2022-07-13 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
1.
2.
A.
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Phyiscal Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at
the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open
public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220
Railroad Avenue.
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
Approval of Minutes
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6601)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve meeting minutes from the June 8th meeting.
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 71812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB220608d (PDF)
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6607)
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department - Q1 Update
Narrative
This is an update of the Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services (PRCAHS)
Department's accomplishments to the Parks & Planning Board for the months of April through
June of 2022. Attached is a more detailed list of the department's work for the three months. A
PowerPoint presentation is planned for the July 13tn Board meeting to provide additional
information and answer questions.
Highlights for 2022 2nd Quarter (additional items found in attached Accomplishment List)
2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan: numerous meetings with City Council
to discuss draft revisions from their feedback and suggestions. Approval occurred on
June 28tn
2. Civic Playfield Park Project: Construction continues with many park elements and
amenities now taking form on the site. Off -site stormwater mitigation project adjacent
to Yost Park is in preparation for bidding with construction slated for this summer.
3. Park Planning: Parks Maintenance greenhouse variance approved and construction
drawings in development; Yost Pool Replaster project completed and closed out. Parks
Planner/Project Manager position recruited and hired, new employee to start July 18th.
Managed a $2.9M estate donation for Beautification program. Continued work on other
possible parkland acquisitions. Salmon Safe certification draft report reviewed by city
staff and Planning Board. Yost Park bridge assessment completed for one failing
structure.
4. Parks Maintenance: Maintenance Operations Assessment shared with all parks
maintenance staff, next steps are to being implementation. Increase maintenance
support of Yost pool due to 7 days/week operations by Cascade Swim Club; City Park
Spray Park prepared and open Memorial Day weekend, Yost and Seaview Park
pickleball/tennis courts power washed, several new nets and standards installed; about
100 flower hanging baskets installed downtown for the season; Bill Anderson viewing
scope installed at Edmonds Marsh. Many hours on seasonal and full-time staff
recruitment, interviews, hiring and on -boarding.
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 71812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022
5. Recreation and Cultural Services Programs: Q2 Permits - 270 shelter permits, 1,550 field
rental hours and 160 gym rental hours. Major events included Earth Day (April 23rd),
Watershed Fun Fair (May 14th) and Health & Fitness Expo (May 2151). Programming
included NEW weekly Summer Day Camp and 24 contracted youth camps; Adult Softball
(51 teams) and Pickleball (48 teams) Leagues and new fitness classes; and 2,500
participants in the K-6 Marine Education program.
6. Arts & Cultural Division Installation of two temporary On the Fence exhibits, Write on
the Sound conference development and maintenance of public art sculptures.
Continued management of two public art projects; Floretum Garden Club mosaic
sculpture and Civic Park art pieces. Managing 19 summer concerts (one at new location
of Hickman Park) and Uptown Market entertainment. Successful grant award for 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor design. Awarded $13,500 of Create Grants and
recommendations for $20,000 Tourism Promotion awards. Supported Hwy 99 Gateway
design project.
7. Human Services Division: Hired and onboarded Compass Health Community Transitions
Outreach Coordinator. Assisted with ARPA funding ordinance revision to provide
funding to people receiving DSHS services. Created a part time workspace in the FAC
Human Services office for South Snohomish County Community Resource Advocate.
Received Council authorization to increase Program Manager to full-time. Updated
Human Services Resource Guide on City's website. Continuing to work with Snohomish
County to enhance shelter in South County; coordinated services for 49 individuals
including emergency shelter and permanent housing and ongoing oversight of five long-
term motel vouchers.
ATTACHMENTS:
• PRCS 2022 Q2 Accomplishments (PDF)
6. Public Hearings
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6604)
Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Code
Background
This is file AMD2022-0002. Staff introduced this project to the Planning Board on June 8, 2022.
This is a periodic update of the City's wireless communication facilities ordinance in ECDC 20.50.
Like previous updates in 2011, 2014 and 2019, the current project is proposed in response to
changing mandates at the federal level by the FCC as well as to implement current best
practices and lessons -learned from recent projects.
A redline/strikeout version of the draft code is included as Attachment 1. A clean version is in
Attachment 2.
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 71812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony. Make revisions as necessary and move the draft code language to City
Council for continued refinement.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - PB 7.13.22 ECDC 20.50 wireless draft redline -strikeout (PDF)
• Attachment 2 - PB 7.13.22 EDCD 20.50 wireless draft clean (PDF)
• Attachment 3 - June 8, 2022 PB draft minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 4 -Wireless Code Update PB Intro 6.8.22 slides (PDF)
• Attachment 5 - Notice Materials 7.13.22 PB Hearing (PDF)
• Attachment 6 - PUD City of Edmonds Small Wireless comments FINAL (PDF)
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6614)
Phase II Tree Code Amendments
Background/History
Edmonds has taken many steps to mitigate the future impacts of climate change and
improve the environment, including taking actions to proactively manage its urban forest.
One such step is the 2019 adoption of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The
UFMP is a guidance document identifying specific actions towards achieving a healthy,
sustainable urban forest. Its goals are to be implemented by City boards/commissions, the
City Council, community, or City divisions/staff over a long-term horizon, as resources allow.
In 2020, the Planning Board (PB) set out to achieve UFMP Goal 1A:
Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban
forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code
violations.
In early 2021, the Planning Board (PB) provided its code recommendations to the City
Council for tree retention associated with development activity. In response to public
feedback, the PB and City Council concurred that a second phase of code amendments,
outside the scope of UFMP Goal 1A, consider limits to property owner tree removals
unrelated to development.
Staff requested direction from the City Council on the scope of the "Phase II" code
amendments related to property owner tree removal. The June 1 and August 24, 2021 City
Council meeting minutes reflect Council's preference for two code options, summarized as:
Apart from Landmark trees, allow the removal of a limited number of trees on a given
Planning Board Page 4 Printed 71812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 13, 2022
property within a certain time frame, with no or low permit fees, in a manner that allows
data on tree removal activity be derived.
The preferred options were identified as code provisions that would require additional
resources to administer, and as such, is considered a major code amendment. The Phase II
tree code amendment project was identified in the 2022-2023 Development Services Work
Plan. More recently, at the June 21, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council affirmed that
the Phase II code amendments project scope is defined by 3 objectives, summarized as:
1. Add new property owner tree removal code provisions to Chapter 23.10 ECDC based
on prior direction.
2. Consider minor code changes to the current code related to development activity.
3. Continue to implement the UFMP.
Staff has already begun initial discussions with the Tree Board (TB) on July 7, 2022. The
scope and the general approach to the Phase II tree code amendment project is outlined in
the Narrative section below.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests early feedback on the scope and general approach to the Phase II tree code
amendment project.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attach 1_06212022 CC Mtg Memo (PDF)
• Attach 2_1313 Tree Code Amend —List (PDF)
• Attach 3—Current Code Summary_Property Owner Removals (PDF)
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6619)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
• 07.08.2022 Extended Agenda (PDF)
Planning Board Page 5 Printed 71812022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
July 13, 2022
Planning Board Page 6 Printed 71812022
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/13/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve meeting minutes from the June 8th meeting.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from June 8th attached.
Attachments:
PB220608d
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
June 8, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Campbell read the land acknowledgement.
Board Members Present Staff Present
Alicia Crank, Chair Kemen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager
Roger Pence, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Matt Cheung Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Todd Cloutier o
Judi Gladstone
Mike Rosen 'o
L
Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) a
a
Board Members Absent M
co
Richard Kuehn (excused) c
Lily Distelhorst (student rep) (excused) N
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CLOUTIER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 25 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
Mr. Lien explained that they plan on keeping the boards all virtual for now with an in -person opportunity for
public participation at the Waterfront Center. Staff will be exploring options for hybrid meetings for the future.
Chair Crank thanked staff for being responsive and getting information to the Planning Board. Vice Chair Pence
asked if someone from staff was at the Waterfront Center to assist any members of the public who might show
up. Mr. Lien confirmed that there was a staff member there. Vice Chair Pence asked what communication
happened with the public to let them know about this opportunity. Mr. Lien stated there was a note at the top of
the Planning Board agenda. When they have public hearing going forward, they will have that information
along with the Zoom link for participation. Board Member Gladstone asked why they couldn't see the room on
the Zoom screen. Mr. Lien thought there was just a tv and a phone in that room but no camera.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Pagel of 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
NEW BUSINESS
A. Wireless Code Update Introduction
Mr. Clugston and Ms. McConnell reviewed some history of wireless in Edmonds and discussed why the
update was being done. He explained that cities are not allowed to regulate based on health impacts — real
or perceived; however, staff reviews each application for compliance with radiofrequency (RF) limits as set
out by the FCC. Updates are being done to respond to some additional FCC mandates, to implement new
best practices around concealment and camouflaging, to apply lessons learned from recent projects, and to
clean up the code.
Summary of Proposed Amendments: a
• Applicability — clarify master permits, licenses, and specific permits; establish a review of ROW
installations after 10 years to ensure consistency with future wireless code amendments for
aesthetics °
• Clarify shot clocks and application requirements; create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to 'o
City corrections; create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions a
• Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates — updates proposed to track with FCC mandates; a
create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections, create an administrative appeal M
process for permit decisions
• Clarify maintenance and abandonment language — administrative clarification N
• Update nonconforming language — language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible a
Facility Request standards; will be included as redline/strike-out in public hearing draft
• Small cell dimensional, location, and aesthetic standards — intended to minimize visual impact of E
small cell installations
Mr. Clugston explained that small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed
coverage and capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather. They are
primarily located in the right of way. Antennas are smaller and lower power than macro wireless (20-40'
ideal height); however lower installations need more sites to cover the same area. Full concealment is
possible.
He reviewed examples of Edmonds' Location Preference Hierarchy:
LP 1: Hollow utility pole (no solutions available yet)
LP2: Freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight
LP3: Wood utility pole — on top (PUD doesn't allow yet)
LP4: Wood utility pole — side mount
LP5: Strand -mounted — on wires
Applicants are required to demonstrate they cannot fulfill each level before proceeding to the next lower
priority level. There has only been one small cell application come through the City so far, and it was for
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
LP4. Chair Crank asked about the two strongly preferred options (LP1 and LP3) which are not available.
Mr. Clugston explained they are still hopeful to eventually have options for those.
Small Cell Dimensional, Location, and Aesthetic Standard Amendments:
• Revise facility dispersion requirements — Existing is 300' for all installations. Staff is proposing no
requirements for dispersion with LP1; 150' with LP2; 300' for LP3-LP5
• Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless facilities (LP2) — allow
for additional height (35-38') and width (20-22"); update location/clearance requirements;
encourage use of LP2
• Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments (LP3 & LP4) — PUD doesn't
allow LP3 pole -top attachments but solutions exist and discussions are ongoing. LP4 was the
landing spot for the first small cell application. Staff is proposing requiring the mounting of conduits
and equipment as close as possible to pole; requiring power from overhead, if available; and
multiple points of attachments versus single for different features. Discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Clugston stated there is a public hearing tentatively scheduled for July 13. Staff will continue to do
additional research for small cell standards and will include "nonconforming" redline/strike-out in next
draft.
Board Member Cheung asked if cost can be a reason for infeasibility. Ms. McConnell replied it cannot.
°
Board Member Cheung asked why PUD is not okay with it being on top, but they are okay with it being on
'o
the side. Ms. McConnell replied that there are certifications required to work in the electrical space.
a
Currently it is PUD that has to do that work; wireless companies cannot. Board Member asked if there will
a
be some sort of consistency with the types of poles with the LP2 option. Ms. McConnell replied they are
M
still working on that. In downtown Edmonds there is a certain type of pole that has been identified, but
elsewhere they are still working through options. N
Board Member Campbell asked why they wouldn't want to have the same requirements elsewhere in the
City as they do in downtown. She was strongly in favor of having a uniform standard for the small cell.
Board Member Gladstone asked who installs and maintains the streetlights. Ms. McConnell replied that
both the PUD and the City install streetlights, but the majority of the lights in Edmonds are PUD lights.
Board Member Gladstone thought that LP5 looked less intrusive than LP4. She wondered why this was a
lower priority level. Ms. McConnell acknowledged this and explained they also considered what else was
already up there on the wires. Board Member Gladstone asked if they have a sense of how many applications
they will get in the future. Ms. McConnell replied that they do not know what to expect. Mr. Clugston
thought there would be dozens and dozens of them.
Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the regulations they have created to protect the City as much as
possible.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION
OF THE MISSING AMENDMENTS REFERENCED BY STAFF AND TAKE THIS TO A
PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED (6-0) WITH BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE
ABSTAINING.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
B. BD2 Designated Street Front
Mr. Lien introduced the Designated Street Front recent history, ordinance history, and map revisions. With
the adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, councilmembers voiced an interest in having commercial office to
support the retail core. Legislative history has favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides
of the street as part of the original designation. With the new regulations there must be commercial use
within the first 45 feet of designated street front; and there are minimum ground floor requirements of 12
feet in BD2 and 15 feet in BD 1 and different design standards. There are also changes to the use table which
clarify ambiguities, fills in blanks, and reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational
requirements.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Goal E, E-1 for the Downtown/Waterfront Area to provide for
a strong central retail core while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in
the surrounding area and to support a mix of uses in downtown including a variety of housing, commercial,
and cultural activities. The BD zoning purposes state that it is to provide a strong retail core at downtown's
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding
retail core area.
Staff had wondered if Designated Street Front restrictions would inhibit market demand for residential
development, if there is a market demand for a mixed commercial building, and if there is a market demand
for solely commercial buildings. An analysis by staff of commercial shows that the commercial leasing
market appears to be stable. The multifamily rental market shows that there is short supply and high demand
for rental units. He reviewed drawings of designs of development they might see in the BD2 zone with the
Designated Street Front. The overall conclusion of the market analysis is that the risk associated with the
long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would
make mixed -use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer.
The interim ordinance passed by Council will expire on December 1. To make it permanent it will have to
come through the Planning Board. Some of the councilmembers want to take a broader look at the
Designated Street Front. Staff is not recommending a broader look at this time but possibly in the future in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted it is possible to extend the interim ordinance
for more than six months if there is a work plan for how they are going to address it. He suggested a joint
meeting with the Economic Development Commission on this.
Discussion:
Board Member Rosen agreed that they should meet with the Economic Development Commission before
making any recommendations. He understands staff s recommendation to not take a broader look at this
time but expressed concern that the expanded area could be developed all residential before they do this. He
thinks it is prudent to consider the impacts of the "dotted blue lines". Mr. Lien agreed that they should look
at the dotted blue lines. If they want to take a bigger look at the Designated Street Front in other areas of the
city, he thinks that should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Board Member Rosen thanked
staff for the clarification and recommended they don't eliminate any options before meeting with the
Economic Development Commission. Chair Crank concurred.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
Board Member Gladstone asked about the ceiling requirement on the ground floor commercial (12 and 15
feet) and how that compares with residential. Mr. Lien replied that the examples showed 8 or 9 feet for
residential. Mr. Lien explained the code shows the ground floor requirement for the first floor in the BD 1
zone is 15 feet from the first floor to the top of the 2nd floor level and 12 feet in the BD2 zone. The taller
ceilings are desirable for commercial. Board Member Gladstone commented that desirability is subjective;
she wondered if there was a more objective reason. Board Member Cloutier commented that no one will
rent a commercial space with a low ceiling. There is a feeling of more light and more air with the higher
ceilings. When there is commercial space already on the market that is not renting, this would be building
non -usable nonrentable space. Board Member Gladstone welcomed the opportunity to do a walking tour
around how things are zoned the way they are so she could have a better grasp of the topic.
Board Member Cheung asked about councilmembers' reasoning of having commercial use because it
would support retail. Mr. Lien explained that in the BD1 zone commercial is required on the ground floor.
He thinks the Council was interested in protecting commercial/office space outside the BD 1 core but also
having residential use downtown that supports the commercial use. Board Member Cheung recalled
councilmembers' statements quite a while ago about having more office space people would give life to
commercial as they were walking around at lunchtime but wondered if those statements were made pre- a
Covid. He thought that now, when more people are working from home, it might have shifted, and the c
residential might be what gives the life to commercial in the downtown area.
0
Vice Chair Pence expressed concern about submerging the main floor as a way to still get three floors. Since 'o
there is some general recognition that this is not a desirable building form, can they do some tweaking to a
the allowable building heights and floor -to -ceiling heights to allow developers to get a functional 3-story a
building that still keeps with the desired aesthetics. Mr. Lien commented that it would only take an M
additional two feet to make three floors feasible. He noted that this same discussion has occurred over the CO
last 50 years regarding downtown Edmonds but people are resistant to increasing building heights.
Board Member Campbell agreed with looking at raising the allowable building height in order to provide
economically feasible buildings that can have people inhabiting them. She thought that people who don't
live in the downtown core are less likely to use those businesses than people that live there because of
parking challenges.
Board Member Gladstone stated she is one of those people who has historically resisted increased building
heights, but she has always assumed they were talking about adding another 10 feet to get another floor.
This is the first time she has heard it is only two feet. She asked if there were ever renderings done to show
what it would look like if they did that. Board Member Cloutier suggested looking at meeting minutes from
2008- 2010 where renderings were made to show the difference between setbacks and cake backs. Mr. Lien
noted that building form is what they need to look at to preserve the light and openness. He commented on
some of the discussion that occurred in the past and offered to pull up the meeting minutes from way back
to give some insight into those discussions.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and discussed a potential meeting with the Economic Development
Commission in July or August. There was consensus to try to schedule a joint meeting with the EDC at the
Planning Board's regular meeting on August 10 and have a summer break on August 24.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Gladstone expressed appreciation for the dialogue surrounding meeting options (in -person,
hybrid, online) and noted these are challenging times to navigate.
Vice Chair Pence recommended having a public announcement about the meeting room opportunity down at
the Waterfront Center to broaden awareness.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank had the following comments:
• She agreed this is a challenging time for everyone. She urged everyone to be vigilant and careful.
• She encouraged board members to use their various social media platforms and other connections to get
the word out about what is going on with meetings.
• She noted that the first draft of the Snohomish County Airport Commission Master Plan Update is out.
She invited everyone to go to the Paine Field website to check it out and provide input.
• She is working on an event on June 29 at the ECA, which will be an educational conversation around
Juneteenth and the 4t' of July.
• She thanked everyone for their feedback about meeting platforms. 00
• She reminded board members to be careful about cc's and bcc's so they don't end up with accidental o
meetings. a
a
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 13
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/13/2022
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department - Q1 Update
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Angie Feser
Narrative
This is an update of the Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services (PRCAHS) Department's
accomplishments to the Parks & Planning Board for the months of April through June of 2022. Attached
is a more detailed list of the department's work for the three months. A PowerPoint presentation is
planned for the July 13tn Board meeting to provide additional information and answer questions.
Highlights for 2022 2"d Quarter (additional items found in attached Accomplishment List)
1. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan: numerous meetings with City Council to
discuss draft revisions from their feedback and suggestions. Approval occurred on June 28tn
2. Civic Playfield Park Protect: Construction continues with many park elements and amenities now
taking form on the site. Off -site stormwater mitigation project adjacent to Yost Park is in
preparation for bidding with construction slated for this summer.
3. Park Planning: Parks Maintenance greenhouse variance approved and construction drawings in
development; Yost Pool Replaster project completed and closed out. Parks Planner/Project
Manager position recruited and hired, new employee to start July 18th. Managed a $2.9M
estate donation for Beautification program. Continued work on other possible parkland
acquisitions. Salmon Safe certification draft report reviewed by city staff and Planning Board.
Yost Park bridge assessment completed for one failing structure.
4. Parks Maintenance: Maintenance Operations Assessment shared with all parks maintenance
staff, next steps are to being implementation. Increase maintenance support of Yost pool due to
7 days/week operations by Cascade Swim Club; City Park Spray Park prepared and open
Memorial Day weekend, Yost and Seaview Park pickleball/tennis courts power washed, several
new nets and standards installed; about 100 flower hanging baskets installed downtown for the
season; Bill Anderson viewing scope installed at Edmonds Marsh. Many hours on seasonal and
full-time staff recruitment, interviews, hiring and on -boarding.
Recreation and Cultural Services Programs: Q2 Permits - 270 shelter permits, 1,550 field rental
hours and 160 gym rental hours. Major events included Earth Day (April 23rd), Watershed Fun
Fair (May 14tn) and Health & Fitness Expo (May 215t). Programming included NEW weekly
Summer Day Camp and 24 contracted youth camps; Adult Softball (51 teams) and Pickleball (48
teams) Leagues and new fitness classes; and 2,500 participants in the K-6 Marine Education
program.
Packet Pg. 14
5.A
6. Arts & Cultural Division Installation of two temporary On the Fence exhibits, Write on the Sound
conference development and maintenance of public art sculptures. Continued management of
two public art projects; Floretum Garden Club mosaic sculpture and Civic Park art pieces.
Managing 19 summer concerts (one at new location of Hickman Park) and Uptown Market
entertainment. Successful grant award for 4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor design. Awarded
$13,500 of Create Grants and recommendations for $20,000 Tourism Promotion awards.
Supported Hwy 99 Gateway design project.
7. Human Services Division: Hired and onboarded Compass Health Community Transitions
Outreach Coordinator. Assisted with ARPA funding ordinance revision to provide funding to
people receiving DSHS services. Created a part time workspace in the FAC Human Services office
for South Snohomish County Community Resource Advocate. Received Council authorization to
increase Program Manager to full-time. Updated Human Services Resource Guide on City's
website. Continuing to work with Snohomish County to enhance shelter in South County;
coordinated services for 49 individuals including emergency shelter and permanent housing and
ongoing oversight of five long-term motel vouchers.
