2019-01-09 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JANUARY 9, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of December 12, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Introduction on small cell wireless and order issued by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Discussion on incorporating small cell standards into the City's wireless code (ECDC 20.50) and
possible interim ordinance.
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
January 9, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/9/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes of December 12, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB181212d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 12.) 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Nathan Monroe, Chair
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Board Member Lovell announced that Washington State Ferries draft long-range plan is available on line, and the public is
invited to participate in an on-line survey. He also pointed out that the second informational public meeting about housing
issues was changed from December 13' to January 10'.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2019
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG TO SERVE AS THE 2019 CHAIR OF
THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER
NOMINATIONS, AND BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED AS CHAIR.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER ROBLES TO SERVE AS THE7 2019 VICE CHAIR
OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO
Packet Pg. 3
OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND BOARD MEMBER ROBLES WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED AS VICE
CHAIR.
PUBLIC HEARING ON SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) PERIODIC REVIEW
Mr. Lien reviewed that the Planning Board heard an introduction to the SMP Period Review on June 27t1i and reviewed draft
SMP code amendments on August 8'. The public hearing was postponed waiting for additional information from the City
Council commissioned Edmonds Marsh Study so that a description of the existing conditions of the marsh could be added as
an addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Mr. Lien explained that, following many years of work, the City completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017
to be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the 2003 state -adopted comprehensive Guidelines for
Shoreline Master Programs. The SMA requires each jurisdiction with "shorelines of the state" to review and, if necessary,
revise their SMPs at least once every 8 years, and the City's next periodic review is due June 30, 2019. Subsequent to
adoption of the City's SMP in 2017, the state adopted a number of changes to the state guidelines, and the periodic review is
intended ensure that the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other city plans and
regulations and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
Mr. Lien referred to the SMP Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law,
rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during the periodic
review. The completed checklist identifies items that should be updated in the City's SMP for consistency with state laws
and rules. Amendments associated with each of these items were presented to the Board in August and are outlined in
Attachment 2. In addition to the items on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few other amendments as part of the
update:
The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a "shoreline of the state" quite late in the 2017 SMP update and appropriate
shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh were the subject of significant public comment and discussion by the
City Council. The City Council commissioned a site -specific study of the Edmonds Marsh to assess its ecological
functions and evaluate buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. As proposed, the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization would be updated to add the description of the Edmonds Marsh and its
existing characteristics that was provided by the consultant (Attachment 3) as an addendum. This amendment would
establish a new baseline for the Edmonds Marsh. He referred to Image 2 in Attachment 3, which shows the major
vegetation transition line between the western portion of the marsh that contains salt -tolerant plants and the eastern
portion of the marsh that has predominantly freshwater plants. This line also represents the boundary between the
portion of the marsh that is designated as a shoreline of the state and the portion that is designated as an associated
wetland. However, the exact boundaries would have to be determined for any project on either side of the marsh.
At this time, the study has not provided any recommendations regarding buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed
Use (UMU) IV shoreline environment.
ECDC 24.80.100 would be updated to clarify how a review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to a public
hearing process (Type III). A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would begin the process as a staff decision
(Type II) with a 30-day comment period, but could change to a public process (Type III) before the Hearing
Examiner if requested by one or more interested persons during the comment period. Staff is recommending a
process similar to the critical area contingent review process that is detailed in ECDC 23.40.195. At their last
meeting, the Board recommended revisions to this section to make it more explicit that the parties requesting the
public hearing are responsible to pay half of the cost difference between the Type II and Type III permit
applications. Currently, the application fee for a Type II decision is $800 and $1,600 for a Type III decision. As
proposed, the person requesting the public hearing would be required to pay half of the difference or $400.
• The recent Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update was completed just prior to the Department of Ecology's (DOE)
issuance of updated Wetland Guidance. The updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP but the CAO was not
revised to include the most recent guidance until October 16, 2018. As a result, the City currently has two sets of
wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
jurisdiction. The CAO has now been updated with the revised wetland regulations, which will be incorporated into
the SMP by reference to provide consistency for all wetland regulations within the City.
