Loading...
2022-07-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting July 13, 2022 Vice Chair Pence called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Vice Chair Pence read the Land Acknowledgement. Board Members Present Staff Present Roger Pence, Vice Chair Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager Matt Cheung Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Svcs. Director Todd Cloutier Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Judi Gladstone Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Richard Kuehn Deb Powers, Urban Forest Planner Mike Rosen Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate) Other: Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group Board Members Absent Alicia Crank, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2022 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Linda Ferkin _ sg tad expressed concern about the legality of the tree code. She cited a recent legal decision with the United States Court of Appeals, 6tn Circuit, where a city who was doing much less than the City of Edmonds is doing did not prevail. She stated that Edmonds has permanently seized the rights to all trees on vacant properties and the land underneath them without compensation. Permits for divisions or improvements while retaining more than 30% of the trees are denied until payment is received for the owner's trees. Edmonds permanent seizure of the rights of all trees is recorded on property titles with the Snohomish County Auditor. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Pagel of 9 The seizures and excessive fees restricting the use of vacant properties have affected her and many others economically as it has decreased property values and owners' equity. Edmonds denies constitutional protection of vacant property that all US citizens benefit from. Instead of compensating property owners, Edmonds is charging property owners for their own trees plus $2500 per tree unplanted. The tree ordinance is an unreasonable seizure and a violation of the 4d' Amendment with an excessive fine in violation of the 8a' Amendment. She believes the original intent of the tree code was to avoid clear cutting and to encourage more trees planted on properties without trees, not to restrict and unnecessarily raise costs of needed homes. Requiring compensation for every tree removed and all remaining trees on the property recorded on property titles as protected trees by the City of Edmonds before a permit is issued is taking from property owners the rights to their trees and the ground beneath them and a purposeful devaluation of private property. She encouraged the Planning Board to remember that trees on property with homes are private property. She hopes the changes the City is making will be more equitable. She asked if they could keep their trees after dividing their property. Larry Williamson asked Kemen Lien to give a brief update on the status of the Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Lien indicated he could provide that under the Extended Agenda portion of the agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Department — Q 1 Update Director Feser made a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Q 1 Update. Administration/Park Planning: • The PROS Plan was approved on June 28 after several revisions. It is in place and being used. Since this is a component of the Comprehensive Plan it will be approved through the amendment process at the end of the year and formally adopted. • Salmon Safe Certification — Public Works is pulling together data at the request of the Planning Board. • A Park Planner/Project Manager (Kyle Woods) has been hired. • Agreements with concessionaires/special events have been completed. • Established system for remote advisory board meetings. • Supporting Development Services around their work for the Highway 99 Revitalization, Green Streets, and public spaces projects • The greenhouse variance was submitted and approved. • $2.9M Goffette donation was accepted by City Council this month. It is very specific for hanging flower baskets, corner parks, and maintenance. • Yost Pool replaster was completed mid -April. • Dayton Street tree removal by PUD and Streets. The City is considering a possible Green Street design for this section of the block. • Edmonds College Horticulture Program. • Library displacement support. • Yost Park bridge(s) reinforcement/repair Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 2 of 9 • Civic Park project — 38 "no work" days due to rain and weather. The schedule is starting to expand. The 96"'/Yost infiltration project is eligible for ARPA funds. Staff will be asking Council to approve that. She reviewed several arial shots of the site and plans. Parks Maintenance: • Aquatics — Yost Pool operates 7 days a week. The spray pad is open. • There are challenges with hiring and retaining part time/seasonal help. We are 50% for FTE staff recruitment. Overtime for existing staff was burned up for the year by June. There has been an equal amount of Comp time used up. • Yost and Seaview Parks — Tennis/pickleball courts have been pressure washed. New nets were installed. • Supporting special events — Uptown Market • 100 hanging flower baskets • Bill Anderson viewer installation at the marsh. Unfortunately, it will be uninstalled due to repeated vandalism. Recreation Programming: • Q2 reservations are tracking well. People are back in the business of recreating. • Leagues for adult softball and pickleball are very busy. • Summer camps and contracted camps are doing great. • Other events: Earth Day, Watershed Fun Fair, Health & Fitness Expo • Environmental Education program is up and rolling — ranger naturalists on Edmonds beaches, K-6 spring marine education, and Birdfest Cultural Arts Division: • On the Fence exhibits are back up. • Summer concerts (19) — moving into new locations • Highway 99 Gateway project design • Public Art projects — specialized maintenance, Floretum Club 100"' Anniversary, Civic Park Art • Write on the Sound (WOTS) Conference • Create Grants - $13,500 awarded • Tourism Promotion Grants - $20,000 (LTAC approval) • 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor grant — ECA partnership Human Services: • Hired Outreach Coordinator — Compass Health • Provided work space at the Frances Anderson Center for South Snohomish Community Resource Advocate (1 day/week) • ARPA Funding — Ordinance revision support • Snohomish County — south county housing enhancement • Coordinated services for 49 individuals • Maintain long-term motel vouchers (5) for Emergency Shelter • Program Manager, Mindy Woods, increased to full time 2022 Q3 upcoming: • 2023 Budget Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 3 of 9 • City of Lynnwood/Meadowdale Park ILA renewal and playground funding • Civic Park Construction continuation • Parks small capital projects: 96d' Avenue Infiltration project; greenhouse • Yost bridge assessments • Special event support • Outdoor movie nights Comments/Questions: Vice Chair Pence referred to the Goffette donation and asked if this means they might see hanging baskets spread throughout the city and not just in the downtown area. Director Feser explained they would have flexibility to spread throughout the community. Vice Chair Pence urged Parks to spread them broadly throughout the City. Director Feser agreed. Board Member Campbell asked if Parks would be reporting for the empty positions. Director Feser explained how they are refining the process. Vice Chair Pence said he had the opportunity to hear Mindy Woods talk about what she does, and he was very impressed. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Draft Amendments to the City's Wireless Communication Facilities Code Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell and Angela Tinker from the Lighthouse Law Group. He presented a PowerPoint regarding the Edmonds Wireless Code Periodic Update. He reviewed the reasons for updating now — to respond to recent mandates from the FCC, to implement best practices, to apply lessons learned from recent projects, and to clean up the code. Summary of Proposed Amendments: • Applicability — Clarify master permits, facility lease/licenses, 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 the ROW. • Clarify shot clocks and application requirements - Create a 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections. Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions. Administrative clarifications for permit applications. • Eligible facility requests track with FCC updates — Updates proposed to track with FCC mandates. Create a 90-day shot clock for industry responses to City corrections. Create an administrative appeal process for permit decisions. • Clarify maintenance and abandonment language — Administrative clarifications. • Update nonconforming language — Language proposed to be eliminated since mooted by Eligible Facility Request standards. • Small cell dimensional, locational, and aesthetic standards — Intended to minimize visual impact of small cell installations. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 4 of 9 Edmonds Location Preference Hierarchy within the ROW: • LP 1— Hollow utility pole (no solutions available yet for power poles) • LP2 — Freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight • LP3 — Wood utility pole — on top (PUD doesn't allow this yet) • LP4 — Wood utility pole — side mount (in communication space) • LP5 — Strand -mounted — on wires The applicant must prove infeasibility before stepping down the list. Small Cell Dimensional, Location, and Aesthetic Standard Amendments: • Revise facility dispersion requirements — the existing requirement is 300' for all LPs. The proposed would be no requirement if LP1, 150' if LP2, 300' for LP3-LP5. The intent is to encourage the use of LP 1 and LP2 for full concealment in the ROW. • Revise dimensions and location standards for freestanding small wireless facilities (LP2) — Allow for additional height and width. Update location/clearance requirements. Encourage use of LP2. • Revise dimensions and aesthetic standards for wood pole attachments (LP3 and LP4) — PUD doesn't allow LP3 pole -top attachments, but solutions exist. Discussions are ongoing. LP4 was landing spot for first small cell application. It requires mounting of conduits and equipment as close as possible to pole. Require power from overhead if available to reduce conduits. Multiple points of attachment vs. single. Discussions with providers are ongoing. Staff recommends moving draft language in Attachment 1 to City Council for further refinement at their next series of meetings. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. Greg Bush, Wireless Polia Group, on behalf of AT&T, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. AT&T is requesting that the Planning Board continue the public hearing in order to allow time for the wireless industry, Snohomish County PUD, and city staff to discuss ways to further refine the draft code into a form that is workable for wireless providers, utility and infrastructure owners, and outlines clear and reasonable procedures for city review of wireless applications. Specifically, AT&T is requesting additional time to review the code in order to address the following: 1. The City's changes are inconsistent with federal and state law and industry practice. There is currently no option for a hollow utility pole, and he is not aware of any in the pipeline. 2. Location preferences for small wireless facilities continue to not reflect feasible and available design options. 3. Design standards such as flush mounting of conduits utility poles conflict with Snohomish County PUD requirements as well as national safety standards. Flush mounting of conduit poles is not feasible because workers need to climb the poles. 4. Providing additional clarity for city staff review would be helped by continuing the public hearing and application materials and pole requirements such as Snohomish County PUD's ability to provide specific statements assessing and potentially denying types of configurations. 