Recommendation
This agenda item is for informational purposes, there is no need for a formal recommendation or action.
Attachments:
PRCS 2022 Q2 Accomplishments
Packet Pg. 15
5.A.a
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department
2022 Quarter 2 Accomplishments
April 1 - June 30, 2022
Administration
1. PROS Plan several presentations to City Council for their review and incorporation of
their suggested revisions. Approval was achieved on June 281n
2. Recruited and hired new Parks Planner/Project Manager, Kyle Woods, who is
scheduled to start on July 181n
3. Completed sale and contracts for 12 memorial benches and 1 picnic table.
4. Finalized 3 concessions agreements (Popsicle Vendor, Shaved Ice Vendor and Yost
Pool year-round operations)
5. Finalized special event agreements for the 41" of July Parade & 5K, Taste Edmonds,
and Classic Car Show. Contracts authorized by City Council for 2022.
6. Managed partnership with the Blue Heron Canoe Family's expanded special event in
City Park.
7. Facilitated and provided City oversight for the Summer Market and Edmonds Arts
Festival.
8. Facilitated donation acceptance for significant donation to Parks for $2.9M.
9. Working with Police Department regarding a repeat healthy and safety vandalism
issue at the Olympic Beach restroom.
10. Working with Development Services Department on Hwy 99 Revitalization,
Redefining Streets & Public Spaces Design and Green Streets projects.
11. Developed system to accommodate access for city's board and commission public
meetings to enable the continuation of remote meetings using rooms at the
Waterfront Center.
12. Developing working relationship with Edmonds College Horticulture program for
potential specialized park maintenance projects.
13. Participated in Public Works and Community Services/Economic Development
Director interviews.
Parks Planning & Projects
1. Yost Pool Re -Plaster Project completed and closed out. Not full replastering, but an
approach of significant patching. Unfortunately, the first option was cost prohibitive,
but since this is the third time the pool was only patched, it will require full
replastering.
2. Civic Center Playfield construction project is proceeding well. Much of the
underground infrastructure, dewatering and rough site grading is complete and park
amenities are starting to take form such as the skate park, athletic field lighting
bases, inclusive playground forms. The sports courts are paved as well as 6t" Avenue
sidewalk poured.
Packet Pg. 16
5.A.a
3. Shared the Parks Maintenance Assessment with all maintenance staff in April.
Working on starting implementation.
4. Parks Maintenance Greenhouse variance approved by Hearings Examiner.
Construction Documents being finalized and permitting development started.
5. Draft Salmon Safe Certification report was reviewed by city staff and also presented
to Planning Board. Additional work requested by Planning Board which is being
completed by both consultant, Public Works and Parks Departments.
6. Yost Park bridge structural assessment completed for failing potentially failing
bridge. Recommendation is to monitor for remainder of summer and close for the
fall/winter rainy season.
7. Dayton Street street trees (10) removal and replacement, working on not using
metal grates but pervious surface instead.
Park Maintenance
1. Significant increase to Yost Pool maintenance operations with Cascade Swim Club
scheduling using it 7 days a week. Pool chemical checks are necessary on Saturdays
and Sundays to ensure pool safety. Cascade Swim Club has been very helpful and
supportive in maintenance efforts, providing volunteer work parties to assist in
preparing for the full opening of the pool.
2. City Park Spray Park prepared and opened the Friday before Memorial Day. Spray
Park will close in September depending on weather.
3. Installed an additional ADA parking stall at Marina Beach Park near the dog park
entrance.
4. Pressure washed Yost Park and Seaview Park pickle ball / tennis courts.
5. On June 2" d, nearly 100 hanging flower baskets were installed in the downtown area.
6. Significantly trimmed back invasive blackberries for almost a linear mile of the
Interurban trail to increase safety.
7. Installed the new Bill Anderson Viewing Scope at Edmonds Marsh on the west end of
the board walk. Unfortunately, it was vandalized within days of installation and the
Ribbon Cutting ceremony needs to be postponed until the dedication plaques are
replaced.
8. Many hours spent on seasonal and full-time staff recruitment, interviews, hiring and
on -boarding. Still only 50% on seasonal staff due to hiring challenges.
Recreation Division
1. 270 shelter rental permits issued since April, 400 permits total.
2. 1,550 hours of field rental permits issued since April, 3,250 hours total.
3. 160 hours in gym rental reservations since April, 460 hours total.
4. Planned and implemented the annual Health & Fitness Expo — May 2111 at Edmonds
Woodway High School Stadium sponsored by the Verdant Health Commission and in
partnership with Move60 and the Edmonds School District. Participation numbers:
a. 500+ members of the public in attendance
b. 33 vendors promoting health/wellness and fitness for all ages
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
c. 131 Fun Run Runners (all ages)
d. 29 schools represented by participants (24 in Edmonds)
e. 16 zip codes represented by participants
5. Successfully planed, advertised, enrolled, hired staff and kicked off a new Summer Day
Camp. Current enrollment numbers:
a. 304 total enrollments out of 320 possible spots (94%)
b. 38% of participants are on full scholarships based on having limited income (115
scholarships) this is made possible due to the SEEK grant that was acquired.
6. Launched Meadowdale Preschool AM and PM registration 2022-23 deposits to secure a
spot were filled in 20 minutes.
7. Planned and coordinated 24 contracted youth camps at the Frances Anderson Center
for Summer 2022.
8. Successfully completed Spring Adult Softball Leagues with 51 teams.
9. Successfully completed 2 Pickleball leagues with 48 total teams.
10. Added two new fitness classes; Yoga in the Park and Barre.
11. Completed indoor gymnastics classes and started indoor gymnastics camp for the first
time since 2019 (all were outdoors during COVID). Hiring staff is an ongoing challenge.
12. Designed and published the Summer 2022 CRAZE recreation guide. This guide was done
entirely online.
13. Established a Constant Contact account and currently have 7,011 contacts. Regular
email contact to customers will begin in July.
14. Increased Facebook followers by 11%to 1,165 and Instagram followers by 6%to 800.
15. 52% increase in Facebook post engagements have increased from 1,123 in March to
1, 710.
Environmental Education
16. Managed a large volunteer effort on Earth Day, April 23 that included four sites and 120
participants. Trees were planted, invasive plants removed and as well as litter collected
at beaches.
17. Planned and held the Watershed Fun Fair on May 14; an environmental education day
that is free to attend at the Hatchery. 240 people participated, a new record.
18. Reached 2,500 school kids through the K-6 Spring Marine Education Program.
Arts & Culture Division
1. Public Art Collection: arranged for maintenance of four public art sculptures; completed
Civic Art design contract and signed fabrication contract with artist Clark Wiegman.
Supervised installation of two new 2022 temporary On the Fence exhibits. Completed
updates of Public Art Database.
3
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
2. Public Art Donations: Worked with Floretum Garden Club on donated public art mosaic
sculpture commission and plaque to be installed Aug 15. Arts Commission accepted two
donations of 2D art by Edmonds artists.
3. Write on the Sound (WOTS) Conference: Finalized schedule of presenters for Write on
the Sound writers' conference in October 2022. Implemented marketing and
preparations for online conference registration.
4. Summer Concerts: Marketed 19 Concerts in the Parks scheduled for summer 2022, with
the first two on June 26 and July 3, and one new location for a Sunday concert at
Hickman Park. Assisted with Uptown Market music performance program.
5. Poet's Perspective: Implemented new program with installation of temporary poetry
exhibited in two areas of Edmonds, the new Neighborhood Office and outside the
Library.
6. Exhibits: Restarted rotating art exhibits in Library and display cases which were on hold
during past 2 years.
7. Arts Support grant programs: Advertised and awarded $13,500 of Create Grants to local
artists and nonprofit arts organizations as carry over of 2021 one-time program.
Reviewed applications and submitted recommendations for 2023 Tourism Promotion
Awards for arts nonprofits totaling $20,000 to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
8. Creative District: Worked with Economic Development to create window clings for
Creative District businesses. Received approval of grant for Creative District capital grant
for final section of 4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor concept design in partnership with
Edmonds Center for the Arts.
9. Coordinated information booth and created materials to distribute on City Arts
programs at Edmonds Arts Festival.
10. Highway 99 Gateway: Worked with PW team and consultants to confirm final design for
medians.
Human Services Division
1. Completed hiring and onboard training of the Compass Health Community Transitions
Outreach Coordinator and Compass Health Masters of Social Work Supervisory team.
2. Coordinated services for 49 individuals to include gaining emergency shelter for 1
individual, permanent housing for another individual and coordination with Adult
Protective Services and Code Enforcement for another.
3. Provided support for distribution of ARPA funding to include ordinance revisions to pre -
qualify people receiving DSHS services.
4. Set up out stationing with the Community Resource Advocate of South Snohomish
County in the Human Services office.
5. Coordinated Helping Hands Project Organization to do outreach once a month at the
library for behavioral health services and other resources.
6. Ongoing oversight of five long-term motel vouchers for Edmonds Emergency Shelter
program through Snohomish County.
7. Updated the Human Services Resource Guide online.
8. Received Council authorization to increase Program Manager to full-time.
4
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.a
9. Conducted multiple meetings regarding Snohomish County's efforts to enhance shelter
in South County utilizing ARPA and HB 1590 funding and potential grant funding.
Youth Commission
1. Partnered with the City of Edmonds, Sounds Salmon Solutions, Edmonds Stewards, and
the Edmonds Citizen Tree board for Earth Day --supporting the beach cleanup event at
Marina Beach Park and Brackett's Landing North.
2. Resumed in -person meetings with great enthusiasm from commissioners --clear they are
burnt out on Zoom.
3. Presented annual report to city council while also appreciating graduating seniors
4. Held last meeting of the school seasons regular Youth Commission meetings.
Packet Pg. 20
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/13/2022
Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Code
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background
This is file AMD2022-0002. Staff introduced this project to the Planning Board on June 8, 2022.
This is a periodic update of the City's wireless communication facilities ordinance in ECDC 20.50. Like
previous updates in 2011, 2014 and 2019, the current project is proposed in response to changing
mandates at the federal level by the FCC as well as to implement current best practices and lessons -
learned from recent projects.
A redline/strikeout version of the draft code is included as Attachment 1. A clean version is in
Attachment 2.
Staff Recommendation
Take public testimony. Make revisions as necessary and move the draft code language to City Council
for continued refinement.
Narrative
The general goals of this code amendment project are to:
1. Update Applicability by clarifying master permit, license, and specific permit requirements and to
create a review of ROW installations after 10 years to ensure consistency with future wireless code
amendments for aesthetics.
2. Clarify shot clocks and application requirements, create a 90-day timeline for industry responses to
City corrections, and create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions.
3. Ensure Eligible Facility Requests track with recent FCC updates, create a 90-day timeline for industry
responses to City corrections, and create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions.
4. Clarify maintenance and abandonment language.
5. Update nonconforming language. Wireless language is proposed to be removed from ECDC 17.40
because all existing wireless facilities may be altered and updated in accordance with an Eligible Facility
Request as provided for by the FCC.
Packet Pg. 21
6.A
6. Revise small cell dimensional, location, and aesthetic standards which are intended to minimize visual
impact of small cell installations.
Comments
PUD has submitted a comment regarding small cell standards which is included as Attachment 6.
Discussions with PUD to find solutions for pole -top installations (Location Preference 3) and improved
side -mount attachments (Location Preference 4) are ongoing. Staff will share any new information from
these discussions at the public hearing.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- PB 7.13.22 ECDC 20.50 wireless draft redline -strikeout
Attachment 2 - PB 7.13.22 EDCD 20.50 wireless draft clean
Attachment 3 - June 8, 2022 PB draft minutes
Attachment 4 - Wireless Code Update PB Intro 6.8.22 slides
Attachment 5 - Notice Materials 7.13.22 PB Hearing
Attachment 6 - PUD City of Edmonds Small Wireless comments FINAL
Packet Pg. 22
6.A.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
Permits and shot clocks.
20.50.070
Application requirements.
20.50.080
Eligible facilities requests.
20.50.090
New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
20.50.100
New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities
standards.
20.50.110
New monopole standards.
20.50.120
Temporary facilities.
20.50.130
Small wireless standards and approval process.
20.50.140
Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150
Maintenance.
20.50.160
Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive wireless
communication facilities throughout the city. The purpose of this chapter may be achieved through
adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on
aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight
corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
communication facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the
extent feasible, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and
welfare is minimal;
4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential areas
and allow macro facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional
requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of macro facilities in residential areas;
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 23
6.A.a
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors
and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable
structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or
eliminate additional negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through
careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging
techniques, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any one
location, and through assessment of innovative siting techniques;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city
to use city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other
public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Balance the city's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication
facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are
abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and building code compliance, and
provide a mechanism for the city to cause these abandoned wireless communication
facilities to be removed as necessary to protect the citizens from imminent harm and
danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and
falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and
12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as possible
throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual
impact.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of
wireless communication facilities.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect
property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the development of
enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations. The provisions of this chapter are
not intended to and any ambiguities herein shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would
materially inhibit the deployment of wireless communication facilities. This chapter shall not be
applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally
equivalent wireless facilities.
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city
ordinance, this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the
other provisions and regulations of the city.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the
city shall act within federally required time periods. Any decision to deny an application shall be in
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 24
6.A.a
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. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019; 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, or preempted under federal law. All proposals are subject to the
critical areas requirements in ECDC Title 23 and the shoreline master program in ECDC Title 24.
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 expressly applicable to wireless
communication facilities. The city may require separate master permits for small
wireless facilities and macro facilities.
2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows to
have a complete application:
a. Make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office;
b. Submit an electronic proposed master permit form in Word format; 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 showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities
within the city of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; and
e. If the provider is seeking legislative approval for an alternative WCF design that
does not comply with this chapter, the provider may elect to use the following
optional WCF design approval process. To use this option process, the provider
must submit with the master permit application the following additional materials:
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 25
6.A.a
i. Photographs, precise measurements, and technical specifications of the
proposed alternative WCF design;
ii. A signed affidavit from a speaking agent for the provider that: (A) explains,
by citing to specific city code provisions, the factual reasons why the WCFs
used by the provider cannot comply with the city's adopted aesthetic
regulations; and (B) attaches photographs and technical specifications of all
other WCF designs currently available to the provider; and
iii. A legal analysis as to: (A) whether the city's approval of the proposed
alternative WCF would unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (B) whether the city's denial of the
proposed alternative WCF would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
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. As to master permits for small
wireless facilities, lif the city attorney and wireless provider have not been able to reach
agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit within 60 days of the date the
complete application was submitted, the wireless provider may submit the provider's
proposed master permit form to the council president directly and request that the
provider's proposed master permit be added to a forthcoming city council agenda for
consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed master
permit, including any renewal.
4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative
discretion of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be
approved by a majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit must
be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in
subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section, 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.
7. No master permit shall grant a vested right for any wireless communication facility or
related support structure or equipment to be or remain at any specific location in the
public right-of-way.
8. The city recognizes that a WCF could occupy city right-of-way for a period of more than
five years if consecutive master permits are granted or renewal is granted by the city
council. Therefore, subject to the ten year restriction below, all master permits and
renewals are conditioned to allow city review of the general and specific design standards
of any and all wireless communications facilities occupying city right-of-way in recognition
of advances in technology, concealment products, and changing local law, federal law,
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 26
6.A.a
and administrative guidance from the FCC. Considering the foregoinq and to the extent
not prohibited by law, the city may require the owner of a wireless communications facility
occupying city right-of-way to apply again for a wireless communications facilities permit
to allow the city an opportunity to re-evaluate the desiqn standards which may result in a
new location or aesthetic requirements consistent with the above considerations and then -
current code; Provided that, no new wireless communications facilities permit will be
required under this paragraph for any WCF lawfully occupying city right-of-way until at
least ten years after the date of the initial right-of-way permit authorizing its installation.
D. Facilities Lease or License Needed. A facilities lease agreement is required prior to placement,
construction, or modification of any WCF on city owned real property other than city right-of-way. A
license agreement is required prior to installation of a WCF attached to a city owned utility pole in
city right-of-way_(e.-g- a streetlight), including replacement of such pole to accommodate a WCF.
The city's standard license agreement form shall be used, including for replacement or new
installation of a decorative streetlight per ECDC 20.50.130(A)(4).
E. Site Specific Authorizations. Prior to placement, construction, or modification of any WCF at any
particular location, an applicant must submit a wireless communication facilities application as
specified in ECDC 20.50.070, and the city must approve that application. Said application will
include an application for a building permit or a right-of-way construction permit, as applicable. If the
city approves a WCF application, the approval shall be included as part of the associated right-of-
way permit or building permit, as applicable, and shall document all conditions of WCF application
approval. If the applicant believes its proposal qualifies as an eligible facilities request, then it shall
submit an eligible facilities request application under ECDC 20.50.080(B) in lieu of a WCF
application.
1. Building Permit. A building permit is required prior to placement, construction, or
modification -of a WCF on private property pursuant to ECDC Title 19.
2. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior to
placement, construction, or modification of any WCF within the city right-of-way pursuant to
ECDC Title 18. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; 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.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 27
6.A.a
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and
commercial zones.
G. Routine maintenance or repair of wireless communication facilities.
H. Emergency communications equipment or a COW or other temporary WCF during a declared
public emergency.
I. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing coverage during a special event
such as a festival, subject to approval by the city. Such a facility is exempt from the provisions of this
chapter for up to three days before the special event begins and three days after the special event
ends.
J. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing service during repair or
replacement of an existing facility for a period of up to 14 days.
K. 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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A),
2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or more
frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers
To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless
communication facilities:
1. Collocation, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon
which the facility would be located;
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 28
6.A.a
2. Collocation, 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. New monopole facilities must include mounts capable of accommodating at least one other
wireless provider.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise
Abatement and Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with
any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator
or similar device. The city may require that the report be reviewed by a third -party expert at the
expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the city.
Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a
business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may be
located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless
communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular
maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material.
The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any applicable
standards of the FAA or FCC.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures,
screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles
shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting
structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are
permitted, the city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the
least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted 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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 29
6.A.a
L. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to
contain the required equipment and a reserve for required collocation.
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 FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with
FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in
areas accessible by the general population, the director may require post -installation testing to
determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such
testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and
softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole,
facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the
antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building
and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required.
The director or his design 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 achieves 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.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 30
6.A.a
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal or
wood fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014;
Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication facility
subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement pursuant to
ECDC 20.50.020(C) and the permit(s) issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise
provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of
this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or equipment associated with a wireless
communication facility shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless
facilities are expressly exempted from a provision of Chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context
necessitates that a provision of Chapter 18.05 ECDC not apply to wireless facilities.
B. Wireless Communication Facilities Application (WCF application.) A WCF application is an
application for approval of a proposed site for the location of a wireless communication facility and
approval of the proposed placement, design, and appearance of a wireless communications facility.
WCF aApplications 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 (building permit and/or ROW permit), as shown in Table A. In the event of
uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what
permits are required for the proposed facility.
Table A
Right -of -Way
FCC Shot Clocks
Request
Location
Building Permit
(ROW) Permit
for Permit
Required
Required
Review
Eligible facilities
Existing tower or base
Yes, if on private
Yes, if in ROW
60 days
request
station
property
New macro
Collocation
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New macro
New structure or monopole
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
150 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New small
Collocation
Yes, if on private
Yes, if any
60 days
wireless facility
property
elements in the
ROW
New small
New structure or
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
wireless facility
freestanding small wireless
on private property
elements in the
facility
ROW
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 31
6.A.a
Table A
Right -of -Way
FCC Shot Clocks
Request
Location
Building Permit
(ROW) Permit
for Permit
Required
Required
Review
Temporary
Varies
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
Standard
facility
on private property
elements in the
permit quotes
ROW
C. Timelines.
1. Macro Facilities. The WCF application review period begins when all required
application materials have been received and fees paid. If the city determines that the
application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within 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 10 days that a supplemental submission did not provide the
requested information.
The aDplicant must return anv supDlemental submission to the citv within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
Dermit system within 90 days. then the citv will consider the oriainal WCF application to
be withdrawn
2. Small Wireless Facilities. The city shall review the WCF application for completeness
and notify the applicant if the application is incomplete consistent with requirements of
federal and state law.
The aDplicant must return anv supDlemental submission to the city within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
Dermit system within 90 days. then the citv will consider the oriainal WCF application to
be withdrawn
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 32
6.A.a
3. In the event federal review timelines, commonly referred to as shot clocks, are
changed or removed, then the timelines in Table A and in this subsection C shall be
likewise changed or removed without the need for council amendment to this ordinance.
D. Batched Small Wireless Facility Applications. If an applicant is applying for a small wireless
network in a contiguous service area, multiple small wireless facilities may be batched into one
application; provided, that the application fee shall still be calculated as if the applications were
submitted separately. The director or his/her designee may approve, deny or conditionally approve
all or any portion of the small wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial of one or
more small wireless facility locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of
other locations or the entire batched application for small wireless facilities. Should an applicant file a
single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures for small wireless
facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the city has adequate time to review the
new construction sites.
E. Any WCF application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects proposed to be located on
public or private property or in the rights -of -way shall be reviewed and evaluated by the appropriate
director, for compliance with the applicable design standards. or his designee The director of publi,.
works or his/her desigRee shall review all proposed wireless GOMmuniGation faGilities that are leGateel
partially or fully within the city rights of way. Regardless of whether the director or the director o
p� �bliG WGFks or their respentiye desig s are re„iewiRg the applicatiep Aall applications will be
reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
applicable `Design standards by the director of his/her designee., and f rler��� aHavv
GF. 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.).
