain cancer from 1992 through 2015, the instances of Brain cancer are decreasing despite the enormous increase in wireless traffic (devices and centralized equipment). Packet Pg. 197 6.A.m ®/) NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Y Y Id ■�- Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Search SEER • AHome Cancer Statistics Reportson Cancer Cancer Stat Facts More Cancer Types Bra i n and Other Nervous System Cancer Cancer Stat Facts: Brain and Other Nervous System Cancer Expand Alt Collapse All Statistics at a Glance Annual Report to the Nation At a Glance Cancer Stat Facts — Common Cancer Sites Estimated New Cases in 2018 23,880 - Canoer Disparities %of All New Cancer Cases 1.4% 33.2% Bladder Breast(Female) , �.,r 16,830 2008-2014 Colon and Rectum _ _ 2 8% Kidney and Renal Pelvis Leukemia s Lung and Bronchus ■ ■ r Melanoma of the Skin 6 5 Non -Hodgkin Lymphoma - 4 Pancreas 3 E 2 Prostate z t Thyroid 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 231E Uterus Year More Cancer Types New Cases -SEER 13 - Deaths -D.S. I hope this information is helpful. I cannot speak to the details included in the attached websites, but have included them as credible sources of information. I look forward to seeing you again soon as we continue to work toward a code for Small Wireless Facilities in Edmonds that meets city concerns, industry requirements, and Federal Law. I will follow up in a separate note with the details we discussed on our conference call. Sincerely, r Kari Marino Real Estate Manager, Municipal Engagement & Small Cell Strategies 3245 158th Ave S.E., 3rd Floor Bellevue, WA 98008 O 425.603.8240 1 M 425.941.0300 kari. c. marinogverizon. com 2 Packet Pg. 198 6.A.m On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:22 AM Williams, Phil <Phil.WIlliamskedmondswa.gov> wrote: So this has popped up at the last minute here in EDMONDS. Does Verizon have any sort of written response to this report and the questions it poses? If so we should get it into the hands of our staff and council as soon as possible. You may already be doing that after Mr. Teitzel's questions last Tuesday. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Teitzel, Dave" <Dave.Teitzelkedmondswa.gov> Date: February 14, 2019 at 8:15:04 AM PST To: "Hope, Shane" <Shane.Hopegedmondswa.gov>, "Williams, Phil" <Phil. WIlliams&edmondswa. gov> Cc: Council <Council(kedmondswa.gov>, "Taraday, Jeff' <jeffklighthouselawg_ro_up.com> Subject: Watch: Firefighters Report Neurological Damage After Cell Tower Installation Near Their Station — Collective Evolution Shane and Phil, Regarding the upcoming 5g deployment, I asked Mike and Jeannie a question during Tuesday's Council meeting about any studies that have been done to prove 5g doesn't negatively affect human health. As I recall, Mike said he wasn't aware of any studies finding 5g is harmful. Before we get further down the road in considering permanent deployment rules, I'd like to see two things: 1) the results of studies of the effects of 5g on human health and 2) any filings made with the FCC asking them to consider health effects of 5g. Can you help me with these items, or should we ask Maureen to dig into it? Thanks, Dave https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/02/11/watch-firefighters-report-neurolo ig�cal- damase-after-5 g-cell-tower-installation-near-their-station/ Packet Pg. 199 External Sites (per FCC): Health Effects of RF Exposure 6.A.m FCC RF Safety FAQs a L O WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY? Although relatively few offices or agencies within the Federal Government routinely deal with the issue of human exposure to RF fields, it is possible to obtain information and assistance on certain topics from the following federal agencies, all of which also have Internet Web sites. a FDA: The Food and Drug Administration's Cell phone website : http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/Radiation Emitting ProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertain ment/ EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency's overview of power -line emissions: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. •Power lines: •Cell phone safety: OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Health and Safety Topics Non -ionizing Radiation. NIOSH: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's research on protecting workers from proven and possible EMF (electric and magnetic fields) health risks focusing on RF (radiofrequencies), ELF (extremely low frequencies) and Static magnetic fields:.http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/em NCI: The National Cancer Institute's Fact sheets on potential risks from exposure to: •Magnetic fields: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/magnetic-fields-fact-sheet •Cell phones: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet. NIEHS: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' main page for electric and magnetic fields and potential health effects: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/index.cfm Packet Pg. 200 External Sites: Health Effects of RF Exposure 6.A.m WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY? 3 Although relatively few offices or agencies within the Federal Government routinely deal with the issue of human exposure to RF fields, it is possiblE to obtain information and assistance on certain topics from the following federal agencies, all of which also have Internet Web sites. m NTP: The National Toxicology Program's studies that: -Test the biological effects of cellphones (GSM): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/status/agents/ts-08013.html a -Test the biological effects of cellphones (CDMA): http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/status/agents/ts-08015.html FCC: Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC -regulated transmitters can be directed to the Federal Communications Commission, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; Phone: 1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL-FCC); E- mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov L General information on RF exposure is found on the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) web page at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0. 0 N L Information on the reported SAR values of devices (including cellular telephones and devices using Wi-Fi transmitters) can be found in the FCC's > Office of Engineering and Technology Equipment Authorization (EA) database at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea. On this page you may search for information specific to a particular device by locating the FCC ID printed on the device (usually on the back or underneath, or behind the battery cover of the devices) and typing it into the FCC ID Search page. General information on cellular telephones can be found at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/telephone-guides. a E Information specific to fixed antenna structures can be found on the https://www.fcc.gov/general/tower-and-antenna-siting r Q Packet Pg. 201 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/27/2019 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: 02-27-2019 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 202 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLAKHN(�C BOARD 14�o Extended Agenda February 27, 2019 Meeting Item FEBUARY, 2019 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 r a Packet Pg. 203 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. 204