5. They request additional time to develop specific guidelines regarding whether a new streetlight is warranted under ECDC 20.50.070.i2c. This appears to give the director authority to determine whether a new streetlight pole (LP2) is required. There are currently no guidelines for this. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 5 of 9 Doug O'Donnell, Snohomish County Pam, and other PUD staff members referred to Attachment 7 and solicited any questions on the points the PUD has made. He read the letter from the PUD to the Mike Clugston. The letter stated that Snohomish County PUD has determined that placing small cell antennas on top of power poles is not viable. Any work on an antenna mounted on the top of a power pole will require Snohomish County PUD line crew to perform the work. Snohomish County PUD does not currently and has no plans to authorize third parry personnel to install antennas on top of its utility poles and does not believe that the City has the authority or should require such installations. Therefore, their preferred installation would be to have small cell antennas and radio in the communication space (40" below the lowest power attachment). This will allow the carriers to install and maintain their equipment without involving Snohomish County PUD line crews. The communication space is also the ideal height for the carriers. Currently there are designs for co -locating streetlight poles that conceal most of the small cell apparatus; however, at this time there is no available design for utility poles with concealed small cell equipment. If a hollow pole design does become available, Snohomish PUD will be required to evaluate it before any consideration of its use as a replacement for wood power poles. Also, while it could be possible to route the cell coax and power for the cell radio inside a purpose-built power pole, it would be difficult to install the antennas and radio inside the pole and make them accessible for routine maintenance. Perhaps, in the future if the size of small cell radio shrinks, this may be a viable option. Additionally, Snohomish PUD has many other concerns related to this as listed in their comment letter. Kim Allen, Wireless Policy QLoup, Issaquah, spoke on behalf of Verizon Wireless stated she submitted a comment letter today that was fairly detailed. She noted this is an extremely technical and complicated code. She concurred with the others asking that the public hearing be held open for at least another 30 days to give them and their technical teams time to provide detailed comments and suggested revisions. She stated they only just learned about the public hearing and received the draft code on Monday. She stated that there is only one small wireless facility that has been proposed in Edmonds, and it is not a Verizon Wireless facility. It is their intent to grow the Verizon network as wireless communication is more important than ever. She concurred with the issues identified by AT&T and urged the Planning Board to keep the hearing open to allow time for meaningful feedback. Seeing no further comments, the public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:26 p.m. Deliberation: Vice Chair Pence commented on the three very detailed, technical letters they received today. He thought this was too much to digest and move on to City Council tonight. Board Member Gladstone asked what kind of stakeholder involvement there has been. If there has been involvement why does the code not reflect any of these comments? Mr. Clugston replied there has been limited outreach to stakeholders because they know this is going to be a two-step process. Board Member Gladstone asked about the basis for creating the revised code. Mr. Clugston said it was reaction to the proposed applications that they are trying to incorporate into the current code. He stated a number of the Verizon and AT&T's comments had to do with macro cell installations; there are no proposed changes to that language. Board Member Cheung asked if the issues raised by Verizon and AT&T have already been addressed in the code. Mr. Clugston replied they have not had time to look at them in great detail. He noted that the comments referring to the macro cell code were related to a section of code that is already settled. Board Member Cheung Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 6 of 9 asked if staff would like more time to continue revising this based on the letters received. Mr. Clugston thought it was ready to move to Council where they would have their own introduction and their own public hearing and deliberation process. The Council could refine things as they choose. Ms. McConnell concurred. Board Member Campbell thought it would not be an effective use of Council's time to send this to them at this point with so much new information that the Board has not thoroughly reviewed. She was concerned that the outreach did not make it to some very significant stakeholders. She was in favor of giving this time to get worked out further. Board Member Rosen concurred. He thought it was the Planning Board's role to give Council good opinions after full consideration. He was supportive of allowing additional time for the stakeholders to review this and for staff to review what they provide. He was also interested in hearing comments about macro cell facilities if fatal flaws have been noticed. He was supportive of delaying a decision and of continuing the public hearing. He was confused about why the cell providers only heard about something as important as this on Monday. He wondered if this points to something they should be doing differently in the future. Board Member Kuehn agreed with Board Member Rosen. He noted that he wasn't comfortable giving feedback on something he hasn't fully read yet. He thinks Council would just send this back to the Planning Board with a request for more information. He would like to keep the hearing open to allow more time for working this out. If there are other issues or new technologies or questions that carriers have on the macros, he was also interested in hearing about those. Board Member Gladstone commented that this is very complex and technical subject. She is disheartened that the major players who are affected by this important code haven't been consulted much or at all. She also felt this undervalued the Planning Board's role in providing something to Council that is refined enough that it can be recommended or not. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW TIME FOR THE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS TO BE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION WITH CITY STAFF TO REFINE WHAT WAS PROPOSED TODAY. Board Member Cheung spoke in support of this motion. He concurred that this would be a more efficient use of Council's time and would produce a more useful product. He looks forward to hearing what the carriers and other stakeholders have to say. Board Member Cloutier commented that it seems like staff did the same process as last time, but the industry just got involved later this time. Vice Chair Pence was supportive of sending a product to Council that has been thoroughly worked through. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston said staff would look at the extended agenda to see when they could bring this back. NEW BUSINESS Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 7 of 9 A. Phase II Tree Code Amendments The City's new Urban Forest Planner, Deb Powers, made a presentation regarding the Phase II Tree Code Amendments. She briefly reviewed the benefits of trees which is the basis of the tree codes. The City of Edmonds' Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is the guidance document which has a goal (Goal IA) of updating 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." This was accomplished last year with the adoption of the current Tree Code. At that time the Council indicated they wanted to consider codes that limit property owner tree removal with what is known as the Phase II Code Amendments. Council's preferred options for property owner tree removals was to limit the number of tree removals, have a certain waiting period between removals, and consider limiting landmark tree removals without a permit or fees. Questions related to this are: • What should trigger a permit or fees? • Should there be a minimum number of existing trees? • What about replacements? There is now consideration of expansion of the Phase II Code Amendments to consider minor changes to the current code (both development and property owners) and continued UFMP implementation. The expanded scope would be to limit property owner tree removal, consider minor changes to the current code and continue UFMP implementation. Minor code amendments relate to simplifying the code, updating Best Management Practices (BMPs), etc., streamlining the review process, addressing code interpretation issues, and addressing canopy study findings. Attachment 2 is a list of the preliminary code amendments with justification and pros and cons of the proposed amendments. Ms. Powers solicited Board feedback about the scope of the project and the general approach. Comments/Questions: Board Member Cloutier spoke in support of the scope and acknowledged the challenge of balancing tree preservation with personal freedoms. Board Member Rosen also agreed with the scope and welcomed Ms. Powers to Edmonds. Vice Chair Pence asked about the community engagement process. Ms. Powers replied that tree codes are complex and controversial. She stated that there will be a robust public engagement process. The Planning Board will be hearing Director McLaughlin's presentation about the equitable engagement framework which will be used for the outreach. Some methods of collecting public feedback include: a community survey, events like the farmers market, possible open houses, and developing stakeholder lists by groups. Vice Chair Pence asked about the possibility of ending up with a code that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups. Ms. Powers replied that would be ideal but acknowledged there are very polarizing points of view with regulating trees on private property. The goal is not necessarily to please everybody. Board Member Gladstone acknowledged the difficult task of developing this code. She hopes the public feedback that they receive will include what types of solutions people have and not just their likes and Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 8 of 9 dislikes. Ms. Powers agreed that this will be important and what they hope to draw out of people. She discussed the challenges of balancing growth with a livable city and environmental quality. Vice Chair Pence suggested focusing on incentives rather than penalties. He suggested fewer "sticks" and more "carrots". Ms. Powers agreed and noted that the UFMP is a toolbox that includes both "carrots" and "sticks". Board Member Cheung pointed out the importance of protecting the interests of people who might be impacted by this but don't know it yet. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien reviewed and facilitated discussion regarding the extended agenda and pending items for future consideration. I W 1I11mhl lom -Tans IZII : /\ I ttama la I plialm Vice Chair Pence commented there are a lot of things happening in the planning realm in the City of Edmonds. Most are related in one way or another to the Comprehensive Plan. He hopes that the Planning Board can be looped in early when these things come around. He referred to the middle housing grant application that went first to City Council and was ultimately rejected by Council. The equitable engagement framework has been subject to some concern by a letter writer in myedmondsnews.com, but it doesn't exist on the City's website. The Reimagining Streets project also began in the media before the Planning Board was involved. He is concerned because these are planning projects and there is an expectation that the Planning Board should know what is going on. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Gladstone said she worked with Mr. Lien to get a time for a tour of the BD2 zone on Monday, July 18 at 10 am. If any other board members want to join (three or less members) let them know. I\ 1lrili1.7►1►I 1 �1►Y W The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 13, 2022 Page 9 of 9