HG. 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.
fH. 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.
JI. Third -Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the
services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected
coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths.
In certain instances, a third -party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical
data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its discretion require third -party
engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third -
party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third -party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third -party
expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site -
specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless
communication facilities application and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 33
6.A.a
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.
t4J. Decision and permits. A decision on the WCF application shall either approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application, and it shall be signed by the director. Any decision hereunderby
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.
If the city approves a WCF application, no separate WCF permit shall issue; the approval shall be
included as part of the associated right-of-way permit or building permit, as applicable, and shall
state the conditions of WCF application approval, if any. Approval signifies compliance with the
design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC and compliance with the other
requirements of ECDC 20.50.070; it is the approval of a particular location of a wireless
communication facility and confirmation that the approved placement, design, and appearance
complies with the design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
The right-of-way permit or building permit and associated WCF application approval is issued
subject to the applicant obtaining all other required permits and authorizations and is subject to the
conditions of Ch 20.50, Ch 18.60 as applicable, all applicable city code provisions, and subject to the
terms of all city authorizations, including the master permit, lease or license, as applicable, and
federal law.
No right-of-way permit or other city approval or authorization, in whatever form, shall grant a vested
right for any wireless communication facility or related support structure or equipment to be or
remain at any specific location in the public right-of-way.
K. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
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
applicable permits issues. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A),
20111.
20.50.070 WCF Application requirements.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 34
6.A.a
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, for macro cell
facilities, a collocation analysis indicating the alternative locations considered;
B. Aerial photo or map showing entire proposed deployment (small wireless only);
C. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in
accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
D. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of each site and appearance of
the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
E. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
F. Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an RF
engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility 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.
G. The applicant shall provide proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide the
service() or utilize the technologies sought to be installed.
H. A professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington shall certify in writing, over his or her
seal, that both construction plans and final construction of the WCF and the antenna support
structure or pole and foundation are designed to reasonably withstand wind and seismic loads.
GI. For small wireless facility deployments, the following additional documentation shall be provided
as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the location preference criteria set forth in
ECDC 20.50.130(B), as applicable: The applicant shall provide (i) a completed checklist available
through the city's website and (ii) a narrative description supporting that checklist addressing all of
the following, as applicable:
1. For installations proposed for location preference No. 2 (freestanding small wireless
facility or new streetlight), provide all of the following -to the extent applicable within 150
lineal feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless
facility location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 35
6.A.a
a. Where no poles exist in the area: evidence that no utility poles, traffic signal
poles, or streetlight poles exist;
b. Where poles exist that cannot fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all pole owners, denying the applicant's request to replace any
of the existing poles that are not capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless
facility with a new pole that is capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless
facility on the grounds that no such replacement pole is available on the market or
due to other reasonably insoluble problems expressed in writing by the pole owner;
c. Where poles exist that can fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all owners of poles within 150 lineal feet in either direction of
each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way
line for the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to install the small
wireless facility within any such existing poles.
2. For installations proposed for location preference No. 3 (on top of existing power pole)
provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction,
on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured
along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsection (Gl)(1) of this section; and
b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small wireless facility in the
right-of-way could not be met_; and If the design standards cannot be met on the
basis of a claim of technical infeasibility, such claim must be supported by a signed
statement from a licensed RF engineer, or other licensed engineer type as
applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful third -party review
under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
c. TConfirmat+on by —the director of public -werk&-may evaluate whethert#at a new
streetlight pole capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless facility is needed
at the proposed location ardor within 150 lineal feet on each side of the proposed
location and on either side of the street, and, if so determined, may require such a
pole to be installed in lieu of a freestanding small wireless facility. If so determined,
the director may deem the WCF application to be incomplete for proposed location
preference No. 3 and require revisions to the wireless communication facilities
application addressinq plans for a new streetlight pole. In this situation, federal and
city timelines and rules applicable to small wireless facilities and incomplete
applications shall apply. was not determined to ben odor
3. For installations proposed for location preference No. 4 (in communication space on
existing power pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal
feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility
location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (CI)(1) and (2) of this section; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation on top of the
pole; or
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 36
6.A.a
c. Written documentation from all owners of the power -existing poles denying the
request to install the small wireless facility on any such power poles that would allow
for installation on top of the pole, supported by a reasonable and nondiscriminatory
basis from the pole owner for any denial. An alternative preference or lack of
convenience is not a reasonable basis. Any denial shall, include a 4,G6d4ig-ao
declarationaffk avit from the pole owner that (i) there are no it does not aEjyPole
owner sanctioned -third-party attachments currently occupyingies + atta h
to similar segments of any of its poles, and (ii) it has no current agreements with any
third -parties authorizing third -party attachments to occupy similar segments of any
of its poles. All denials shall be evaluated by the Director. The pole owner must
articulate a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for any denial. In the absence of
such a basis, and as a condition of the City's continued consent to maintain poles in
the City's rights -of -way pursuant to RCW 54.04.040, the pole owner shall
accommodate the installation of small wireless facilities consistent with federal law
in the manner required to accommodate the City's location preference hierarchy of
Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
4. For installations proposed for location preference No. 5 (strand -mounted) provide all of
the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction, on both
sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured along
the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (Gl)(1), (2), and (3) of this section; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation within the
communication space; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the existing power poles denying the
request to install the small wireless facility on any such existing power poles that
would allow for installation within the communication space, supported by a
reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis from the pole owner for any denial. An
alternative preference or lack of convenience is not a reasonable basis. Any denial
shall include �g a declaration from the pole owner that (i) there are no pole
owner sanctioned third -party attachments currently occupying similar segments of
its poles, and ii) it has no current agreements with any third -parties authorizing
third -party attachments to occupy similar segments of its poles. The pole owner
must articulate a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for any denial. In the
absence of such a basis, and as a condition of the City's continued consent to
maintain poles in the City's rights -of -way pursuant to RCW 54.04.040, the pole
owner shall accommodate the installation of small wireless facilities consistent
with federal law in the manner required to accommodate the City's location
Preference hierarchy of Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
5. For each small wireless facility to be placed on or at the location of an existing pole,
whether that pole is to be replaced or whether it is to remain, written documentation of the
pole owner's consent to the applicant's proposed placement at that location.
6. Demonstration of compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code.
Jai. A copy of the provider's approved master permit. A master permit is required as applicable
pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020(C)(1). If the provider does not have a master permit authorizing the
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 37
6.A.a
desired type of deployment, then the applicant must submit a master permit application under
ECDC 20.50.020(C) concurrent with anv wireless communication facilities application.
K. A right-of-way construction permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by the city.
If work involves pole replacement by the pole owner, then an additional right-of-way
construction permit application shall be submitted by the pole owner as part of a complete
application.
L. A building permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by the city.
M. An executed facilities lease agreement or an application for a city standard form license
agreement as applicable.
Nf. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. [Ord.
4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
This section implements Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which
requires the city of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing
tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or
base station. If Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act is repealed or modified, the requirements of this
section are likewise repealed or modified without the need for council amendment of this ordinance.
A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described in this
section and do not apply throughout this chapter:
1. "Base station" is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed
or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications
network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment
associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave
backhaul.
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 wireless
facility networks).
c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed
(with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved
under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local
regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary
purpose of providing that support.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 38
6.A.a
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" means 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" means any request for modification of an existing tower or
base station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such tower or
base station, involving:
a. Collocation of new transmission equipment;
b. Removal of transmission equipment; or
c. Replacement of transmission equipment.
4. "Eligible support structure" means 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" means, for towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current
boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or
utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures,
further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission
equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of the site are the
boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification
to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a state or local government, if the
approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of
the section 6409(a) process.
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 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array
with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed 20 feet, whichever
is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure
by more than 10 percent or more than 10 feet, whichever is greater.
i. 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
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 39
6.A.a
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 24-0 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level
of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it
involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude
from the edge of the structure by more than 6&x feet;
c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed
four cabinets; 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 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, except that, for
towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it entails any excavation or
deployment of transmission equipment outside of the current site by more than 30
feet in any direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes
any access or utility easements currently related to the 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 subsections A.7.(a)-(d) 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. All applications for an eligible facilities request must be submitted on the
city's application form.
C. Time Frame for Review. Within 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 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 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 40
6.A.a
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. The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the original eligible facilities
request application to be withdrawn
4-. Following a supplemental submission, the director will notify the applicant within 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, then the director must deny
the application.
F. Failure to Act. In the event the director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible facilities
request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is deemed granted
The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the director in writing after
the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed
granted.
G. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
H. 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. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019].
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility
standards.
A. General. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall
be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed
toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from
public views using radio frequency -transparent panels. Building -mounted wireless communication
facilities shall be painted with nonreflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas
are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as Identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas
shall be flush -mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on
which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 41
6.A.a
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.
09
Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 42
6.A.a
�Jai
Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; 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.
B. Height.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned city rights -of -
way adjacent to single-family residential (IRS) zones shall satisfy the following
requirement:
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a single-
family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the provisions of
the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type generally in use in the
surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used unless prohibited by the State
Electrical Code.
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with
nonreflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
1. The maximum height of structure -mounted wireless communication facilities shall not
exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights -of -way
are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six feet
above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed.
Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the
structure.
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 43
6.A.a
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 master permit 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
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 44
6.A.a
Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
A. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height allowed
in the zone where the facility is located.
B. Monopoles must be completely shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be
concealed.
C. 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).
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 45
6.A.a
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Unacceptable Monopole WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 46
6.A.a
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 Electrical 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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A),
2019; 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 wireless coverage over large areas, the goal of
a small wireless facility 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 wireless facility deployments and provide
appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of small wireless facilities
are minimized.
A. Permitted Locations. Installation of small wireless facilities on existing buildings could help
minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise
be placed on utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to
be located entirely on buildings as it may not be technically feasible to do so and, in addition, some
property owners within the desired small wireless facility deployment area may not want to
participate. A mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be used.
1. Small wireless facility attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are not
subject to the dispersion requirement below.
2. Fully concealed freestanding small wireless facilities are permitted in any zone (except
downtown business) but are still subject to the dispersion requirement below.
3. Dispersion Requirement.
a. Small wireless facilities located pursuant to location preference No. 1 --hollow
utility pole-- are not subject to the dispersion requirement.
b. No two freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located within 150 feet
radially.
c. For all other small wireless facilities, nNo two small wireless facilities shall be
located within 300 feet radially; provided, that this dispersion t shall not
apply to small wireless faGilities that are 10Gated pursuant to
9 below; and further provided that -this dispersion requirement shall not apply to
collocation in a fully concealed pole.
4. Downtown business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or
hollow utility poles. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists, replacement or new installation
of a decorative streetlight shall match the style and character of the existing Sternberg
streetlights, as determined by the public --works director, and shall be designed to contain
a small wireless facility in a fully concealed manner. Small wireless facilities shall not be
attached to Sternberg streetlights that were not designed to host fully concealed small
wireless facilities.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 47
6.A.a
5. In areas where utility systems are underground, small cell facility deployment will be
limited to existing buildings, new or replaced streetlights and/or installation of
freestanding small wirelessee# facilities.
6. Small wireless facilities may not be located on sites identified on official local, state or
federal historic registries.
7. Small wireless facilities may not be located in the communications space on wood
poles that contain a streetlight.
B. Location Preference Hierarchy. When locating small wireless facilities in the right-of-way, wireless
providers shall site their small wireless facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences. These
siting preferences are expressed in descending order, starting with the most preferred. Wireless
providers may not descend to a lower preference in the list below until they have determined that the
higher preferences are not feasible in accordance with ECDC 20.50.070(G). Failure to show lack of
feasibility of a higher preference shall be grounds for denial of an application.
1. Location preference No. 1 — hollow utility pole.
2. Location preference No. 2 — freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight.
3. Location preference No. 3 — existing power pole (installation on top of pole).
4. Location preference No. 4 — existing power pole (installation in communication space)
5. Location preference No. 5 — strand -mounted.
C. General Design Standards. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following general
design standards apply to all small wireless facilities:
1. Collocation. All new poles must be capable of accepting at least two wireless facilities
in a fully concealed manner, unless accommodation of a second facility is not technically
feasible.
2. Ground -mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that pole -mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible. If
ground -mounted equipment is necessary, the equipment must be fully concealed.
Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited.
3. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of
Chapter 5.30 ECC.
4. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, clear
zone requirements and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe
passage within the rights -of -way.
5. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the
requirement to remove the abandoned pole unless alternate location el,n is
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 48
6.A.a
required in order to meet the AD° clearance standards and regulations of ECDC
20 SO 130 C_4_
6Evnent for the health warning sinnane referenced below, Nno 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.. All small wireless facilities shall have affixed to them a health nia rninn Ginn
The health warning sign shall be sized and oriented On such a manner as to be legibl-e
from the sidewalk. The health warning sign shall not exceed one square foot On area. The
health warning sign shall read as follows: "WARNING: This deV.Ge transmits radiatieR.
unknown." The warning language shail be accompanied by the following symbol:
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 such as a streetlight.
8. Power must be drawn from a connection in the supply space on all power pole
installations.
9.8. The director is authorized to approve applications that deviate from the general
design standards, above, and the specific design standards, below, to the extent
necessary to approve an application that is consistent with the applicant's alternative
WCF design, but only where that applicant has already had the proposed alternative
WCF design approved by the city council pursuant to the optional process set forth in
ECDC 20.50.020(C)(2)(e). City council approval of an alternative WCF design does not
necessarily make other design standards inapplicable to that provider. Applicants shall
comply with the other design standards herein as much as their alternative WCF design
allows.
D. Specific Design Standards for Facilities in the Right -of -Way.
1. Location Preference No. 1 - Hollow Utility Pole. This option applies to any existing pole
in the right-of-way (power pole, streetlight pole, traffic light pole) that could feasibly be
replaced with a hollow pole designed to host small wireless facilities in a fully concealed
manner. In many but not all instances, this location preference will involve the
replacement of a wood pole with a hollow pole that serves the same needs as its
predecessor while also hosting small wireless facilities in a fully concealed manner.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 49
6.A.a
a. Combination small wireless facility and power pole must meet the pole owner's
requirements for power distribution. New combination small wireless facility and
power poles must be designed to host small wireless facilities from at least two
carriers in a fully enclosed manner. 5G antennas only may be exposed until such
time that the technology develops to make concealment of 5G antennas feasible.
b. Combination small wireless facility 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 wireless facility installation in the same location.
c. Pole design shall match or be compatible with the aesthetics of existing
streetlights installed adjacent to the pole.
d. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists in the downtown business district (BD)
zones, replacement or new installation of a decorative streetlight shall match the
style and character of the existing Sternberg streetlights, as determined by the
mks -director, and shall be designed to contain a small wireless facility in a
fully concealed manner.
e. The pole shall have a streamlined appearance similar to the pole in the
embedded diagram, below. For a combination pole to be considered visually
pleasing, the transition between the equipment cabinet and upper pole should be
considered. A decorative transition shall be installed over the equipment cabinet
upper bolts, or decorative base cover shall be installed to match the equipment
cabinet size.
FIBER
SPLICEfPULL
sox
FINAL
GRADE
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
CANTENNA
LUMINAIRE
LUMINAIRE MAST ARM
UPPER POLE
EQUIPMENT CABINET
STANDARD
FOUNDATION
Acceptable Design UnacceptableUnacceptable Design
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 50
6.A.a
f. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment cabinet. All
hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces greater
than one and one-half inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to prevent cups,
trash, and other objects from being placed on the equipment cabinet.
g. Internal separation of electrical wiring and fiber to be provided, as required by the
pole owner.
h. 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.
i. The antenna shall be fully concealed within the pole, if technically feasible. If it is
not technically feasible to fully conceal the antenna within the pole, a shrouded
antenna may be flush -mounted to either the side or top of the pole. The basis for
any claim of technical infeasibility here must be supported by a signed statement
from a licensed RF engineer that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(J). Antennas and equipment located
within a unified enclosure may also be flush -mounted, as described above, if it is not
technically feasible to fully conceal the unified enclosure within the pole, and if the
unified enclosure does not exceed four cubic feet in volume. The following is an
example of a compliant unified enclosure
j. A cantenna or canister antenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more
than six 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 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
concealed and integrated with the pole.
k. Utility poles shall be located as follows:
i. In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or vehicular
travel.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 51
6.A.a
ii. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights, where
practicable.
iii. Equal distance between trees when possible, and to avoidwith a minimum „f
16 foot separation such that no proposed disturbance shall occur within the
critical root zone of any tree.
iv. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
v. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vi. Ten feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
I. All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the utility pole.
2. Location Preference No. 2 — Freestanding Small Wireless Facility or New Streetlight.
a. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this section
are for installations within the right-of-way only. The accompanying diagram shows a
typical pole and its elements.
i. Dimensional Requirements.
A. A freestanding small wireless facility may not exceed 2-5-38 feet in
height measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna
B. The equipment cabinet must be no greater than 2022 inches in
diameter.
C. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment
cabinet. The pole shall be tapered to transition from the equipment
cabinet to the upper pole, as shown in the graphic below. The pole
diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than one
and one-half inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper
pole.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 52
6.A.a
Acceptable Design Unacceptable Design
ii. Appearance Requirements.
A. The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to
maintain a cohesive appearance. If freestanding small wireless facilities
already exist within the deployment area, then the new facility shall be
designed to match the existing facilities as much as practicable.
B. All small wireless facility carrier equipment must be housed internal to
the equipment cabinet or hidden within the cantenna. The cantenna,
upper pole and equipment cabinet must be of the same brown or green
colors, unless otherwise approved by the director.
C. All hardware connections shall be hidden from view.
D. No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole.
E. The freestanding small wireless facility must be served by underground
power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected.
iii. Location Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities must:
A. Be IL-ocated such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the
usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct the legal
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 53
6.A.a
access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law, violate or fail
to substantially comply with public ROW design standards, specifications,
or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health, safety,
or welfare.
B. Not be located in the9utside the downtown business district (BD)
zones.
C. NSo as -not -to be located along the frontage of a historic building,
deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level.
D. So as Nnot-to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight
lines. Where feasible, poles should be in alignment with property side
yards.
EF-. Be a€qual distance between trees when possible, with a minimur„ of
15._foot separation and avoid ad^h that no proposed disturbanGe shaIr
occur oo th rrthe critical root zone of any tree.
FG. Be located wWith appropriate clearance from existing utilities,
PROVIDED THAT, where adequate clearance cannot be achieved from
communications lines, such lines may be attached to the freestanding
pole.
GPI. Be itn compliance with clear zone and sight distance requirements
H4. Be Jen foot away from the intersection of an alley with a street
b. New Streetlight. The hollow utility pole requirements are also applicable to the
new streetlight alternative of ECDC 20.50.070(I)(2)(c), except that a streetlight
would be incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the following
applies:
A new streetlight shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the
director of public works -that a streetlight is necessary at the location in which
the small wireless facility is proposed. A streetlight may be required to be
installed instead of a freestanding wireless facility.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 54
6.A.a
3. Location Preference No. 3 — Existing Power Pole (Installation on Top of
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
Pole).
c-CANTENNA
(TOP MOUNTED)
LUMINAIRE & MAST '
ARM
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
WITH ANTENNA (SIDE
MOUNTED)
UTILITY PALL
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
xCEL ENERGY METER
WITHDISCONNECT
a. A cantenna may not extend more than six feet above the height of the existing
pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by more than two
inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the applicant can demonstrate
technological infeasibility. 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 concealed.
b. 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 -be flush mounted to the polenot be mount
more than sox in�lrom the surfnno of the polo, rdunless a further 'stanGe unless
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 55
6.A.a
not technically feasible, and in such case shall be mounted as closely as possible to
the pole.is teGhRiGally required, Rd i enformed i ritiRg by the pole e
c.
M cables and wires shall be routed through conduit along the outside of the p
The outside conduit shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of
the wooden polo The number of pond pit shall he minimizer) to the numher
technically pe e rlp, to oate all w� reless facility and shall not
I pr.rease then w,her of ooprL it OR e iotiRg pole tom a than three oonrL pit All
cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall be enclosed in a
riser, such as U-Guard or similar, and mounted flush against the outside of the pole.
The riser shall be a maximum diameter of 3 inches and shall be colored or painted
to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number of risers -shall be
minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a small wireless
facility. Post installation, the total number of risers and preexisting conduit or risers
on a pole shall not exceed three. The pole owner and the applicant shall work
together to ensure the total number of conduit and risers on the pole will not exceed
three.
d. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a technical
infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement from a licensed
engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
e. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting requirements
upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and finds that flush -
mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic benefits are significant
and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The city council finds it is a
reasonable regulation over the construction and maintenance of poles and
equipment operated within the city and so regulates under its police power pursuant
to RCW 54.04.040.
fd. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
ge. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the
purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the height of any
replacement pole may not exceed 50 feet to the top of the cantenna.
hf. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be considered
secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole
serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes unnecessary, the pole
shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small wireless
facility and the small wireless facility and all associated equipment shall be removed
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 56
6.A.a
4. Location Preference No. 4 — Existing Power Pole (Installation in Communication
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
Space).