Mr. Lien summarized that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination has been issued and the public
comment period ends tonight. The 60-day Notice to Commerce was done, as well. The City received no public comments
on the periodic review, but the Department of Natural Resources requested information about the proposed changes. He
recommended the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments to the SMP regulations
as provided in Attachment 2 and to include the memorandum in Attachment 3 providing a description of the existing
conditions of the Edmond Marsh as an addendum to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Board Member Lovell asked if the red line on Image 2 is intended to represent the new Ordinary Highwater Mark (OHM).
Mr. Lien explained that the line illustrates the division between the salt tolerant vegetation (shoreline of the state) and the
freshwater vegetation (wetland). Board Member Lovell asked how the $1.3 million that the City Council allocated to the
marsh in 2019 would impact this line. Mr. Lien answered that the $1.3 million is earmarked for the project that will daylight
Willow Creek, and an update on the project will be provided to the City Council in January. While the project is a separate
issue from the SMP periodic review, it would have to be permitted consistent with the adopted SMP.
Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's recent funding decision would impact the Edmonds Marsh study in the near
future. Mr. Lien explained that there are currently two different studies in progress associated with the marsh. The $1.3
million would be dedicated to the Willow Creek daylighting evaluation that has been going on for a number of years.
However, a property transfer from Unocal to the Washington State Department of Transportation is needed before the project
can move forward to the next phase of design. The Edmonds Marsh Study is a separate study that was commissioned by the
City Council to establish baseline conditions for the marsh. When the SMP was previously before the City Council for
review there was significant focus on the UMU-IV designation for the shoreline environment and what the appropriate
buffers and setbacks should be. However, much of the discussion was based on incomplete information about the existing
conditions. The study provided a description of the existing conditions, and eventually there might be some
recommendations for what the appropriate buffers should be. The Edmonds Marsh Study is on a different timeline than the
periodic review of the SMP, which must be completed by June of 2019. If the recommendations that come from the
Edmonds Marsh Study are different than what is in the SMP, additional amendments can be considered down the road.
However, they do not have the time to wait for the recommendations before completing the periodic review.
Board Member Rubenkonig also referred to Image 2 and said some residents thought that the marsh boundaries extended all
the way to the fish hatchery. Mr. Lien clarified that while the boundary expands all the way to the hatchery, only the area
west of the line is designated as a shoreline of the state, which means that the shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet beyond
the boundaries of the marsh. The area east of the line is designated as an associated wetland, and the shoreline jurisdiction
does not extend beyond the boundaries of the marsh.
Board Member Rubenkonig requested clarification of Item i on Page 2 of the SMP Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment
1). Mr. Lien explained that the DOE adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a
shared local/state public comment period. That means there would be joint public hearings, too. The City Council decided
not to utilize this new option. Instead, the SMP update will have to be approved by the DOE as a separate process following
adoption by the City Council.
Chair Monroe opened the public hearing. No one indicated a desire to comment, and the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AS PROVIDED
IN ATTACHMENT 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT AND TO INCLUDE THE MEMORANDUM IN ATTACHMENT 3
PROVIDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH AS AN
ADDENDUM OF THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION. BOARD MEMBER CRANK
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) THAT WILL SET A MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARD FOR SMALL -
FOOTPRINT BUILDINGS (4,800 SQUARE FEET OR LESS) LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD)
ZONES
Mr. Chave reviewed that, currently, no parking is required for residential development in any building with a total footprint
of less than 4,800 square feet. He explained that the parking exemption for residential development in the Downtown
Business (BD) zones was adopted by a previous Council over ten years ago with the purpose of incentivizing small -footprint
buildings in the downtown area. The current residential parking requirement in the BD zones for buildings with footprints
greater than 4,800 square feet is 1 space per unit.