OLE
NT SHROUD
NT SHROUD
:RGY METER
CONNECT
a. Antennas should be placed in an effort to minimize visual clutter and
obtrusiveness. Only one antenna array is permitted on each wooden pole. The
inside edge of a side mounted canister antenna/equipment shroud shall project no
more than 12 inches from the surface of the wooden pole.
b. To the extent technically feasible, antennas and equipment shall be located
together within a unified enclosure which shall not exceed 4foLtr cubic feet. The
unified enclosure shall be placed so as to appear as an integrated part of the pole or
behind banners or signs. The unified enclosure may not be placed more than six
inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required
and confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
c. Any other equipment shall be shrouded in an Equipment enclosures of the
minimum size that is technically feasible 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 12s+x
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 57
6.A.a
inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required,
and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
d. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall be
enclosed in a riser, such as U-Guard or -similar, and mounted flush against along -the
outside of the pole. The riser shall be a maximum diameter of outside Go nd + 3
inches and shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the
wooden pole. The number of risers conduit shall be minimized to the number
technically necessary to accommodate a small wireless facility_ and -Post installation,
the total number of risers and preexisting conduit or risers on a pole shall not exceed
three.
The pole owner and the applicant shall work together to ensure the total number of
conduit and risers on the pole will not exceed three.
e. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a technical
infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement from a licensed
engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
f. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting requirements
upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and finds that flush -
mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic benefits are significant
and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The city council finds it is a
reasonable regulation over the construction and maintenance of poles operated
within the city and so regulates under its police power.
ge. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
hf. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the
purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the height of the
antenna may not exceed 35 feet above ground, and any replacement pole may not
extend more than 10 feet above the height of the existing pole, unless a further
height increase is required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such
height increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation
and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities.
ig. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be considered
secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole
serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes unnecessary, the pole
shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small wireless
facility and the small wireless facility and all associated equipment shall be removed
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 58
6.A.a
5. Location Preference No. 5 — Strand -Mounted. Small wireless facility facilities mounted
on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the following
standards:
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT)
SHROUD
OTILITY POLE
QUIPMENT SHROUD
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
XCEL ENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
This graphic is intended to represent a strand -mounted antenna.
a. To the extent technically feasible, antennas shall not exceed one cubic feet in
volume.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 59
6.A.a
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 and in no event more than five feet from the pole unless a greater
distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance and confirmed in
writing by the pole owner.
d. No strand -mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the roadway
open to vehicular traffic.
e. Ground -mounted equipment to accommodate such strand -mounted facilities is
not permitted, except when placed in preexisting equipment cabinets, underground
or on zoned property.
f. Pole -mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections
(D){2)(4)�d)(iii), (mv) and (_V) of this section.
g. 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.
E. Specific Design Standards for Facilities Located Outside the Right -of -Way.
1. On a Building.
a. Roof -Mounted.
i. Small wireless facilities may be built to the maximum height of the underlying
zone (or use the height exception in subsection (E)(1)(a)(iii) of this section)
provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of
color, architectural style and materials.
ii. 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.
iii. Height Exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above
the underlying zone maximum is three feet with a maximum footprint of 12
square feet in horizontal section.
b. Facade -Mounted.
i. Small wireless facility antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if
they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural theme
ii. New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar
ornamentation that conceal the antennas should be used if they complement
the architecture of the existing building.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 60
6.A.a
iii. 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.
iv. 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 12
inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any
pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
v. 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.
vi. 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 parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical expansion of
the height nonconformity is prohibited.
2. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this section are for
installations on zoned property only. Refer to subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section for
dimensional and appearance standards.
a. Placement Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located
as follows:
i. Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law
ii. Within five feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within five feet of
a side property line.
iii. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines
iv. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
v. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
vi. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vii. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of
whether power is underground or overhead. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019].
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
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 61
6.A.a
prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. For purposes of this section, a wireless
communication facility includes a freestanding small wireless facility that has been abandoned or the
operations of all its enclosed small wireless facilities have been discontinued.
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. Removal of all associated elements of the freestanding small wireless facility, including
but not limited to the foundation.
32. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
43. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre -permit or better
condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility
operator may remain in place.
54. If a carrier fails to remove and/or restore a wireless communication facility in
accordance with this section, the city shall have the authority to enter the subject property
and physically remove and/or restore the facility. Costs for physical removal of the
wireless communication facility and/or restoration shall be charged to the wireless
communication facility owner or operator in the event the city removes the facility and/or
restores the site. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att.
A), 2011].
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicant -permit holder and wireless communication facility owner shall maintain the wireless
communication facility to standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or through permit
condition. In the absence of the foregoing, the following minimum standards apply: Such
maintenacce shall ire^', ide bUt nef he I;,. *ed All shrouds and enclosures shall be kept in good repair,
paint shall be in good condition, any graffiti shall be removed, structural integrity shall remain intact,
any landscaping required as a condition of the permit shall be upkept. Upon receipt of notice of
failure to comply with standards consistent with this paragraph, the permit holder or facility owner
shall repair within fourteen (14) calendar days unless good cause is shown to the director why more
time is necessary. to repair of damaged shrouds or ennles urec painting, stru Gt Ural integrity, and
IandE;GaplR9-.
B. For purposes of this section, wireless communication facility includes freestanding small wireless
facility. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be maintained as required in this section.
C. All above ground wireless communication facilities shall have affixed a coded label or marker that
identifies the specific facility and sets forth a telephone number that may be called to report any
damaae. destruction. or araffiti involvina that facility.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 62
6.A.a
DB. In the event the permit holder or facility owner fails to maintain the facility, the city of
Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations, or under
the master permit, or both. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A),
2011].
1 20.50.160 Definitions.
A. "Antenna(s)" means any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency (RF)
radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for
the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services.
B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, during
repair of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or
structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.
D.`neealed facility" means ING 1) the antennas, mounting apparatus, cinrl mm
as a ,
#iol� "Director" means either the Director of Public Works or the Director of Development Services,
as applicable, or either's designee.
E. "Distributed antenna system (DAS)" is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected
to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure.
F. "Equipment" means any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated
on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.
G. "Freestanding small wireless facility" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical
hollow pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole purpose of
supporting and concealing small wireless antennas and associated equipment.
H. "Fully concealed facility" means a WCF where: (1) the antennas, mounting apparatus, and any
associated equipment are fully concealed within a pole or other structure: and (2) all cable is routed
internally to the structure: and (3) the associated equipment is completely within the building or
structure. Dlaced in an underground vault, or is within another element such as a bench. mailbox or
kiosk.
HI. "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by
diagonal cables.
U "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed
strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
dK. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build
and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 63
6.A.a
t4L. "Macro cell facility (macro facility)" means 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 cubic feet per antenna and typically cover large geographic
areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple wireless service providers.
LM. "Monopole" means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the
ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting macro antennas and their associated equipment.
MN. "Poles" means utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support
electrical wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for the
sole purpose of supporting a WCF.
NO. "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.
OP. "Small wireless facility (or small cell node)" means a wireless facility that meets each of the
following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent
structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more
than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not
more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless
equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting 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;
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 64
6.A.a
5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule.
RQ. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct -to -home satellite services.
QR. "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.
RS. "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.
ST. "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.
TU. "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.
JJV. "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 collocation of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole.
VW. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment' is all equipment ancillary to a
wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
WX. "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.
XY. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications
services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile
radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and similar
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 65
6.A.a
services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019;
Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 66
6.A.a
Chapter 17.40
NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS
Sections:
17.40.000 Purpose.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
17.40.020 Nonconformina buildina and/or structure.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units.
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
17.40.060 Setback exemption.
17.40.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots to
continue while limiting the continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other nonconforming
uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated
[Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use
regulations, but is no longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in
this chapter or a prior ordinance.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C)
of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in
ECDC 17.40.050.
C. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the
property occupied by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance.
Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the
seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75
percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 18 months
of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180-day
extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not
apply if:
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 67
6.A.a
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the
owner or the owner's agent; or
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence
of the owner or the owner's agent.
In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall
be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be
determined as provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F).
D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is
located is changed to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However,
the use may not be expanded, as provided for in subsection (B) of this section, without obtaining a
conditional use permit. [Ord. 4151 § 1 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the
application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other
provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be
presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a
property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of
the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and
convincing evidence.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued, unless
required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in
any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly
provided in subsections (C) through (1) of this section.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by
reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource
Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council -approved historical
survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
"Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the same visual
design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code
and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
The reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety
provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be
permitted.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 68
6.A.a
2. Solar Energy Installations on Buildings That Exceed Existing Height Limits. A rooftop solar
energy installation mounted on a nonconforming building that exceeds the existing height limit
may be approved as a Type II staff decision if:
a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches.
b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar
access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties.
3. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site
development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the
building, shall be permitted.
4. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and
multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access
easement or public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements
may also be permitted in nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not
more than 30 inches nor one-half of the distance to the property line, whichever is less. "Minor
architectural improvements" are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and
architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative trim. Such improvements shall
be required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt
such improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes.
5. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety
regulations shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for
any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage
requirements for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may
be moved on the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the degree of
nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a nonconforming building or structure
to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or
structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable to the
building or structure.
F. Restoration.
1. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to
75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be
made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may
be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed
before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application
for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. within 18 months
of the date such damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180
days if a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration
of the initial 18 months.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 69
6.A.a
2. Residential Buildings. Existing nonconforming buildings in use solely for residential
purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be reconstructed without regard
to the limitations of subsections (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following
conditions are met:
a. If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building containing
multiple residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost at
the time of destruction, the building may be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks or coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred if, but only if,
an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et
seq. is filed within 18 months of the date the damage occurred. The director may grant a
one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension request has been received
from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months.
b. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely
on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if,
by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot
or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction.
c. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not
apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
d. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined
building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to
the original style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance
shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision. The decision of the hearing
examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.06.150.
3. The right of restoration shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the
owner or the owner's agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence
of the owner or owner's agents; or
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment.
G. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence
conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the
case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the
effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by
clear and convincing evidence.
H. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing
residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the
BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses
permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor
elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B).
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 70
6.A.a
1. The antenna and related equipment of a nonconforming wireless communication facility may be
completely replaced with a new antenna and related equipment; provided, that, upon replacement,
the appliGant shall use the best available metheds and materials to eRhaRGe the appearaRGe of the
aRtenna and related equipment and/or SGreen it fr rnanRer that improves the visual
i,, pact or the conspic ty of the nonconformity. [Ord. 4154 § 6 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 4151 § 2 (Att. A),
2019; Ord. 3961 § 3, 2014; Ord. 3866 § 2, 2011; Ord. 3781 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 13, 14, 2009;
Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling
units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the
registration period which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal
nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and
privileges afforded to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing
the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance
with such permit certificate.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section
shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to
abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of
substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such
building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was permitted by Snohomish County or
the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the
applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction was
initiated and was completed. [Ord. 4154 § 7 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 71
6.A.a
A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to
size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which,
due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of property to
the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not
legally created in accordance with the laws of the local governmental entity in which it was located at
the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the zoning district in
which it is located, even though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and other dimensional
requirements of the district, so long as all other applicable site use and development standards are
met or a variance from such site use or development standards has been obtained. In order to be
developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum lot size standards established by the provisions
of this code, subject to the provisions of subsection (D) of this section.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming due to its failure to meet
minimum lot size or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same
ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is to be and shall be deemed to have
been combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a conforming lot
and thereafter may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, except as specifically provided in subsection (D) of this section.
D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build one single-family residence
consisting of no more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot or
parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an IRS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold or otherwise developed as any other
nonconforming lot pursuant to the following conditions and standards:
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot area specified in
the table below for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and roads required to serve the nonconforming lot
are available concurrently with the proposed development; and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to create a new buildable lot.
Lot Area Table
Zone % Needed for Lot Sized Needed
Legal Lot for Legal Lot
(1)
RS-20
60%
12,000
(2)
RS-12
70%
8,400
(3)
RS-10
75%
7,500
(4)
RS-8
80%
6,400
(5)
RS-6
90%
5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the date
the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created under
provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws of the state
of Washington; or
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 72
6.A.a
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence on a nonconforming lot without regard to
the 75 percent destruction requirement of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully completed building
permit application is submitted within one year of the destruction of the residence and all other
development requirements of this code are complied with; or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish County recorder's
office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the same
access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an
access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by this code. [Ord.
3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic and
environmental living conditions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance.
Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC
under the following terms and conditions:
A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way,
except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in and of
themselves require conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
1. Normal maintenance of the sign;
2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign
brought about by an accident or an act of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate compliance with the code in the event
that it is expanded in violation of subsection (A) of this section.
C. None of the foregoing provisions relating to permitted maintenance, name change or preservation
of the sign under subsection (A) of this section shall be construed so as to permit the continuation or
preservation of any nonconforming off -premises sign. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
A. Local Public Facilities. Existing legal nonconforming local public facility uses, buildings, and/or
signs, owned and/or operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service
corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts, governmental corporations, public
utilities, or similar entities) may be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to review under
Chapter 20.16 ECDC, Essential Public Facilities. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.060 Setback exemption.
A. Notwithstanding the current criteria in the ECDC relating to residential building setbacks,
development projects in areas annexed by the city of Edmonds from unincorporated Snohomish
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 73
6.A.a
County since January 1, 1994, with building permits from Snohomish County that were valid on the
effective date of the annexation, but which have subsequently expired without final approval, shall be
exempt from the setback requirements specified in ECDC 16.20.030 and 16.30.030; provided, that
the development projects are (1) residential in nature; (2) located in residentially zoned areas of the
city of Edmonds; (3) meet setback requirements of the then -current Snohomish County code in
effect on the effective date of the annexation; (4) consistent with the plans approved by the county (it
will be the applicant's responsibility to provide the city with evidence that the project was approved
by the county); and (5) compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC.
B. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to allow any development project in the city of
Edmonds, for which a valid building permit from the city is required under the current ECDC, to
begin, proceed or be completed without the same. [Ord. 3756 § 1, 20091.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 74
6.A.b
Chapter 20.50
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
20.50.010 Purpose.
20.50.020 Applicability.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
20.50.070 Application requirements.
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility standards.
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities
standards_
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process.
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
20.50.160 Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive wireless
communication facilities throughout the city. The purpose of this chapter may be achieved through
adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that wireless
communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative impacts on
aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant locations, flight
corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
communication facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws and
regulations;
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the
extent feasible, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and
welfare is minimal;
4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential areas
and allow macro facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet functional
requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of macro facilities in residential areas;
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 75
6.A.b
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between competitors
and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower sites and suitable
structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would significantly reduce or
eliminate additional negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points, through
careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and camouflaging
techniques, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual impact upon any one
location, and through assessment of innovative siting techniques;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with the city
to use city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent with other
public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Balance the city's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless communication
facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services to deploy such
services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are
abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and building code compliance, and
provide a mechanism for the city to cause these abandoned wireless communication
facilities to be removed as necessary to protect the citizens from imminent harm and
danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and
falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes; and
12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as possible
throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate additional visual
impact.
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of
wireless communication facilities.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect
property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the development of
enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations. The provisions of this chapter are
not intended to and any ambiguities herein shall not be interpreted in such a manner that would
materially inhibit the deployment of wireless communication facilities. This chapter shall not be
applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally
equivalent wireless facilities.
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city
ordinance, this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently with the
other provisions and regulations of the city.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities, the
city shall act within federally required time periods. Any decision to deny an application shall be in
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 76
6.A.b
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. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019; 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, or preempted under federal law. All proposals are subject to the
critical areas requirements in ECDC Title 23 and the shoreline master program in ECDC Title 24.
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 expressly applicable to wireless
communication facilities. The city may require separate master permits for small
wireless facilities and macro facilities.
2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows to
have a complete application:
a. Make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office;
b. Submit an electronic proposed master permit form in Word format; 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 showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell facilities
within the city of Edmonds over the first two years of the master permit; and
e. If the provider is seeking legislative approval for an alternative WCF design that
does not comply with this chapter, the provider may elect to use the following
optional WCF design approval process. To use this option process, the provider
must submit with the master permit application the following additional materials:
i. Photographs, precise measurements, and technical specifications of the
proposed alternative WCF design;
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 77
6.A.b
ii. A signed affidavit from a speaking agent for the provider that: (A) explains,
by citing to specific city code provisions, the factual reasons why the WCFs
used by the provider cannot comply with the city's adopted aesthetic
regulations; and (B) attaches photographs and technical specifications of all
other WCF designs currently available to the provider; and
iii. A legal analysis as to: (A) whether the city's approval of the proposed
alternative WCF would unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (B) whether the city's denial of the
proposed alternative WCF would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
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. As to master permits for small
wireless facilities, if the city attorney and wireless provider have not been able to reach
agreement on the recommended terms of a master permit within 60 days of the date the
complete application was submitted, the wireless provider may submit the provider's
proposed master permit form to the council president directly and request that the
provider's proposed master permit be added to a forthcoming city council agenda for
consideration. The city council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed master
permit, including any renewal.
4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative
discretion of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must be
approved by a majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit must
be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as contemplated in
subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section, 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.
7. No master permit shall grant a vested right for any wireless communication facility or
related support structure or equipment to be or remain at any specific location in the
public right-of-way.
8. The city recognizes that a WCF could occupy city right-of-way for a period of more than
five years if consecutive master permits are granted or renewal is granted by the city
council. Therefore, subject to the ten year restriction below, all master permits and
renewals are conditioned to allow city review of the general and specific design standards
of any and all wireless communications facilities occupying city right-of-way in recognition
of advances in technology, concealment products, and changing local law, federal law,
and administrative guidance from the FCC. Considering the foregoing and to the extent
not prohibited by law, the city may require the owner of a wireless communications facility
occupying city right-of-way to apply again for a wireless communications facilities permit
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 78
6.A.b
to allow the city an opportunity to re-evaluate the design standards which may result in a
new location or aesthetic requirements consistent with the above considerations and then -
current code; Provided that, no new wireless communications facilities permit will be
required under this paragraph for any WCF lawfully occupying city right-of-way until at
least ten years after the date of the initial right-of-way permit authorizing its installation.
D. Facilities Lease or License Needed. A facilities lease agreement is required prior to placement,
construction, or modification of any WCF on city owned real property other than city right-of-way. A
license agreement is required prior to installation of a WCF attached to a city owned utility pole in
city right-of-way (e.g., a streetlight), including replacement of such pole to accommodate a WCF.
The city's standard license agreement form shall be used, including for replacement or new
installation of a decorative streetlight per ECDC 20.50.130(A)(4).
E. Site Specific Authorizations. Prior to placement, construction, or modification of any WCF at any
particular location, an applicant must submit a wireless communication facilities application as
specified in ECDC 20.50.070, and the city must approve that application. Said application will
include an application for a building permit or a right-of-way construction permit, as applicable. If the
city approves a WCF application, the approval shall be included as part of the associated right-of-
way permit or building permit, as applicable, and shall document all conditions of WCF application
approval. If the applicant believes its proposal qualifies as an eligible facilities request, then it shall
submit an eligible facilities request application under ECDC 20.50.080(B) in lieu of a WCF
application.
1. Building Permit. A building permit is required prior to placement, construction, or
modificationof a WCF on private property pursuant to ECDC Title 19.
2. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior to
placement, construction, or modification of any WCF within the city right-of-way pursuant to
ECDC Title 18. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; 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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 79
6.A.b
G. Routine maintenance or repair of wireless communication facilities.
H. Emergency communications equipment or a COW or other temporary WCF during a declared
public emergency.
I. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing coverage during a special event
such as a festival, subject to approval by the city. Such a facility is exempt from the provisions of this
chapter for up to three days before the special event begins and three days after the special event
ends.
J. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing service during repair or
replacement of an existing facility for a period of up to 14 days.
K. 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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A),
2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord.
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or more
frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of taller towers
To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations for wireless
communication facilities:
1. Collocation, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon
which the facility would be located;
2. Collocation, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or
structure;
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 80
6.A.b
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. New monopole facilities must include mounts capable of accommodating at least one other
wireless provider.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise
Abatement and Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted with
any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a generator
or similar device. The city may require that the report be reviewed by a third -party expert at the
expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the city.
Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required to obtain a
business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may be
located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on wireless
communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular
maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material.
The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to any applicable
standards of the FAA or FCC.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors, textures,
screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and built environment
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than monopoles
shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of the supporting
structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually unobtrusive as possible.
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are
permitted, the city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the
least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted 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 collocation.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 81
6.A.b
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 FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with
FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in
areas accessible by the general population, the director may require post -installation testing to
determine whether to require further mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such
testing and mitigation shall be borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and
softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a monopole,
facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary structures. If the
antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged as part of the building
and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure, no landscaping is required.
The director 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 achieves 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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014;
Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 82
6.A.b
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication facility
subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement pursuant to
ECDC 20.50.020(C) and the permit(s) issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise
provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of
this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or equipment associated with a wireless
communication facility shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless
facilities are expressly exempted from a provision of Chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context
necessitates that a provision of Chapter 18.05 ECDC not apply to wireless facilities.
B. Wireless Communication Facilities Application (WCF application.) A WCF application is an
application for approval of a proposed site for the location of a wireless communication facility and
approval of the proposed placement, design, and appearance of a wireless communications facility.
WCF 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 (building permit and/or ROW permit), as shown in Table A. In the event of uncertainty on the
type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required
for the proposed facility.
Table A
Building Permit
Right -of -Way
FCC Shot Clocks
Request
Location
(ROW) Permit
for Permit
Required
Required
Review
Eligible facilities
Existing tower or base
Yes, if on private
Yes, if in ROW
60 days
request
station
property
New macro
Collocation
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New macro
New structure or monopole
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
150 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New small
Collocation
Yes, if on private
Yes, if any
60 days
wireless facility
property
elements in the
ROW
New small
New structure or
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
wireless facility
freestanding small wireless
on private property
elements in the
facility
ROW
Temporary
Varies
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
Standard
facility
on private property
elements in the
permit quotes
ROW
C. Timelines.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 83
6.A.b
1. Macro Facilities. The WCF application review period begins when all required
application materials have been received and fees paid. If the city determines that the
application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within 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 10 days that a supplemental submission did not provide the
requested information.
The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the original WCF application to
be withdrawn.
2. Small Wireless Facilities. The city shall review the WCF application for completeness
and notify the applicant if the application is incomplete consistent with requirements of
federal and state law.
The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the original WCF application to
be withdrawn.
3. In the event federal review timelines, commonly referred to as shot clocks, are
changed or removed, then the timelines in Table A and in this subsection C shall be
likewise changed or removed without the need for council amendment to this ordinance
D. Batched Small Wireless Facility Applications. If an applicant is applying for a small wireless
network in a contiguous service area, multiple 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 may approve, deny or conditionally approve all or any portion of
the small wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial of one or more small wireless
facility locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis for a denial of other locations or
the entire batched application for small wireless facilities. Should an applicant file a single application
for a batch that includes both collocated and new structures for small wireless facilities, the longer
90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the city has adequate time to review the new construction
sites.
E. Any WCF application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects proposed to be located on
public or private property or in the rights -of -way shall be reviewed and evaluated by the appropriate
director for compliance with the applicable design standards.. All applications will be reviewed and
evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
..F. 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.).
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 84
6.A.b
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. Third -Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the
services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected
coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths.
In certain instances, a third -party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical
data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its discretion require third -party
engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third -
party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third -party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third -party
expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site -
specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless
communication facilities application and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and
equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was
selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require
changes to the proposal. The third -party review shall address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the applicant;
and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
J. Decision and permits. A decision on the WCF application shall either approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application, and it shall be signed by the director. Any decision
hereundershall 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.
If the city approves a WCF application, no separate WCF permit shall issue; the approval shall be
included as part of the associated right-of-way permit or building permit, as applicable, and shall
state the conditions of WCF application approval, if any. Approval signifies compliance with the
design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC and compliance with the other
requirements of ECDC 20.50.070; it is the approval of a particular location of a wireless
communication facility and confirmation that the approved placement, design, and appearance
complies with the design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
The right-of-way permit or building permit and associated WCF application approval is issued
subject to the applicant obtaining all other required permits and authorizations and is subject to the
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 85
6.A.b
conditions of Ch 20.50, Ch 18.60 as applicable, all applicable city code provisions, and subject to the
terms of all city authorizations, including the master permit, lease or license, as applicable, and
federal law.
No right-of-way permit or other city approval or authorization, in whatever form, shall grant a vested
right for any wireless communication facility or related support structure or equipment to be or
remain at any specific location in the public right-of-way.
K. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
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
applicable permits issue. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A),
2011].
20.50.070 WCF Application requirements.
The following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless
communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and, for macro cell
facilities, a collocation analysis indicating the alternative locations considered;
B. Aerial photo or map showing entire proposed deployment (small wireless only);
C. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and undergrounding;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in
accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
D. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of each site and appearance of
the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
E. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
F. Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an RF
engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility 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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 86
6.A.b
G. The applicant shall provide proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide the
service(s) or utilize the technologies sought to be installed.
H. A professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington shall certify in writing, over his or her
seal, that both construction plans and final construction of the WCF and the antenna support
structure or pole and foundation are designed to reasonably withstand wind and seismic loads.
I. For small wireless facility deployments, the following additional documentation shall be provided as
initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the location preference criteria set forth in
ECDC 20.50.130(B): The applicant shall provide (i) a completed checklist available through the city's
website and (ii) a narrative description supporting that checklist addressing all of the following, as
applicable:
1. For installations proposed for location preference No. 2 (freestanding small wireless
facility or new streetlight), provide all of the followingto the extent applicable within 150
lineal feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless
facility location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Where no poles exist in the area: evidence that no utility poles, traffic signal
poles, or streetlight poles exist;
b. Where poles exist that cannot fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all pole owners, denying the applicant's request to replace any
of the existing poles that are not capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless
facility with a new pole that is capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless
facility on the grounds that no such replacement pole is available on the market or
due to other reasonably insoluble problems expressed in writing by the pole owner;
c. Where poles exist that can fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all owners of poles within 150 lineal feet in either direction of
each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-way
line for the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to install the small
wireless facility within any such existing poles.
2. For installations proposed for location preference No. 3 (on top of existing power pole)
provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction,
on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured
along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsection (1)(1) of this section; and
b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small wireless facility in the
right-of-way could not be met. If the design standards cannot be met on the basis of
a claim of technical infeasibility, such claim must be supported by a signed
statement from a licensed RF engineer, or other licensed engineer type as
applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful third -party review
under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
c. The director may evaluate whether a new streetlight pole capable of hosting a
fully concealed small wireless facility is needed at the proposed location or within
150 lineal feet on each side of the proposed location and on either side of the street,
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 87
6.A.b
and, if so determined, may require such a pole to be installed in lieu of a
freestanding small wireless facility. If so determined, the director may deem the
WCF application to be incomplete for proposed location preference No. 3 and
require revisions to the wireless communication facilities application addressing
plans for a new streetlight pole. In this situation, federal and city timelines and rules
applicable to small wireless facilities and incomplete applications shall apply.
3. For installations proposed for location preference No. 4 (in communication space on
existing power pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal
feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility
location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (1)(1) and (2) of this section; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation on top of the
pole; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the existing poles denying the request
to install the small wireless facility on any such poles that would allow for installation
on top of the pole, supported by a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis from the
pole owner for any denial. An alternative preference or lack of convenience is not a
reasonable basis. Any denial shall, include a a declaration from the pole owner that
(i) there are no pole owner sanctioned third -party attachments currently occupying
similar segments of any of its poles, and (ii) it has no current agreements with any
third -parties authorizing third -party attachments to occupy similar segments of any
of its poles. All denials shall be evaluated by the Director. The pole owner must
articulate a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for any denial. In the absence of
such a basis, and as a condition of the City's continued consent to maintain poles in
the City's rights -of -way pursuant to RCW 54.04.040, the pole owner shall
accommodate the installation of small wireless facilities consistent with federal law
in the manner required to accommodate the City's location preference hierarchy of
Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
4. For installations proposed for location preference No. 5 (strand -mounted) provide all of
the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction, on both
sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility location as measured along
the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (1)(1), (2), and (3) of this section; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation within the
communication space; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the existing poles denying the request
to install the small wireless facility on any such existing poles that would allow for
installation within the communication space, supported by a reasonable and
nondiscriminatory basis from the pole owner for any denial. An alternative
preference or lack of convenience is not a reasonable basis. Any denial shall include
a declaration from the pole owner that (i) there are no pole owner sanctioned third -
party attachments currently occupying similar segments of its poles, and (ii) it has no
current agreements with any third -parties authorizing third -party attachments to
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 88
6.A.b
occupy similar segments of its poles. The pole owner must articulate a reasonable
and nondiscriminatory basis for any denial. In the absence of such a basis, and
as a condition of the City's continued consent to maintain poles in the City's
rights -of -way pursuant to RCW 54.04.040, the pole owner shall accommodate
the installation of small wireless facilities consistent with federal law in the
manner required to accommodate the City's location preference hierarchy of
Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
5. For each small wireless facility to be placed on or at the location of an existing pole,
whether that pole is to be replaced or whether it is to remain, written documentation of the
pole owner's consent to the applicant's proposed placement at that location.
6. Demonstration of compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code.
J. A copy of the provider's approved master permit. A master permit is required as applicable
pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020(C)(1). If the provider does not have a master permit authorizing the
desired type of deployment, then the applicant must submit a master permit application under
ECDC 20.50.020(C) concurrent with any wireless communication facilities application.
K. A right-of-way construction permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by the city
If work involves pole replacement by the pole owner, then an additional right-of-way
construction permit application shall be submitted by the pole owner as part of a complete
application.
L. A building permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by the city.
M. An executed facilities lease agreement or an application for a city standard form license
agreement as applicable.
N. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision. [Ord
4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
This section implements Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which
requires the city of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing
tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or
base station. If Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act is repealed or modified, the requirements of this
section are likewise repealed or modified without the need for council amendment of this ordinance.
A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described in this
section and do not apply throughout this chapter:
1. "Base station" is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -licensed
or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications
network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein nor any equipment
associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 89
6.A.b
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 wireless
facility networks).
c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed
(with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed and approved
under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local
regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary
purpose of providing that support.
The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed
with the city under this section, does not support or house equipment described in
subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section.
2. "Collocation" means 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' means any request for modification of an existing tower or
base station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such tower or
base station, involving:
a. Collocation of new transmission equipment;
b. Removal of transmission equipment; or
c. Replacement of transmission equipment.
4. "Eligible support structure" means 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" means, for towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current
boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or
utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures,
further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission
equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of the site are the
boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification
to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a state or local government, if the
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 90
6.A.b
approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of
the section 6409(a) process.
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 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array
with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed 20 feet, whichever
is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure
by more than 10 percent or more than 10 feet, whichever is greater.
i. 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 20 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of
the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it
involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude
from the edge of the structure by more than 6 feet;
c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed
four cabinets; 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 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, except that, for
towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it entails any excavation or
deployment of transmission equipment outside of the current site by more than 30
feet in any direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes
any access or utility easements currently related to the 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 subsections A.7.(a)-(d) 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
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 91
6.A.b
eligible facilities request. All applications for an eligible facilities request must be submitted on the
city's application form.
C. Time Frame for Review. Within 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 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 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. The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90 calendar
days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as determined by
the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit system. If the
applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city through the city's
permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the original eligible facilities
request application to be withdrawn4. Following a supplemental submission, the director
will notify the applicant within 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 directordetermines that
the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, then the director must deny
the application.
F. Failure to Act. In the event the director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible facilities
request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is deemed granted
The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the director in writing after
the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed
granted.
G. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
H. 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. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019].
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 92
6.A.b
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility
standards.
A. General. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building shall
be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building design, placed
toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential building views and from
public views using radio frequency -transparent panels. Building -mounted wireless communication
facilities shall be painted with nonreflective colors to match the existing surface where the antennas
are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as Identified in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the underlying zone, antennas
shall be flush -mounted and no portion of the antenna may extend above the building on
which it is mounted. For buildings below the height limit, antennas may be built to the
maximum height of the zone provided they are screened consistent with the existing
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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 93
6.A.b
Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
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
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 94
6.A.b
B. Height.
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.
1. The maximum height of structure -mounted wireless communication facilities shall not
exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district (rights -of -way
are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may extend up to six feet
above the top of the structure on which the wireless communication facility is installed.
Antennas and related equipment shall be mounted as close as practicable to the
structure.
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot vertical
separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site (prior to any
pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation is intended to
allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility's requirements for separation
between their transmission lines and the carrier's antennas.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the enclosure
is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other 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 master permit 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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 95
6.A.b
Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 96
6.A.b
A. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height allowed
in the zone where the facility is located.
B. Monopoles must be completely shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be
concealed.
C. 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).
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 97
6.A.b
Unacceptable Monopole WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
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 Electrical 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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A),
2019; 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 wireless coverage over large areas, the goal of
a small wireless facility 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 wireless facility deployments and provide
appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of small wireless facilities
are minimized.
A. Permitted Locations. Installation of small wireless facilities on existing buildings could help
minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may otherwise
be placed on utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment may not be able to
be located entirely on buildings as it may not be technically feasible to do so and, in addition, some
property owners within the desired small wireless facility deployment area may not want to
participate. A mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be used.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 98
6.A.b
1. Small wireless facility attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are not
subject to the dispersion requirement below.2. Fully concealed freestanding small
wireless facilities are permitted in any zone (except downtown business) but are still
subject to the dispersion requirement below.3. Dispersion Requirement.
a. Small wireless facilities located pursuant to location preference No. 1 --hollow
utility pole-- are not subject to the dispersion requirement.
b. No two freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located within 150 feet
radially.
c. For all other small wireless facilities, no two small wireless facilities shall be
located within 300 feet radially; provided, that this dispersion requirement shall not
apply to collocation in a fully concealed pole.
4. Downtown business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or
hollow utility poles. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists, replacement or new installation
of a decorative streetlight shall match the style and character of the existing Sternberg
streetlights, as determined by the director, and shall be designed to contain a small
wireless facility in a fully concealed manner. Small wireless facilities shall not be attached
to Sternberg streetlights that were not designed to host fully concealed small wireless
facilities.
5. In areas where utility systems are underground, small cell facility deployment will be
limited to existing buildings, new or replaced streetlights and/or installation of
freestanding small wireless facilities.
6. Small wireless facilities may not be located on sites identified on official local, state or
federal historic registries.
7. Small wireless facilities may not be located in the communications space on wood
poles that contain a streetlight.
B. Location Preference Hierarchy. When locating small wireless facilities in the right-of-way, wireless
providers shall site their small wireless facilities pursuant to the following siting preferences. These
siting preferences are expressed in descending order, starting with the most preferred. Wireless
providers may not descend to a lower preference in the list below until they have determined that the
higher preferences are not feasible in accordance with ECDC 20.50.070(G). Failure to show lack of
feasibility of a higher preference shall be grounds for denial of an application.
1. Location preference No. 1 — hollow utility pole.
2. Location preference No. 2 — freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight.
3. Location preference No. 3 — existing power pole (installation on top of pole).
4. Location preference No. 4 — existing power pole (installation in communication space)
5. Location preference No. 5 — strand -mounted.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 99
6.A.b
C. General Design Standards. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following general
design standards apply to all small wireless facilities:
1. Collocation. All new poles must be capable of accepting at least two wireless facilities
in a fully concealed manner, unless accommodation of a second facility is not technically
feasible.
2. Ground -mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that pole -mounted or undergrounded equipment is technically infeasible. If
ground -mounted equipment is necessary, the equipment must be fully concealed.
Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited.
3. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of
Chapter 5.30 ECC.
4. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, clear
zone requirements and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and safe
passage within the rights -of -way.
5. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with the
requirement to remove the abandoned pole unless alternate location is required in order
to meet the regulations of ECDC 20.50.130.C.4.
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 such as a streetlight.
8. Power must be drawn from a connection in the supply space on all power pole
installations.
9.. The director is authorized to approve applications that deviate from the general design
standards, above, and the specific design standards, below, to the extent necessary to
approve an application that is consistent with the applicant's alternative WCF design, but
only where that applicant has already had the proposed alternative WCF design
approved by the city council pursuant to the optional process set forth in
ECDC 20.50.020(C)(2)(e). City council approval of an alternative WCF design does not
necessarily make other design standards inapplicable to that provider. Applicants shall
comply with the other design standards herein as much as their alternative WCF design
allows.
D. Specific Design Standards for Facilities in the Right -of -Way.
1. Location Preference No. 1 — Hollow Utility Pole. This option applies to any existing pole
in the right-of-way (power pole, streetlight pole, traffic light pole) that could feasibly be
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 100
6.A.b
replaced with a hollow pole designed to host small wireless facilities in a fully concealed
manner. In many but not all instances, this location preference will involve the
replacement of a wood pole with a hollow pole that serves the same needs as its
predecessor while also hosting small wireless facilities in a fully concealed manner.
a. Combination small wireless facility and power pole must meet the pole owner's
requirements for power distribution. New combination small wireless facility and
power poles must be designed to host small wireless facilities from at least two
carriers in a fully enclosed manner. 5G antennas only may be exposed until such
time that the technology develops to make concealment of 5G antennas feasible.
b. Combination small wireless facility 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 wireless facility installation in the same location.
c. Pole design shall match or be compatible with the aesthetics of existing
streetlights installed adjacent to the pole.
d. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists in the downtown business district (BD)
zones, replacement or new installation of a decorative streetlight shall match the
style and character of the existing Sternberg streetlights, as determined by the
director, and shall be designed to contain a small wireless facility in a fully
concealed manner.
e. The pole shall have a streamlined appearance similar to the pole in the
embedded diagram, below. For a combination pole to be considered visually
pleasing, the transition between the equipment cabinet and upper pole should be
considered. A decorative transition shall be installed over the equipment cabinet
upper bolts, or decorative base cover shall be installed to match the equipment
cabinet size.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 101
6.A.b
FIBEF
SPLIC
BOX
FINAL
GRAC
ELEC
CONE
ENNA
IAIRE
IAIRE MAST ARM
R POLE
WENT CABINET
TARE
DATION
Acceptable Design Unacceptable Design
f. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment cabinet. All
hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces greater
than one and one-half inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to prevent cups,
trash, and other objects from being placed on the equipment cabinet.
g. Internal separation of electrical wiring and fiber to be provided, as required by the
pole owner.
h. 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.
i. The antenna shall be fully concealed within the pole, if technically feasible. If it is
not technically feasible to fully conceal the antenna within the pole, a shrouded
antenna may be flush -mounted to either the side or top of the pole. The basis for
any claim of technical infeasibility here must be supported by a signed statement
from a licensed RF engineer that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(J). Antennas and equipment located
within a unified enclosure may also be flush -mounted, as described above, if it is not
technically feasible to fully conceal the unified enclosure within the pole, and if the
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 102
6.A.b
unified enclosure does not exceed four cubic feet in volume. The following is an
:I"
example of a compliant unified enclosure
j. A cantenna or canister antenna on top of an existing pole may not extend more
than six 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 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
concealed and integrated with the pole.
k. Utility poles shall be located as follows:
i. In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or vehicular
travel.
ii. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights, where
practicable.
iii. Equal distance between trees when possible, and to avoidthe critical root
zone of any tree.
iv. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
v. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vi. Ten feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
I. All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the utility pole.
2. Location Preference No. 2 — Freestanding Small Wireless Facility or New Streetlight.
a. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this section
are for installations within the right-of-way only. The accompanying diagram shows a
typical pole and its elements.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 103
6.A.b
i. Dimensional Requirements.
A. A freestanding small wireless facility may not exceed 38 feet in height
measured from the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna.
B. The equipment cabinet must be no greater than 22 inches in diameter
C. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment
cabinet. The pole shall be tapered to transition from the equipment
cabinet to the upper pole, as shown in the graphic below. The pole
diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than one
and one-half inches exists between the equipment cabinet and upper
pole.
OANTENNA
UPPER POLE
FIBER
sox �
MUIPMENT CABINET
FINAL
GRACE----
❑
ELECTRICAL_-L
CONDUIT
STANDARD
FOUNDATION
Acceptable Design
ii. Appearance Requirements.
Unacceptable Design
A. The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to
maintain a cohesive appearance. If freestanding small wireless facilities
already exist within the deployment area, then the new facility shall be
designed to match the existing facilities as much as practicable.
B. All small wireless facility carrier equipment must be housed internal to
the equipment cabinet or hidden within the cantenna. The cantenna,
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 104
6.A.b
upper pole and equipment cabinet must be of the same brown or green
colors, unless otherwise approved by the director.
C. All hardware connections shall be hidden from view.
D. No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole.
E. The freestanding small wireless facility must be served by underground
power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected.
iii. Location Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities must:
A. Be 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 fail
to substantially comply with public ROW design standards, specifications,
or design district requirements, violate the Federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a risk to public health, safety,
or welfare.
B. Not be located in the downtown business district (BD) zones.
C. Not be located along the frontage of a historic building, deemed historic
on a federal, state, or local level.
D. Not significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines. Where
feasible, poles should be in alignment with property side yards.
E. Be equal distance between trees when possible, and avoid the critical
root zone of any tree.
F. Be located with appropriate clearance from existing utilities,
PROVIDED THAT, where adequate clearance cannot be achieved from
communications lines, such lines may be attached to the freestanding
pole.
G. Be in compliance with clear zone and sight distance requirements
b. New Streetlight. The hollow utility pole requirements are also applicable to the
new streetlight alternative of ECDC 20.50.070(I)(2)(c), except that a streetlight
would be incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the following
applies:
A new streetlight shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the
director that a streetlight is necessary at the location in which the small
wireless facility is proposed. A streetlight may be required to be installed
instead of a freestanding wireless facility.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 105
6.A.b
3. Location Preference No. 3 — Existing Power Pole (Installation on Top of Pole).
(TOP MOUNTED)
LUMINAIRE &
ARM
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
WITH ANTENNA (SIDE
MOUNTED)
UTILITY POLE
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
XCEL ENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
a. A cantenna may not extend more than six feet above the height of the existing
pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by more than two
inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the applicant can demonstrate
technological infeasibility. 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 concealed.
b. 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 shallbe flush mounted to the pole, unless not
technically feasible, and in such case shall be mounted as closely as possible to the
pole.
c. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall be
enclosed in a riser, such as U-Guard or similar, and mounted flush against the
outside of the pole. The riser shall be a maximum diameter of 3 inches and shall be
colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number
of risers shall be minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a
small wireless facility. Post installation, the total number of risers and preexisting
conduit or risers on a pole shall not exceed three. The pole owner and the applicant
shall work together to ensure the total number of conduit and risers on the pole will
not exceed three.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 106
6.A.b
d. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a technical
infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement from a licensed
engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
e. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting requirements
upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and finds that flush -
mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic benefits are significant
and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The city council finds it is a
reasonable regulation over the construction and maintenance of poles and
equipment operated within the city and so regulates under its police power pursuant
to RCW 54.04.040.f. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other
aspects of the appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest
extent possible.
g. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the
purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the height of any
replacement pole may not exceed 50 feet to the top of the cantenna.
h. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be considered
secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole
serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes unnecessary, the pole
shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small wireless
facility and the small wireless facility and all associated equipment shall be removed
4. Location Preference No. 4 — Existing Power Pole (Installation in Communication
Space).