A complete application for a 9-unit apartment building in the BD2 zone was recently submitted and approved under the
City's existing code. Because the property did not have a designated street front that required commercial space, the
applicant was allowed to construct an entirely residential building with no parking. The issue was brought to the City
Council's attention, and they adopted a moratorium on new residential units in the BD zones that don't have any on -site
parking and referred the issue to the Planning Board for a recommendation.
Mr. Chave referred to the draft amendment outlined in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which would require one parking
space for each residential unit in the BD zones regardless of the footprint of the building.
Board Member Lovell asked if the Downtown Business Area can be defined as the properties that are zone BD1 through
BD5. Mr. Chave answered that it also includes some properties that are currently zoned Commercial Business (BC). As
currently proposed, all residential development in the BD zones would require 1 parking space per unit. Board Member
Lovell asked about the parking requirement for commercial development. Mr. Chave answered that the default parking
requirement for commercial development is 1 parking space per 500 square feet of development; but with the exception of
the BD3 zone, there is no parking requirement for commercial development in the other BD zones. He explained that,
currently, the parking requirements are scattered throughout various sections of the code. During the next update, the intent
is to consolidate the parking provisions into one section, but this consolidation will not be part of the current proposal.
Board Member Crank asked if the 1 parking space per unit requirement would apply to all residential development in the BD
zones regardless of the number of bedrooms. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively.
Board Member Rosen said he understands that the proposed amendment is intended to address the concern that people living
in the residential units will have to park on the street, but he is concerned about how the amendment might impact the ability
to provide housing on a small footprint. It is likely that the parking would have to go under the building, which would not
likely be economically feasible for smaller projects. Mr. Chave responded that if it is not economically feasible to put the
parking under the building, another option would be to reduce the overall scope of the building to provide fewer units.
Board Member Crank said she recently went on a tour of Point Edwards and was told that no parking was required for
Building 10. Mr. Chave clarified that the project provides at least 75 parking spaces and complies with the City's parking
requirement for multi -family development. In addition, the developer provided additional on -street parking beyond what was
required to help the rest of the community.
Board Member Rosen asked if the recommended 1 parking space per unit requirement is based on any type of trend or
analysis. Mr. Chave answered that it is consistent with the parking requirements already in the code for multi -family
development and seemed reasonable to apply where there was otherwise no minimum requirement. Generally speaking,
downtown walkable areas tend to have fewer vehicles and less off-street parking than other kinds of residential areas because
there are a lot more transportation options.
Vice Chair Cheung asked if all of the on -street parking in the bowl area has a time limit. Mr. Chave answered that there are
some streets where parking is not restricted to a certain amount of time. Mr. Lien added that most on -street parking in the
bowl area is limited to 3 hours, and on -street parking on other residential streets is limited to 72 hours. Vice Chair Cheung
observed that the 3-hour limit would prohibit residents who live in the bowl area from parking on the street overnight. Mr.
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Chave said the residents can purchase permits that exempt them from the 3-hour limit, and businesses often purchase the
permits for their employees, as well.
Vice Chair Cheung asked what has changed since the parking exemption was put in place that would warrant the amendment.
Mr. Chave explained that when the parking exemption was adopted ten years ago, the City Council wanted to encourage
smaller -scale buildings. These properties generally have more limited space and underground parking is more difficult to do.
With the exception of parking, there are relatively few incentives available that affect the bottom line for development in the
downtown because the height limits are so low.
Mr. Chave explained that having a minimum parking requirement in place does not mean that is all the parking a developer
will provide. Frequently, developers put in more parking than what is required based on lender requirements and the need to
provide sufficient access for their tenants or clients.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she does not believe the developer of the 9-unit building would have pursued the project if
he/she thought lack of parking would significantly limit the people who could live there. The project is located in a walkable
neighborhood, and studies show that people are becoming more interested in the idea of giving up their cars. Values and
lifestyles will continue to change over time, and it might be appropriate at some point the future to revisit the option of
having no parking requirement in the BD zones.