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 107
6.A.b
a. Antennas should be placed in an effort to minimize visual clutter and
obtrusiveness. Only one antenna is permitted on each wooden pole. The inside
edge of a side mounted canister antenna/equipment shroud shall project no more
than 12 inches from the surface of the wooden pole.
b. To the extent technically feasible, antennas and equipment shall be located
together within a unified enclosure which shall not exceed 4 cubic feet. The unified
enclosure shall be placed so as to appear as an integrated part of the pole or behind
banners or signs. The unified enclosure may not be placed more than six inches
from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically required and
confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
c. Any other equipment shall be shrouded in an enclosure of the minimum size that
is technically feasible and 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 12 inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further
distance is technically required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
d. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall be
enclosed in a riser, such as U-Guard or similar, and mounted flush against the
outside of the pole. The riser shall be a maximum diameter of 3 inches and shall be
colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole. The number
of risers shall be minimized to the number technically necessary to accommodate a
small wireless facility. Post installation, the total number of risers and preexisting
conduit or risers on a pole shall not exceed three. The pole owner and the applicant
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 108
6.A.b
shall work together to ensure the total number of conduit and risers on the pole will
not exceed three.
e. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a technical
infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement from a licensed
engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful
third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
f. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting requirements
upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and finds that flush -
mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic benefits are significant
and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The city council finds it is a
reasonable regulation over the construction and maintenance of poles operated
within the city and so regulates under its police power.
g. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
h. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for the
purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the height of the
antenna may not exceed 35 feet above ground, and any replacement pole may not
extend more than 10 feet above the height of the existing pole, unless a further
height increase is required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner and that such
height increase is the minimum extension possible to provide sufficient separation
and/or clearance from electrical and wireline facilities.
i. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be considered
secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary function of a pole
serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes unnecessary, the pole
shall not be retained for the sole purpose of accommodating the small wireless
facility and the small wireless facility and all associated equipment shall be removed
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 109
6.A.b
5. Location Preference No. 5 — Strand -Mounted. Small wireless facility facilities mounted
on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the following standards:
uTIUTY POLE
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
XCEL ENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
This graphic is intended to represent a strand -mounted antenna.
a. To the extent technically feasible, antennas shall not exceed one 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 and in no event more than five feet from the pole unless a greater
distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance and confirmed in
writing by the pole owner.
Attar"
Annn� Packet Pg. 110
6.A.b
d. No strand -mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the roadway
open to vehicular traffic.
e. Ground -mounted equipment to accommodate such strand -mounted facilities is
not permitted, except when placed in preexisting equipment cabinets, underground
or on zoned property.
f. Pole -mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections (D)(4)(d)) of
this section.
g. 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.
E. Specific Design Standards for Facilities Located Outside the Right -of -Way.
1. On a Building.
5s;WeWA•mil
i. Small wireless facilities may be built to the maximum height of the underlying
zone (or use the height exception in subsection (E)(1)(a)(iii) of this section)
provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of
color, architectural style and materials.
ii. 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.
iii. Height Exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility above
the underlying zone maximum is three feet with a maximum footprint of 12
square feet in horizontal section.
b. Facade -Mounted.
i. Small wireless facility antennas may be mounted to the side of a building if
they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural theme.
ii. New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar
ornamentation that conceal the antennas should be used if they complement
the architecture of the existing building.
iii. 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.
iv. 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 12
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 111
6.A.b
inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any
pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
v. 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.
vi. 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 parapet that is nonconforming for height. Vertical expansion of
the height nonconformity is prohibited.
2. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this section are for
installations on zoned property only. Refer to subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section for
dimensional and appearance standards.
a. Placement Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located
as follows:
i. Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law.
ii. Within five feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within five feet of
a side property line.
iii. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines.
iv. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
v. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
vi. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vii. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of
whether power is underground or overhead. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019]
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. For purposes of this section, a wireless
communication facility includes a freestanding small wireless facility that has been abandoned or the
operations of all its enclosed small wireless facilities have been discontinued.
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.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 112
6.A.b
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. Removal of all associated elements of the freestanding small wireless facility, including
but not limited to the foundation.
3. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
4. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre -permit or better
condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication facility
operator may remain in place.
5. If a carrier fails to remove and/or restore a wireless communication facility in
accordance with this section, the city shall have the authority to enter the subject property
and physically remove and/or restore the facility. Costs for physical removal of the
wireless communication facility and/or restoration shall be charged to the wireless
communication facility owner or operator in the event the city removes the facility and/or
restores the site. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att.
A), 2011].
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The permit holder and wireless communication facility owner shall maintain the wireless
communication facility to standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or through permit
condition. In the absence of the foregoing, the following minimum standards apply: All shrouds and
enclosures shall be kept in good repair, paint shall be in good condition, any graffiti shall be
removed, structural integrity shall remain intact, any landscaping required as a condition of the
permit shall be upkept. Upon receipt of notice of failure to comply with standards consistent with this
paragraph, the permit holder or facility owner shall repair within fourteen (14) calendar days unless
good cause is shown to the director why more time is necessary.
B. For purposes of this section, wireless communication facility includes freestanding small wireless
facility. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be maintained as required in this section.
C. All above ground wireless communication facilities shall have affixed a coded label or marker that
identifies the specific facility and sets forth a telephone number that may be called to report any
damage, destruction, or graffiti involving that facility.
D. In the event the permit holder or facility owner fails to maintain the facility, the city of Edmonds
may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and regulations, or under the
master permit, or both. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A),
2011].
20.50.160 Definitions.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 113
6.A.b
A. "Antenna(s)" means any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency (RF)
radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for
the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services.
B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events, during
repair of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or
structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.
D "Director" means either the Director of Public Works or the Director of Development Services, as
applicable, or either's designee.
E. "Distributed antenna system (DAS)" is a network of spatially separated antenna sites connected
to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area or structure.
F. "Equipment" means any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or cabinets
associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when collocated
on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.
G. "Freestanding small wireless facility" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical
hollow pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole purpose of
supporting and concealing small wireless antennas and associated equipment.
H. "Fully concealed facility" means a WCF where: (1) the antennas, mounting apparatus, and any
associated equipment are fully concealed within a pole or other structure; and (2) all cable is routed
internally to the structure; and (3) the associated equipment is completely within the building or
structure, placed in an underground vault, or is within another element such as a bench, mailbox or
kiosk.
I. "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface by
diagonal cables.
J. "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal crossed
strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
K. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to build
and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
L. "Macro cell facility (macro facility)" means 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 cubic feet per antenna and typically cover large geographic
areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting multiple wireless service providers.
M. "Monopole" means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed into the
ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting macro antennas and their associated equipment.
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 114
6.A.b
N. "Poles" means utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support electrical
wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for the sole
purpose of supporting a WCF.
O. "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.
P. "Small wireless facility (or small cell node)" means a wireless facility that meets each of the
following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent
structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more
than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is not
more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless
equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting 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 radio frequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule.
Q. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct -to -home satellite services.
R. "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
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 115
6.A.b
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.
S. "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.
T. "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.
U. "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.
V. "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 collocation of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole, light pole, or flag pole.
W. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a
wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
X. "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.
Y. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications
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. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019;
Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 116
6.A.b
Chapter 17.40
NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS
Sections:
17.40.000 Purpose.
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units.
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
17.40.060 Setback exemption.
17.40.000 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots to
continue while limiting the continuation of certain aspects of nonconformity. Other nonconforming
uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated.
[Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.010 Nonconforming uses.
A. Definition. A nonconforming use is one which was once allowed by applicable land use
regulations, but is no longer allowed, due to the passage or later change of the ordinance codified in
this chapter or a prior ordinance.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection (C)
of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in
ECDC 17.40.050.
C. Lapse of Time.
1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the
property occupied by the former nonconforming use shall conform to this zoning ordinance.
Uses such as agricultural uses, which vary seasonally, shall be deemed abandoned if the
seasonal use is not utilized during one full season consistent with the traditional use.
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75
percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 18 months
of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only one 180-day
extension may be granted.
3. The right of reestablishment of use described in subsection (C)(2) of this section shall not
apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the
owner or the owner's agent; or
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 117
6.A.b
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence
of the owner or the owner's agent.
In the event that subsection (C)(3)(a) or (b) of this section apply, the nonconforming use shall
be abated if damage exceeds 25 percent of replacement cost. "Replacement cost" shall be
determined as provided in ECDC 17.40.020(F).
D. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is
located is changed to a zone district which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However,
the use may not be expanded, as provided for in subsection (B) of this section, without obtaining a
conditional use permit. [Ord. 4151 § 1 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or the
application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the other
provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall be
presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a
property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date of
the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and
convincing evidence.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued, unless
required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or altered in
any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as expressly
provided in subsections (C) through (1) of this section.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by
reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural Resource
Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council -approved historical
survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
"Restoration" means reconstruction of the historic building or structure with as nearly the same visual
design appearance and materials as is consistent with full compliance with the State Building Code
and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45 ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
The reconstruction of all such historic buildings and structures shall comply with the life safety
provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be
permitted.
2. Solar Energy Installations on Buildings That Exceed Existing Height Limits. A rooftop solar
energy installation mounted on a nonconforming building that exceeds the existing height limit
may be approved as a Type II staff decision if:
a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 118
6.A.b
b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar
access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties.
3. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site
development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the
building, shall be permitted.
4. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and
multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access
easement or public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements
may also be permitted in nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not
more than 30 inches nor one-half of the distance to the property line, whichever is less. "Minor
architectural improvements" are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and
architectural detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative trim. Such improvements shall
be required to obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt
such improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes.
5. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety
regulations shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any reason for
any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot coverage
requirements for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or structure may
be moved on the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the degree of
nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a nonconforming building or structure
to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or
structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable to the
building or structure.
F. Restoration.
1. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to
75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be
made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may
be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed
before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application
for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. within 18 months
of the date such damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180
days if a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration
of the initial 18 months.
2. Residential Buildings. Existing nonconforming buildings in use solely for residential
purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be reconstructed without regard
to the limitations of subsections (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following
conditions are met:
a. If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building containing
multiple residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost at
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 119
6.A.b
the time of destruction, the building may be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks or coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred if, but only if,
an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et
seq. is filed within 18 months of the date the damage occurred. The director may grant a
one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension request has been received
from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months.
b. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely
on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if,
by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot
or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction.
c. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not
apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
d. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined
building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to
the original style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance
shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision. The decision of the hearing
examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.06.150.
3. The right of restoration shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the
owner or the owner's agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence
of the owner or owner's agents; or
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment.
G. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence
conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the
case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the
effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by
clear and convincing evidence.
H. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing
residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In the
BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or other uses
permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with the ground floor
elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B).
[Ord. 4154 § 6 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 4151 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 3, 2014; Ord. 3866 § 2,
2011; Ord. 3781 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 13, 14, 2009; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling
units.
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 120
6.A.b
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the
registration period which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal
nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and
privileges afforded to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020.
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing
the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance
with such permit certificate.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section
shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to
abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of
substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such
building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was permitted by Snohomish County or
the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the
applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction was
initiated and was completed. [Ord. 4154 § 7 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.030 Nonconforming lots.
A. Definition. A nonconforming lot is one which met applicable zoning ordinance standards as to
size, width, depth and other dimensional regulations at the date on which it was created but which,
due to the passage of a zoning ordinance, the amendment thereof or the annexation of property to
the city, no longer conforms to the current provisions of the zoning ordinance. A lot which was not
legally created in accordance with the laws of the local governmental entity in which it was located at
the date of the creation is an illegal lot and will not be recognized for development.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming lot may be developed for any use allowed by the zoning district in
which it is located, even though such lot does not meet the size, width, depth and other dimensional
requirements of the district, so long as all other applicable site use and development standards are
met or a variance from such site use or development standards has been obtained. In order to be
developed a nonconforming lot must meet minimum lot size standards established by the provisions
of this code, subject to the provisions of subsection (D) of this section.
C. Combination. If, since the date on which it became nonconforming due to its failure to meet
minimum lot size or width criteria, an undeveloped nonconforming lot has been in the same
ownership as a contiguous lot or lots, the nonconforming lot is to be and shall be deemed to have
been combined with such contiguous lot or lots to the extent necessary to create a conforming lot
and thereafter may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, except as specifically provided in subsection (D) of this section.
D. Exception for Single -Family Dwelling Units. An applicant may build one single-family residence
consisting of no more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel regardless of the size of the lot or
parcel if, but only if, one of the following exceptions applies:
1. In an IRS zone, such nonconforming lot may be sold or otherwise developed as any other
nonconforming lot pursuant to the following conditions and standards:
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 121
6.A.b
a. The lot area of the nonconforming lot is not less than the minimum lot area specified in
the table below for the zoning district in which the subject property is located; and
b. Community facilities, public utilities and roads required to serve the nonconforming lot
are available concurrently with the proposed development; and
c. Existing housing stock will not be destroyed in order to create a new buildable lot.
Lot Area Table
Zone % Needed for Lot Sized Needed
Legal Lot for Legal Lot
(1)
RS-20
60%
12,000
(2)
RS-12
70%
8,400
(3)
RS-10
75%
7,500
(4)
RS-8
80%
6,400
(5)
RS-6
90%
5,400
2. An applicant applies for necessary permits to construct the unit within five years of the date
the lot or parcel was annexed into the city and the lot or parcel was lawfully created under
provisions of Snohomish County subdivision and zoning laws as well as the laws of the state
of Washington; or
3. An applicant may remodel or rebuild one residence on a nonconforming lot without regard to
the 75 percent destruction requirement of ECDC 17.40.020(F) if a fully completed building
permit application is submitted within one year of the destruction of the residence and all other
development requirements of this code are complied with; or
4. The lot lines defining the lot or parcel were recorded in the Snohomish County recorder's
office prior to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has not at any time been
simultaneously owned by the owner of a contiguous lot or parcel which fronts on the same
access right-of-way subsequent to December 31, 1972, and the lot or parcel has access to an
access right-of-way which meets the minimum requirements established by this code. [Ord.
3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.040 Nonconforming signs.
Nonconforming signs are injurious to health, safety and welfare and destructive of the aesthetic and
environmental living conditions which this zoning ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance.
Nonconforming signs shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC
under the following terms and conditions:
A. No nonconforming sign shall be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way,
except as provided below. The following acts are specifically permitted and shall not in and of
themselves require conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60 ECDC:
1. Normal maintenance of the sign;
2. A change in the name of the business designated on the sign; or
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 122
6.A.b
3. Any action necessary to preserve the public safety in the event of damage to the sign
brought about by an accident or an act of God.
B. Any nonconforming sign shall be brought into immediate compliance with the code in the event
that it is expanded in violation of subsection (A) of this section.
C. None of the foregoing provisions relating to permitted maintenance, name change or preservation
of the sign under subsection (A) of this section shall be construed so as to permit the continuation or
preservation of any nonconforming off -premises sign. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.050 Nonconforming local public facilities.
A. Local Public Facilities. Existing legal nonconforming local public facility uses, buildings, and/or
signs, owned and/or operated by local, state, or federal governmental entities, public service
corporations, or common carriers (including agencies, districts, governmental corporations, public
utilities, or similar entities) may be expanded, enlarged, altered, or modified, subject to review under
Chapter 20.16 ECDC, Essential Public Facilities. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.40.060 Setback exemption.
A. Notwithstanding the current criteria in the ECDC relating to residential building setbacks,
development projects in areas annexed by the city of Edmonds from unincorporated Snohomish
County since January 1, 1994, with building permits from Snohomish County that were valid on the
effective date of the annexation, but which have subsequently expired without final approval, shall be
exempt from the setback requirements specified in ECDC 16.20.030 and 16.30.030; provided, that
the development projects are (1) residential in nature; (2) located in residentially zoned areas of the
city of Edmonds; (3) meet setback requirements of the then -current Snohomish County code in
effect on the effective date of the annexation; (4) consistent with the plans approved by the county (it
will be the applicant's responsibility to provide the city with evidence that the project was approved
by the county); and (5) compliant with all other applicable criteria in the current ECDC.
B. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to allow any development project in the city of
Edmonds, for which a valid building permit from the city is required under the current ECDC, to
begin, proceed or be completed without the same. [Ord. 3756 § 1, 2009].
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 123
6.A.c
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
NEW BUSINESS
A. Wireless Code Update Introduction
Mr. Clugston and Ms. McConnell reviewed some history of wireless in Edmonds and discussed why the
update was being done. He explained that cities are not allowed to regulate based on health impacts — real
or perceived; however, staff reviews each application for compliance with radiofrequency (RF) limits as set
out by the FCC. Updates are being done to respond to some additional FCC mandates, to implement new
best practices around concealment and camouflaging, to apply lessons learned from recent projects, and to
clean up the code.
Summary of Proposed Amendments:
• Applicability — clarify master permits, licenses, and specific permits; establish a review of ROW
installations after 10 years to ensure consistency with future wireless code amendments for
aesthetics
• Clarify shot clocks and application requirements; create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to
City corrections; create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions
• Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates — updates proposed to track with FCC mandates;
create 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections, create an administrative appeal
process for permit decisions
• Clarify maintenance and abandonment language — administrative clarification
• Update nonconforming language — language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible
Facility Request standards; will be included as redline/strike-out in public hearing draft
• Small cell dimensional, location, and aesthetic standards — intended to minimize visual impact of
small cell installations
Mr. Clugston explained that small cell deployments are complementary to towers, adding much needed
coverage and capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere large crowds gather. They are
primarily located in the right of way. Antennas are smaller and lower power than macro wireless (20-40'
ideal height); however lower installations need more sites to cover the same area. Full concealment is
possible.
He reviewed examples of Edmonds' Location Preference Hierarchy:
LP 1: Hollow utility pole (no solutions available yet)
LP2: Freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight
LP3: Wood utility pole — on top (PUD doesn't allow yet)
LP4: Wood utility pole — side mount
LP5: Strand -mounted — on wires
Applicants are required to demonstrate they cannot fulfill each level before proceeding to the next lower
priority level. There has only been one small cell application come through the City so far, and it was for
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 124
6.A.c
LP4. Chair Crank asked about the two strongly preferred options (LP1 and LP3) which are not available.
Mr. Clugston explained they are still hopeful to eventually have options for those.
Small Cell Dimensional, Location, and Aesthetic Standard Amendments:
• Revise facility dispersion requirements — Existing is 300' for all installations. Staff is proposing no
requirements for dispersion with LP1; 150' with LP2; 300' for LP3-LP5
• Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless facilities (LP2) — allow
for additional height (35-38') and width (20-22"); update location/clearance requirements;
encourage use of LP2
• Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments (LP3 & LP4) — PUD doesn't
allow LP3 pole -top attachments but solutions exist and discussions are ongoing. LP4 was the
landing spot for the first small cell application. Staff is proposing requiring the mounting of conduits
and equipment as close as possible to pole; requiring power from overhead, if available; and
multiple points of attachments versus single for different features. Discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Clugston stated there is a public hearing tentatively scheduled for July 13. Staff will continue to do
additional research for small cell standards and will include "nonconforming" redline/strike-out in next
draft.
Board Member Cheung asked if cost can be a reason for infeasibility. Ms. McConnell replied it cannot.
Board Member Cheung asked why PUD is not okay with it being on top, but they are okay with it being on
the side. Ms. McConnell replied that there are certifications required to work in the electrical space.
Currently it is PUD that has to do that work; wireless companies cannot. Board Member asked if there will
be some sort of consistency with the types of poles with the LP2 option. Ms. McConnell replied they are
still working on that. In downtown Edmonds there is a certain type of pole that has been identified, but
elsewhere they are still working through options.
Board Member Campbell asked why they wouldn't want to have the same requirements elsewhere in the
City as they do in downtown. She was strongly in favor of having a uniform standard for the small cell.
Board Member Gladstone asked who installs and maintains the streetlights. Ms. McConnell replied that
both the PUD and the City install streetlights, but the majority of the lights in Edmonds are PUD lights.
Board Member Gladstone thought that LP5 looked less intrusive than LP4. She wondered why this was a
lower priority level. Ms. McConnell acknowledged this and explained they also considered what else was
already up there on the wires. Board Member Gladstone asked if they have a sense of how many applications
they will get in the future. Ms. McConnell replied that they do not know what to expect. Mr. Clugston
thought there would be dozens and dozens of them.
Board Member Rosen thanked staff for the regulations they have created to protect the City as much as
possible.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION
OF THE MISSING AMENDMENTS REFERENCED BY STAFF AND TAKE THIS TO A
PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED (6-0) WITH BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE
ABSTAINING.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 3 of 6
Attar"
AMD2 Packet Pg. 125
6.A.d
TlM i[�Tii%7iiTaN MUTE roToF I :f
Packet Pg. 126
6.A.d
'Mi:
Cities cannot regulate wireless based on health impacts
■ Since 1996, FCC has set exposure limits for radiofrequency (RF) emissions
■ In 2019, FCC concurred with 2018 FDA report that found existing RF limits
for industry workers and general public are protective of public health
■ Staff reviews RF compliance with each application
Packet Pg. 127
6.A.d
■ 1996 — original ordinance
■ 2011—major revision (current organization with ROW and non -ROW in
same chapter)
■ 2014 —clarified nonconforming installations
■ 2019 — added small cell aesthetic standards, eligible facility requests,
clarified review timelines (shot clocks)
U
a
Packet Pg. 128
6.A.d
■ Respond to recent mandates from FCC
■ Implement new best practices —encourage/require better concealment
and camouflaging
■ Apply lessons learned from recent small cell wireless projects
■ Clean up
c
U
a
Packet Pg. 129
6.A.d
61■ rro] V[OR we W_I2AIaaIo12"otaaI�tM
■ Applicability - clarify master permits, licenses, and specific permits
■ Clarify shot clocks and application requirements
■ Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates
■ Clarify maintenance and abandonment language
■ Update nonconforming language
■ Small cell dimensional, location, and aesthetic standards
U
a
Packet Pg. 130
6.A.d
■ ECDC 20.50.020.0 - E
■ Clarify applicability of master permit, facility lease/license, and site
specific authorizations for work (building permit or ROW permit)
■ Establish a review of ROW installations after 10 years to ensure
consistency with future wireless code amendments for aesthetics —
master permit does not create a vested right for facilities in ROW
Packet Pg. 131
6.A.d
���m.�.rr.�rnirrrir.�:
■ ECDC 20.50.060
■ Create 90-day `shot clock' for industry responses to City corrections
■ Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions
■ Administrative clarifications for permit applications
Packet Pg. 132
6.A.d
■ ECDC 20.50.080
■ Updates proposed to track with FCC mandates
■ Create 90-day `shot clock' for industry responses to City corrections
■ Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions
Packet Pg. 133
6.A.d
■ ECDC 20.50.140 & .150
■ Administrative clarifications
Packet Pg. 134
6.A.d
■ Proposed change language not in packet... apologies
■ In ECDC 17.40.023 and 17.30.020.1
■ Language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible Facility
Request standards
■ Will be included as redline/strike-out in public hearing draft
U
a
Packet Pg. 135
6.A.d
Dimensinnnl. Lornfinn nnd I
L
d
ijandards
a
■ ECDC 20.50.130
■ Intended to minimize visual impact of small cell installations
■ What is small cell again...?
Packet Pg. 136
6.A.d
a� l
c
•L
What Are Small Cell Deployments.
Small cell deployments a re comp bementary to towers, adding much needed coverage an a
Industry
capacity to urban and residential areas, venues, and anywhere larg-e crowds gather
.N
responding to
Streedig nts Utility Pales Slim Line Poles N
increased demand
W
Arrber�nas connected � cfl
noes receive and transmff
o
wireless slgnats to and from c
Off-load macro
mabFle deMhces m
a
service (capacity)
The cabinet he 'aa
egulpmenttha C
process wFrele m
slgna Is For nnul
Provide new
y wireless carrlei V
4
coverage i n some
Optical connects to
other nodes acid carries
data to and From
areas
communication hubs
operated by wireless
carriers m
4Gnow, 5Gin
_ _ a
future
3 -
Mostly in ROW
a
P.
(: RO N AM Packet Pg. 137
L CASTLE
6.A.d
' Antennas — panel
or omnidirectional
F 'pI
a Equipment —
Y power, radios, fiber
• � - •,�--. pry � .
M101
�• .
�--
■ Antennas are smaller and lower power that z
`macro' wireless
z
■ 20' - 40' ideal height (— 50' allowed by FCC)
■ Lower installations need more sites to cove
e
the same area
S
■ Full concealment is possible
Packet Pg. 138
6.A.d
Edmonds Location Preference Hierarchy
■ LP1—Hollow utility pole [no solutions available yet]
■ LP2 — Freestanding small wireless facility or new street light
■ LP3 — Wood
utility
pole
— on top [PUD doesn't allow yet]
■ LP4 —Wood
utility
pole
—side mount (in communication space)
■ LP5 — Strand -mounted — on wires
Applicant must prove infeasibility before stepping down the list
Packet Pg. 139
LP
Hollow Power Pole
Full/Partial
Concealment
LP2 I LP3
FLP4 LPS ,
\'N"
r
5 7
kT:
5 4'
Freestanding Wood Power Pole Wood Power Pole
Small Cell Installation on Top Installation in
Full Concealment of Pole Communication
Space
Strand Mount
Attachment
tOAtt rAc
Packet Pg. 140
6.A.d
Dimensinnnl. Lornfinn nnd I
>tandard Amendments
■ Revise facility dispersion requirements
■ Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless
facilities (LP2)
■ Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments
(LP3 & LP4)
Packet Pg. 141
6.A.d
DI
■ Existing = 300' for all LPs
■ Proposed = No requirement if LP1, 150' if LP21 300' for LP3 — LP5
■ Encourages use of LP2 (and LP1 in the future)
Packet Pg. 142
6.A.d
■ Allow for additional height and width
■ Existing = 25' max height and 20" wide
■ Proposed = 35-38' tall and 20-22" wide
(discussions on -going)
■ Update location/clearance requirements
■ Encourage use of LP2
Site Pro 1
Valmont
a�
�L
Cu
a)
2
3
N
N
N
CR
W
0
Ca
CL
0
U
rn
L
Raycar r-
y
w
a
a
Packet Pg. 143
6.A.d
b,
■ PUD doesn't allow LP3
pole -top attachments
■ Solutions exist
■ Discussions on -going
Site Pro 1
Valmont
• q • 9 • f
Raycar
AS
IT
P'_,.
A
AMC I Packet Pg. 144
EXISTING
PROPOSED
oe
RELOCATED WIRE
CONNECTION
PROPOSED AT&T CA
MODEL- GALTRONICS,
PROPOSED AT&T 84
PROPOSED AT&T AN1
STAND-OFF MOUNT
(3) PROPOSED AT&T
CONDUITS ON PROK
18- STAND-OFF BRA
EXISTING WIRE
CONNECTIONS (TYP.)
PROPOSED AT&T
MODEL OOMMSC
PROPOSED AT&T DIS
SURGE SUPPRESSOR
MODEL. RAYCAP/RSC
"EXIS'nNG
MM
PROPOSED WOOD
UTILJTY PULE
A
6.A.d
■ LP4 was landing spot for first
small cell application
■ Require mounting of conduits
and equipment as close as
possible to pole
■ Require power from overhead
if available (reduce conduits)
■ Multiple points of attachment
vs. single
■ Discussions on -going
Packet Pg. 145
6.A.d
0,
■ Multiple points of
attachment for
radios & other
equipment or
single?
■ Single could be 4-6'
tall
xl :
CONNECTION -19ame Sitd��
Multiple
I-
tachn,
PROPOSED AT&T CMIS
MODE- GAf_iRONICS/
Points
PROPOSED AT&T e4
PROPOSED AT&T ANT
STAND-OFF MOUNT
(3) PROP17SE0 AT&r
- CONDUITS ON PROPOS
18" STAND-OFF BRACK
EXISTING WIRE
CONNECTIONS (TYP. )
PROPOSED AT&T EOUn'.
MODEL OOIWIIASCOPE/5:.
+
PROPOSED AT&T DISCO
+L
SURGE SUPPRESSOR
MODEL: RAYCAP/RSCAC.
EXISTING
C0 U BOX (TYP-}
5n Y
• yr
F ROPOSED W,V C
,T0TY POLE
CONN
PROPOSED
MODEL: GA
PROPOSED
JPROPOSED
STAND-OF1
(3) PROPC
CONDUITS
19" STAND
EXISTING M
CONNECTIC
V
-- PROPOSED
MODEU CC
EXISTING
COMM eO�
PROPOSED
I MI Wv an
0
Site Pro 1
Valmont
Pac66Pg.A
6.A.d
■ Public hearing tentatively scheduled for July 13
■ Additional research on -going for small cell standards
■ Include "nonconforming" redline/strike-out in next draft
■ Questions?
Packet Pg. 147
6.A.e
OFEb4
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ins. ta90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on draft amendments to the
City's wireless communication facilities ordinance in Chapter 20.50 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The intent of this periodic
update is to respond to changing mandates by the FCC and implement
current best practices and lessons -learned from recent projects.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0002
COMMENTS ON
PROPOSAL DUE: July 13, 2022
Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is
closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at
www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public
Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be
mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the
application file number for all inquiries.
PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on July 13, 2022 at
7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at:
https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/i/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062
Password: 598700
Physical Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and
the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the
expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical
location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community
Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue.
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 148
44 PIP2-0 Z 6.A.e
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gales being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH957597 AMD2022-0002 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 06/28/2022 and
ending on 06/28/2022 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount the fee for s h publication is Linda Phillips
$68.80. Notary Public
State of Washington
My Appointment Expires 8129i2025
Commission Number 4417
Subscribed and sworn
zz_ clay of
fore me on this
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
CI:y W Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416
{ICI IELLE MARTIN
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 149
6.A.e
Classified Proof
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public
hearing on draft amendments to the City's wireless
communication faclllties ordinance In Chapter 20.50 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The intent of
this periodic update is to respond to changing mandates by the
FCC and implement current best practices and lessons -learned
from recent projects.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0002
COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 13, 2022
Any person may comment on this application until the public
hearing Is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting
the Citys websile at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable
Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City
contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made
at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for
all inquiries.
PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the
Planning Board on July 13, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom
meeting at:
hltps://edmondswa-
govzoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFO210O2U5SDdwR U
FadX15dz09
Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062
Password: 598700
Physical Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this
meeting and the public may as well at the zoom Information
above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's
proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to
participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the
physical location provide Is Edmonds Waterfront Center
Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue.
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
inichael-clugstoi)@edmotidswa.gov
425-771-0220
Published: June 28, 2022. EDH967597
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/29/2022 11:32:50 am Page: 2
AMD2 Packet Pg. 150
6.A.e
File No.: AMD2022-0002
Applicant: City of Edmonds
DECLARATION OF POSTING
On the 28th day of June, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted as prescribed by Ordinance. However, it was not posted at the
Edmonds Public Library because it is currently closed due to a water leak that
occurred on June 24.
I, Mike Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 28th day of June,
2022, at Edmonds, Washington.
Signed:
Atta
AMD2 Packet Pg. 151
6.A.f
PUD
March 26, 2019
City of Edmonds
Ms. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
250 51h Avenue
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Dear President Fraley-Monillas:
Snohomish PUD appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback to proposed wireless regulations in
Chapter 20.50 of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Recently, Snohomish PUD determined placing small cell antennas on top of power poles is not viable
(Section 20.50.130). Any work on an antenna mounted on the top of a power pole will require a
Snohomish PUD line crew to perform that work. As you are likely aware, Washington State Labor and
Industries (L & 1) prohibits communication workers from entering the electrical supply space. Labor and
Industries also prohibits communication workers from riding in a bucket boom truck with a qualified line
worker. Snohomish PUD does not have the resources to send a line crew to every radio installation
anytime the radio needs servicing, upgrading or adjustment. Nor do we believe it in the best interest of
line worker safety to allow small cell antennas in or above the power space.
Therefore, our preferred installation is to have the small cell antenna and radio in the
communications space, forty inches (40") below the lowest power attachment. This will allow the
carriers to install and maintain their equipment without involving Snohomish PUD line crews. The
communications space, as we understand, is the ideal height for the carriers. This approach may also
reduce the installation's overall height.
If the existing pole does not have sufficient space for an antenna in the communications space, then a
five-foot (5') taller pole should be sufficient to accommodate the antenna. Pole top installations would
typically require a ten -foot (10') taller pole. Snohomish PUD requests that 20.50.130 (B) Preference #3
be changed to Preference #5 with the caveat that this installation would only be allowed by
Snohomish PUD through a conditional exemption.
Snohomish PUD understands the City of Edmonds prefers the pursuit for hollow steel utility poles with
all cell equipment concealed. Currently, there are designs for collocated street light poles that conceal
most of the small cell apparatus. However, at this time, there is no available design for utility power
poles with concealed small cell equipment.
If a hollow core pole design does become available, Snohomish PUD will be required to thoroughly
evaluate the design before any consideration to use it as a replacement for a wood power pole. Power
Attar
AMD2 Packet Pg. 152
6.A.f
poles have strict design requirements for strength, deflection and longevity, and any hollow, cell -friendly
manufactured pole would have to perform as well as a wood power pole.
Also, while it should be feasible to route cell coax and power for the cell radio inside a purpose built
power pole, it will be difficult to install the antennas and radio inside the pole and make them accessible
for routine maintenance. If the size of small cell antennas and radios shrinks, perhaps this may be a
viable option in the future.
Additionally, Snohomish PUD requests the following considerations in the following sections:
Section 20.50.030: Snohomish PUD requests an exemption for WCF infrastructure and other equipment
owned and operated by an electric utility for the purposes of providing retail electric service.
Section 20.50.110 (B): Snohomish PUD seeks clarification that full concealment of antennas, equipment
and cables applies to carriers' communication equipment only. Snohomish PUD equipment and cabling
will be installed on the outside of any monopoles.
Section 20.50.130 (2.iii.e): Any freestanding small wireless facilities requires alignment with utility poles
With a twenty -five-foot (25') allowable height, any poles in alignment three feet (3') or less would have
to be attached to any existing communication wires per the National Electric Safety Code.
Section 20.50.130 (c), Location Preference #3, Snohomish PUD requests placement of the antenna in
the communication space, not on the pole top.
Generally, there are quite a few specific requirements that specify items like the number of antennas,
distance of equipment from the pole, etc. Since much of this is unknown and will be changing with
improved technology, Snohomish PUD is concerned some of these limitations may require revisiting.
Snohomish PUD recognizes recent FCC rulemaking has created new challenges for municipal leaders
when evaluating and processing applications for wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. As we have
expressed in recent weeks, Snohomish PUD is committed to working with City of Edmonds staff on small
wireless regulations, including compliance and a coordinated, workable approach for all parties. At this
time, we request the City considers keeping this ordinance as interim until such time that we are all
more familiar with small cell technology.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
i awW %N - & M�11 �,; _�N
Jason Zyskowski
Senior Manager
Planning, Engineering and Technical Services
Attar
AMD2 Packet Pg. 153
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/13/2022
Phase II Tree Code Amendments
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Deb Powers
Background/History
Edmonds has taken many steps to mitigate the future impacts of climate change and improve the
environment, including taking actions to proactively manage its urban forest. One such step is the
2019 adoption of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP is a guidance document
identifying specific actions towards achieving a healthy, sustainable urban forest. Its goals are to be
implemented by City boards/commissions, the City Council, community, or City divisions/staff over a
long-term horizon, as resources allow.
In 2020, the Planning Board (PB) set out to achieve UFMP Goal 1A:
Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest
and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
In early 2021, the Planning Board (PB) provided its code recommendations to the City Council for
tree retention associated with development activity. In response to public feedback, the PB and City
Council concurred that a second phase of code amendments, outside the scope of UFMP Goal 1A,
consider limits to property owner tree removals unrelated to development.
Staff requested direction from the City Council on the scope of the "Phase II" code amendments
related to property owner tree removal. The June 1 and August 24, 2021 City Council meeting
minutes reflect Council's preference for two code options, summarized as:
Apart from Landmark trees, allow the removal of a limited number of trees on a given property
within a certain time frame, with no or low permit fees, in a manner that allows data on tree
removal activity be derived.
The preferred options were identified as code provisions that would require additional resources to
administer, and as such, is considered a major code amendment. The Phase II tree code amendment
project was identified in the 2022-2023 Development Services Work Plan. More recently, at the June
21, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council affirmed that the Phase II code amendments project
scope is defined by 3 objectives, summarized as:
1. Add new property owner tree removal code provisions to Chapter 23.10 ECDC based on
prior direction.
Consider minor code changes to the current code related to development activity.
Continue to implement the UFMP.
Packet Pg. 154
8.A
Staff has already begun initial discussions with the Tree Board (TB) on July 7, 2022. The scope and
the general approach to the Phase II tree code amendment project is outlined in the Narrative
section below.
Staff Recommendation
Staff requests early feedback on the scope and general approach to the Phase II tree code
amendment project.
Narrative
At the June 21, 2022, City Council meeting, Council affirmed that the project scope for Phase II code
amendments to Chapter 23.10 ECDC is defined by the following objectives:
1. Pursue code updates to address Drooerty owner tree removals under the Citv Council's
preferred Options #2 and 3. These options would allow a limited number of removals within
a specific timeframe, without a permit/fee, using a notification process to track removals
over time and check for conditions like critical areas. In addition, limit Landmark tree
removals within a certain (possibly different) timeframe, without a permit. All options that
were under consideration by City Council are shown in the June 21, 2022 City Council
meeting memo, shown in Attachment 1.
2. Make minor code changes to the existing code. Since its adoption 12 months ago, staff has
observed opportunities to simplify the current code for more streamlined review, update
the code for consistency with BMPs/industry standards and consider code changes that
reflect recent canopy cover data. Staff has developed a preliminary list of code amendments
(Attachment 2) indicating the level of policy impacts of each. To illustrate the complexity of
administering the current code regarding property owner tree removals - the subject of new
code provisions - see Attachment 3. The gray bar shows the area that new code provisions
would address. The remaining chart is, inadvertently, how the current code addresses
property owner tree removals.
Continue to implement the UFMP. During the development of the current tree code, the
public, Tree Board and City Council expressed concern how and when the goals outlined in
the UFMP would be achieved, such as implementing a heritage tree program and
conducting general advocacy and education on tree matters (not related to the code
updates, per se). Although the goals identified in the UFMP do not necessarily fall within the
scope of code amendments, staff has included implementation of UFMP goals within the
scope of this project, as resources allow.
To clarify, "minor" code changes do not change the meaning of the code and do not result in
increased applicant requirements. In contrast, "major" code amendments result in a substantial
prohibition/ban on what's currently allowed, add substantial new requirements that result in
significant changes to procedures, and/or significant additional cost to the applicant, and/or change
the intent of the code. A key to policy level impacts is shown on the Preliminary List of Code
Amendments (Attachment 2).
Action Needed
No action is needed; we are not discussing specific code changes at this time. With PB feedback,
Packet Pg. 155
8.A
staff will develop the final scope and Project Outline.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - June 21, 2022 City Council Meeting Memo
Attachment 2 - Preliminary List of Code Amendments
Attachment 3 - Current Code Summary
Attachments:
Attach 1_06212022 CC Mtg Memo
Attach 2 PB Tree Code Amend List
Attach 3—Current Code Summary_Property Owner Removals
Packet Pg. 156
8.A.a
ATTACHMENT X
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/21/2022
Tree Code Amendments
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Deb Powers
Background/History
Trees provide multiple benefits that contribute to a healthy, vibrant, and livable community.
Recognizing this, Edmonds has taken steps to proactively manage its urban forest resource, including
the adoption of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP is a guidance document outlining
specific actions towards achieving a healthy, sustainable urban forest. Its goals are meant to be
implemented by City boards/commissions, the City Council, the community, or City divisions/staff over a
long-term horizon, as resources allow.
In late 2020, the Planning Board (PB) set out to achieve UFMP Goal IA:
Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and
consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations.
The PB made its recommendation for development -related tree codes Oto the City Council in 2021. In
response to public feedback, the PB also recommended to the City Council that a second phase of code
amendments, outside the scope of UFMP Goal IA, address property owner tree removals not related to
development activity. The City Council concurred and expressed a desire to consider regulating
property -owner tree removals. A detailed description of the 2020-2021 tree code amendment process is
available on the City's Tree Code Updates project webpage.
Staff presented the following six options limiting tree removals on private property at the May 18, 2021,
City Council meeting. Note that the discussion of options did not take place until the June 1, 2021, City
Council meeting. Staff has added the expected results for each option below in italics, based on
information from similar code application in other jurisdictions.
1. Require a permit/fee to remove any significant tree. A fee permit would be required for the removal
of any significant tree on private property. ('Significant' trees are defined as those with a minimum
6-inch DBH (trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade).
With this option, there would be a cost to the property owner. Additional resources for permit review
would be required. There may be a negligible effect on the rate of tree canopy cover loss.
2. Allow limited tree removal with notification. Allow the removal of a certain number of significant
trees within a specific timeframe. For example, two significant trees may be removed from a
property, per year. This option would not require a paid permit but would involve establishing a
process for notification/City approval to track the number of trees removed over time and check for
additional conditions, such as critical areas.
With this option, there would be no cost to the property owner. Additional resources would be required
for intake of notifications and to check that other limitations do not apply. This option would slow the
rate of canopy cover loss over time. Note that in other jurisdictions, this option is typically paired with a
minimum remaining number of trees on the property and/or tree replacement requirements - see #5 and
Packet Pg. 157
8.A.a
6.
3. Allow limited tree removal with notification, except for Landmark trees. Same as #2 above, but the
allowance would only apply to trees less than 24-inches DBH. This option assumes that a permit
would be required to remove Landmark trees over 24-inches DBH (as described in #4) that further
limits the number of Landmark trees and/or increases the time periods between Landmark tree
removal. The property owner would need to provide documentation on tree size for City review of
proposed tree removals.
As with #2, there would be no cost to the property owner. Additional resources for the intake of
notifications, including tree size documentation, would be required. Limiting Landmark tree removal
would further slow the loss of mature tree canopy cover over time. Note that currently, Landmark tree
retention or removal is not regulated in Edmonds.
4. Require a permit/fee to exceed tree removal allowances and/or to remove a Landmark tree. To
exceed the allowed number of tree removals within a given timeframe in #2 and/or to remove a
Landmark tree in #3, a permit would be required. The additional trees would need to meet certain
criteria to allow their removal, such as hazard or nuisance tree (note that hazard and nuisance trees
are currently defined in Chapter 23.10 ECDC). The number of Landmark tree removals and
frequency of their removal would be limited more than the allowances described in #3.
Here's an example of how this option would work, if 2 significant tree removals were allowed per year:
say a property owner has 5 significant trees on their property and they wish to remove all 5. Two trees
would automatically be allowed to be removed. Three trees would need to fit hazard or nuisance criteria
for all 5 to be approved for removal at one time. A permit/fee would be required in addition to
documentation of the hazard or nuisance condition for 3 trees. If none of the 5 trees fit nuisance or
hazard criteria, only 2 trees could be removed under the allowance. The property owner could,
however, remove 2 more trees after a year had lapsed, then remove the fifth existing tree on the
property after another year had lapsed.
If any of the 5 trees were Landmark trees, a permit/fee would be required. The number of Landmark
tree removals that could occur at once and frequency of their removal may be limited, too.
Option #4 effectively slows the loss of canopy cover over time yet allows property owners to remove
hazardous/nuisance trees as needed. Limiting Landmark tree removal would further slow the loss of
mature tree canopy cover over time. Significant resources would be required for permit review and to
field -verify nuisance/hazard/Landmark tree documentation.
5. Establish a minimum threshold of trees remaining on the property. In tandem with any of the above
options, there could be a requirement to retain a certain number or percentage of existing trees on
the property. Currently, Edmonds' tree code requires 30% tree retention on properties under
development. Other jurisdictions establish a certain number of existing trees that must remain on
the lot depending on the property size. To remove the last remaining trees required on the lot, a
permit would be required and/or the existing trees must meet certain criteria such as hazard or
nuisance tree.
Alone, this option establishes a "baseline" of tree canopy cover on a lot -by -lot basis. It may also serve as
the trigger for tree replacements when combined with Option #6.
6. Require tree replacements with removal. In tandem with any of the above options, significant tree
removal by property owners would be mitigated by planting new trees. The appropriate number of
replacement trees and the threshold that triggers tree replacements would need to be established.
Other jurisdictions require a certain number of tree replacements based on the size of the removed
trees. When combined with Option #5, tree replacements would only be required when the
property owner is removing the last remaining trees on the lot.
This option mitigates the loss of tree canopy cover associated with property owner tree removal over
time. Resources would be required to inspect and field -verify replacement trees.
Packet Pg. 158
8.A.a
Although the June 1, 2021, City Council meeting minutes reflect that the City Council did not provide a
consensus decision, the discussion does indicate there was general support for tracking tree removals to
gain more information and a preference for Options 2 and 3, summarized as:
With the exception of Landmark trees, allow the removal of a limited number of trees on a given
property within a certain time frame, with no or low permit fees, in a manner that allows data on tree
removal activity be derived.
The August 24, 2021, City Council meeting minutes indicate that the Council felt sufficient direction was
provided to staff on "Phase II" code amendments for the PB and Tree Board to move forward with draft
code development and public engagement. The Phase II tree code amendment project has been
identified in the 2022-2023 Development Services Work Plan.
City Council Considerations
In addition to establishing property owner tree removal codes, the City Council may want to consider
minor code changes that simplify the current code, align with industry standards/BMPs and respond to
findings in the recent Tree Canopy Assessment. "Minor" code changes do not change the meaning of the
code and do not result in increased applicant requirements. In contrast, "major" code amendments
result in a substantial prohibition/ban on what's currently allowed, add substantial new requirements
that result in significant changes to procedures, and/or add significant costs to the applicant and
changes the intent of the code.
To clarify, the prior direction provided by the City Council for tree removal not related to development
constitutes a major code amendment.
Staff noted in reviewing the related meeting minutes that there was a concern for how and when urban
forest management actions that are outside the regulatory approach of tree code development would
be taken. For that reason, the continued implementation of the Urban Forest Management Plan has
been added as an objective under the scope of this project.
Staff Recommendation
Affirm that the project scope for Phase II code amendments to Chapter 23.10 ECDC is defined by the
following objectives:
1. Pursue code updates to address property owner tree removals under the City Council's preferred
Options #2 and 3.
2. Address issues that have arisen with administering the current code and respond to findings in the
recent tree canopy assessment with minor code changes to Chapter 23.10 ECDC.
3. Continue to implement the UFMP.
Next Steps
No action is needed at this time. Staff will continue working with the Planning Board and Tree Board
Attachments:
CC Memo 5_18_21 Tree Code Part 2
CC Minutes 6 1 21
CC Minutes 8 24 21
Packet Pg. 159
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT Tree Code Amendments List
8.A.b
ECDC
Applies to
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
23.10...
Property Owner?
6/21/22 - City Council affirmed the project scope should follow the 2021 direction for preferred "Options 2/3" allowing a limited number of removals within a specific timeframe, without permit/fee, using
-
Property Owner
Not in current code
a notification process to track removals over time and check for conditions like critical areas. Allow limited Landmark tree removal, with notification. Additional Councilmember feedback: consider
Major
replanting standards for replacement of tree removals, consider no/low-cost permit requirements for all tree removals (not the preferred Options by consensus decision), and reconsider the tree
retention standards for ECDC 20.75.048, the Conservation Subdivision code provisions.
Throughout
Both
Throughout
6/21/22 — City Council affirmed the project scope include minor changes to the current code: simplify, update for consistency with BMPs/industry standards, reflect recent canopy cover data, and
Minor
address code interpretation issues that have arisen since its adoption.
020.D
Development
P
"Developable site" definition and requirements for
development on sites with critical areas
Clarify, simplify. Revise language for consistency throughout Chapter: "non -developable areas," "outside the improved areas" to regulate tree retention in setbacks with development.
Yy g P P P 9 p
None
020.H
Both
Hazard tree definition
Update for consistency with industry standards: reference TRAQ `High' or'Extreme' overall tree risk rating
None
020.1
Development
Grove definition
Add "viable" or define tree condition, define location on development site i.e., setback?). Consider addinghigher level of protection as highpriority/high retention value tree in response to canopy
P ( ) g P g P PY
"forest
Definition: None
Applied: Moderate -
study findings related to patches."
Major
020
Both
Not in current code: define Landmark tree
Define Landmark trees (>24" DBH) for removal limitations per Council direction. Do not define by location or condition, that's only applicable on development sites for retention/removal criteria.
Major
020.E
Development
Limits of Disturbance definition
Update for consistency with industry standards. Use TPZ, carry through to 23.10.060 requirements
None
020.N
Property Owner
Nuisance tree definition
Define "causing (currently) significant" physical damage (add "obvious in photo'?)
None
020.Q
Both
Qualified professional definition
Update for consistency with industry standards: add Board Certified Master Arborist
None
020.X
Development
Viable tree definition
Add "subject to City review/approval" or create new tree condition definition for trees retained with development (see 23.10.060 D and F)
None
030
Development
Development scenarios where a permit is required
Add "D" to address MF/COMM landscape modification permit is required and the 3 other scenarios on the whiteboard where a Type 1 permit is required.
Minor
Simplify/clarify for more streamlined review. Does "not specifically exempted in 040" mean A through E only? Restate as allowances, i.e., what IS allowed, when a permit is required for what's NOT, vs
030.E
Development
Exemptions/exceptions, other double negatives
activities that are "exceptions to exemptions" or "trees that do not meet the exemptions may be..." etc. Does Legal have objections to this approach? Deb has examples of alternative language to
Minor
avoid confusion and increase compliance.
040.A
Property Owner
Tree removal not associated with development
See above regarding allowances. Clarify requirements for Type 1 permit/Landscape Modification, what's allowed on vacant/subdividable lots, for MF/COMM development, etc. per whiteboard diagram.
Minor
Discuss code enforcement issues, lack of paying penalty fines. Discuss if Type 1 "tree cutting permits" are equitable/fair. Consider appeals process. Consider requiring a permit for any tree removal in
040 & 050
Property Owner
Tree removal in critical areas
critical areas, only for trees that meet hazard/nuisance criteria. For 23.10.04.13, reference <6" DBH brush removal code (23.40?) QUESTION: Could an applicant opt to pay fees in lieu of replanting at
Minor?
2:1 per 23.40? QUESTION: Shouldn't code work to protect critical areas, avoid impacts?
040.C.2
Property Owner
Emergency tree removal
Clarify — this has been used out of context.
None
040.F
Property Owner
What "may" be removed with documentation
Clarify — does "may be removed" negate 040.A.1? Specify if nuisance criteria apply in critical areas. Clarify that hazard/nuisance does not apply to vacant lots (unless targeting adjacent property
"rectify"
Moderate
structures). Strike and replace.
060
Development
30%, 25% retention thresholds and
"priorities/procedures
Examine how these are working. Are percentages too low? Is emphasis placed on "meeting a quota" instead of retaining worthy trees (quantitative vs qualitative)? Revise so focus is on viable trees
Unknown
for retention"
located in setbacks (consider adding groves/landmark trees and other high retention value trees).
Simplify. Consider striking... is tree retention even feasible with MF development, considering typical lot coverage? Examine: how often are existing trees retained within required buffers with MF
060.A.3
Development
MF/COMM development tree retention
developments?
None
QUESTION: Could MF/COMM landscaping requirements and required buffers be formatted in a chart for streamlined OF review?
060.A, last
Development
P
"...establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and
Revise for consistencyand to simplify code. Clearly identify each using the same terms (example: Conservation Subdivision is an incentive and/or refer to UFMP.
P fY Y fY 9 ( P )
None
sentence
variations to development standards..."
20.75.048 &
060, 060.F.2
Development
Conservation Subdivision
Move to 23.10? Identify it as an incentive and an alternative to phased review. Establish specific (high) minimum retention requirements. See phased review below.
Unknown
060.A.2
Development
Tree Retention Plan requirements (report, site plan,
Simplify and clarify, add "viable" where needed alongside "significant" so that dead trees don't count to meet thresholds.
None
etc.)
060.B.3.a
Development
Phased Review
Simplify, respond to developer's ask for all tree removal at one time and public misconception of greater tree retention. Disincentivize phased review? Make "IDP" and/or Conservation Subdivision the
Minor
norm.
060.B.2.b.iv
Development
Allow silt fence per TESC requirements satisfy tree protection fence if locations are the same, vs duplicate fencing
None
060.C.1
Development
Typo?
Clarify what's meant by "except as substituted under subsection F(3)" — is that a typo? Is it referring to hazard trees? F3 refers to 30% threshold and retention priorities...
None
060.C.1
Development
30% or 50% retention requirements
Clarify. Round up or down?
Minor
060.C.1
Development
25% retention requirement for MF, unit lot subdivision,
Simplify code and streamline review process. If zoning allows max build -out and greater impervious surface areas for fire lanes, parking, other structures, (and tree planting is required per MF
�
Major
etc.
landscaping re uirements/buffers anyway), is charging for tree removal considered a takings challenge? Note that COMM/industrial zoning allows 100% lot coverage). See RCW 82.02.020.
P� 9 q Yw Y). 9 9 9 9 ( 9
060.C.2
Development
Typo?
" ...except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E..." (should be F)
None
060.D, F
Development
Tree Retention "Priority and Procedures"
Reformat for greater clarity/consistency. Priority One is too subjective — replace with specific criteria for qualitative retention. Strike "over 60 feet in height" and replace with (new) Landmark definition.
"trees
Minor
Move within required yard setbacks," groves and critical areas to Priority One!
0601.3
Typo?
Clarify - strike "must," replace with shall. Consider clarification of viable trees vs. "except for hazard/nuisance trees" ...
None
0605.4
Development
If 30% retention cannot be met...
Clarify "outside of the improved area of the site..." use setbacks or other defined location of high retention value trees.
Minor
QUESTION: what if entire site is encumbered by critical area?
060.F.4.a
Development
Typo? How to make up deficiencies meeting 30%
"...planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080..." doesn't make sense. 080 refers to replacements by the size of what's removed, which duplicates 060.C.4
None
retention requirement
requirements. Should it be # of trees to meet 30%?
060.F.4.b
Development
If 30% retention cannot be met...
Clarify "to achieve the required number of trees" relates to meeting 30% retention threshold.
None
Q
Revised 717122
Packet Pg. 160
8.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT Tree Code Amendments List
ECDC
Applies to
Development or
Current Code Summary
Description of Code Modification
Policy Impact'
23.10...
Property Owner?
060.F.4.b - $2,500 for each tree not planted to meet
Simplify - examine use/effectiveness of each. Clarify by reformatting under one "mitigation" section.
060.F.4.b &
080.E.1
Development
30%
080.E.1 - $1,000 for each replacement tree required for
QUESTION: Has 060.F.4.b ever been used? Consider striking to simplify code, since the $2 per square foot "cap" and 50% retention incentive seem to be used more often. Combine with 060.F.4.b as
,mitigation"?
None
each removed tree
060.G
Development
50% retention incentive
State that it's an incentive. Add "viable" to the word "significant" so dead trees don't count towards 50%
None
070.A
Development
Pre -construction fence inspections
Consider procedural efforts to streamline fence inspection process, minimize resources
?
080.E.3
Both?
Requires payment of appraised value of trees >24"
Revise to require tree planting 151 before assessing fees in lieu. Do not base fees on appraised value — either provide a simple formula or calculation (appraised value is too onerous, subjective,
None
DBH removed with development.
logistically problematic with phased development, etc.). Legal doesn't like flat rate.
080.E.4
Development
Fee in lieu "cap" at $2 per square foot
Analyze. Does the "cap" inadvertently result in replanting less trees and skipping fees in lieu for trees >24" DBH removed with development?
Unknown
080.A.1-3
Both?
Tree replacement requirements
Simplify, reformat to chart form. Adjust range of tree sizes to include 24" tree removal replacements by planting 3 trees.
Typo? Might need separate replacement requirements
080.A
Development
to meet 30% and for new property owner tree removal
Clarify and address code inconsistencies. Does not correlate to 060.F.4.a (30% retention threshold) since 080 replacements relate to # trees removed
?
allowances
080.B.1
Development
When tree replacements are not required
Clarify. Use viable definition and/or define high retention value trees by condition. (Apparently "dead, diseased, injured, declining condition" is too subjective). Define tree condition?
Unknown
080.E
Unclear
Clarify. What does "including arborist's reports mean?"
None
080.E
Development
Typo
Clarify. Replace "developer" with "applicant" and use term "City" vs "development services"
None
080.E
Both?
Tree replacement fees in lieu
Clarify. Does "for each replacement tree required but not replaced" refer to the number of trees needed to meet 30% threshold? Or does it apply to the number of trees removed per ECDC
None
23.10.060. F.4?
080.E.1
$1,000 per tree fees in lieu
Clarify. Does that apply to >24" DBH trees too?
Unknown
Clarify that appraisals are to be submitted by applicant, subject to City review. Or consider striking to emphasize mitigation through planting first, before allowing mitigation through fees in lieu based
080.E.3
Both?
Tree appraisals for >24" DBH trees removed
on a codified formula (versus appraised values). Justification: appraisals are too subjective, hinder a streamlined review process and cannot be conducted if applicant opts for phased development,
None
where trees are removed during the development. On larger, heavily wooded sites where applicant opts for $2 per square foot "cap" there may not be mitigation for >24" trees.
Not in code: regulate tree height (like structures and
fences). Will likely be raised by Council and citizens
Examine case law, see MRSC resources on regulating tree height.
Major
during amendments.
New
Consider a program that compensates property owners for retention of large trees with development, like a Transfer of Development Rights program. Trees (that meet certain criteria) are then
INCENTIVE
Development
Not in code
protected in perpetuity. Uses funds collected from fees in lieu of replanting or through a new account [Check with Finance]. Similarities in state law for TDR. City Legal to draft covenant template,
Major
property owner required to submit with site plan, (maintenance plan?), recorded on title of property.
New
INCENTIVE
Property Owner
Not in code
Voluntary Tree Conservation Easement (Covenant?). City Legal to draft covenant template.
Major
'POLICY IMPACT
None
Amendments that in no way change the meaning of the current code. They clarify/simplify or further define something already in the code, address typos and redundancies, and/or result in simple reformatting or removal of outdated references.
Minor
Amendments include updates to Best Available Science, Best Management Practices, industry standards, etc. that do not result in changes to code intent or an increase in requirements.
Moderate
Relatively uncontroversial restructuring of code sections, and any of the above that result in new, increased or eliminated requirements without additional cost to permit applicants or procedural changes that require additional resources.
Major
Add a substantial prohibition/ban on something currently allowed, or extensive new requirements. Includes amendments that result in significant changes to existing procedures or significant additional cost to permit applicants, and/or change the intent of the code.
Q
Revised 717122
Packet Pg. 161
ATTACHMENT 3
8.A.c
CURRENT CODE — PROPERTY OWNER TREE PRUNING & REMOVAL, NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Activity Property Fee/Permit Required Criteria Required Documentation Who Is Mitigation Code Provision
Type Required? Reviews? Required?
Pruning
Any
No
Crown thinning only per
Report/written description from property owner's
OF Planner
No
ECDC 23.40,
ANSI Pruning Standards
ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered LA
ECDC 23.10.040.E
Depends on critical area report and/or wetlands
Yes
Yes, Type 1*
Any trees, subject to critical area
mitigation plan from property owner's Geotech,
Planner
2:1, or as specified
ECDC 23.40-23.90
Q-
Single Family,
report
wetlands specialist, etc.
n critical area
O
developed
-- report --
c
o
Subdividable
Hazardous, threatens public safety, or
Report/TRAQ form from property owner's ISA- or
Yes
LO
No
current or imminent risk of damage to
ASCA-certified arborist or registered LA
OF Planner
2:1
ECDC 23.40
N
n
private property
U)
Depends on critical area: report and/or wetlands
co
Tree
Yes, Type 1*
Any trees, subject to critical area
mitigation plan from property owner's Geotech,
Planner
Yes
ECDC 23.40-23.90
Q
Removal
Single Family,
report
p
wetlands specialist, etc.
2 1
—
developed
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
U
Not subdividable
Yes
L
No
Hazard/Nuisance Tree
Arborist's report or TRAQ form
OF Planner
ECDC 23.40
C)
2:1
Yes, L'scape
Any trees, subject to critical area
May require critical area report
Removal: OF
Yes
ECDC 23.40-90
Multifamily,
Modification
report
—---
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — ------------
Planner,
Per required
— — — — — — — — —
developed
Type 1*
Hazard/Nuisance Tree
Arborist's rep
report or TRAQ form
Replacements:
Planner
landscaping,
buffers, zoning
ECDC 20.13
Pruning,
Any
No
N/A
None
None
N/A
ECDC 23.10.040.E
Topping
Yes
Subject to tree retention/replacement plan, 30%
Planner or OF
Same as
ECDC 23.10.060,
Yes, Type 1*
Any trees
retention, appraisals for>24" DBH trees, etc.
Planner
development
ECDC 23.10.080
Single Family,
developed
developed
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
requirements
---
U)
M
Subdividable
Yes
recorded
on title as protected
Q
No
Hazard/Nuisance Tree
Arborist's report or TRAQ form
OF Planner
Depends on
trees
removed DBH
fd
+L)�—.
Single Family,
i
U
Tree
developed
No
Unlimited tree removals
None — unlimited removals
No review
No
ECDC 23.10.030.E
O
Removal
Not Subdividable
Z
Multifamily,
Yes, L'scape
An trees, subject to critical area
y �
May require critical area report
y q p
Removal: OF
Yes
ECDC 23.40-90
Commercial,
Modification
report
p
---------------
-----------------------
Planner,
Per required
---------
develo developed
P
Type 1*
YP
Hazard/Nuisance Tree
Arborist's report or TRAQform
Replacements:
Planner
landscaping,
buffers, zoningYes
ECDC 20.13
ECDC 23.10.080
Any Vacant Lot
Yes, Type 1*
Removals prohibited unless
Arborist's report or TRAQ form
OF Planner
Depends on
Replacements recorded
Hazard/Nuisance
removed DBH
on title as protected
trees
*Type 1 permit cost: $275 + technical fee assessed by mbp. com
Revised I Packet Pg. 162
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 07/13/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached.
Attachments:
07.08.2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 163
o� ED V
Items and Dates are subject to change
9.A.a
PLAHM CoOOARD
Extended Agenda
July 7, 2022
July 2022
July 27 1. Development Services Activity Report
2. BD2 Design Standards for Multifamily only Buildings
3. Equitable Engagement Framework
4. Salmon Safe Certification
August 10 1. Joint Meeting with EDC — BD2 Designated Street Front
2. Tree Code Update
3. BD2 Design Standards Public Hearing
August 24 1. Summer Break
September 2022
Sept 14 1. Joint Meeting with Tree Board —Tree Code Update
2.
Sept 28 1. BD2 Designated Street Front Public Hearing
2.
Packet Pg. 164
items ana liates are sui
9.A.a
o change
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2
Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2022 3.
Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4.
Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
5.
Subdivision code updates
6.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
7.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
8.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
9.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
10.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
b. Parking standards
11.
Parkland Acquisition Done Already?
12.
ADA Transition Plan
13.
CIP/CFP
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
Packet Pg. 165