Chair Monroe said his experience is that people living in the units will keep at least one car even if they primarily use public
transportation. Mr. Lien shared statistics from a parking analysis that was done for projects in the BD zones since the code
provisions were adopted. He summarized that, for the most part, projects generally provided off-street parking even when
none was required by code.
Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that parking is more of a marketing issue for developers. Many households still
have two cars, and parking space is not necessarily included in the purchase or rental costs. Often, parking is a separate
charge. Most developers will want to provide adequate parking to meet the needs of both the commercial customers and the
residents who purchase or rent the units.
Chair Monroe opened the public hearing. No one indicated a desire to comment, and the public portion of the hearing was
closed.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE
MOTION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES.
Board Member Rosen explained that his motion would be a recommendation to retain the existing provision that requires no
parking for residential projects in the BD zones with a footprint of 4,800 square feet or less. He explained that, as studies
show, the market is driving the use of cars and is currently overachieving the parking requirements. The City has a number
of goals for the future that include lessening the environmental footprint, encouraging housing density and encouraging
residential development in areas that are walkable and where public transportation is available. It is important to recognize
that the profile in the marketplace is changing. The Board has discussed options for creating affordable and desirable
housing by giving incentives to developers to create density that doesn't change the character of the community and could
even improve it. The proposed amendment would run counter to the City's current goals and would not likely address the
concerns related to parking.
Chair Monroe commented that the new 9-unit project basically eliminated 9 to 18 on -street parking spaces. He asked how
the City could reconcile this loss based on the need for more parking in order for the City to become a destination city.
Board Member Rosen suggested that one option would be for the Edmonds Center for the Arts to construct a multi -level
parking garage on their parking area, perhaps with some useable space at the top for banquets and other events. This option
would provide an asset to the community and help relieve parking.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Board would be reviewing and recommending updates to the parking regulations at
some point in the near future. Mr. Chave answered that there are no plans to do so in 2019. The 2019 budget did include
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
funding for a parking study, but he does not know the status of whether it was approved or not. Board Member Rubenkonig
pointed out that both the City and the Port have discussed the concept of a parking structure, but there are no plans in the
works at this time. She said she does not have a clear understanding of how immediate the issue is, and she is hesitant to
leave the parking standard as is for a long period of time. While the motion is an important option to consider, she would like
to have a better understanding of its impacts before voting in favor.
Board Member Crank reported that the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED) made a presentation at last night's City Council
meeting, emphasizing that parking is one of their main focuses at this time. The City Council has directed ED to start
thinking about parking options and needs within the downtown.
Board Member Robles said the proposal has merit, but it could set up a whole range of new incentives for people to buy out
current uses and turn them into multi -family development with no parking. It could end up crowding out people who want to
visit downtown Edmonds and the parks. He said he likes the idea, but he would favor a compromise to the square footage
requirement or perhaps a time limitation. But as it is currently written, the citizens end up subsidizing parking space for the
residential projects.
Board Member Lovell commented that, without the amendment, a developer could build a residential project that has no
parking and the perspective tenants would have to park on the street. Board Member Rosen voiced concern that the Board is
considering changing the provision based on the experience of one project when the exemption has been on the books for 10
years. Board Member Rubenkonig emphasized that the amendment, if adopted, would not apply to projects that have already
been permitted.
Vice Chair Cheung also agreed that the motion has merit. However, even if the development only attracts people who use
ride share and public transportation, most will still have cars and they will have to be parked on the street. That will equate to
less parking for businesses. He would be inclined to support the motion if there was a way the City could limit cars from
parking on the street. However, that proposal is not currently on the table and he has serious concerns that cars from the
residential developments will flood the streets.
Chair Monroe said he is inclined to vote against the motion. While it is a good idea to consider, it should be done as part of a
comprehensive approach to parking.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT 1 OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave advised that coming up in January, the Board will consider potential amendments related to small cell wireless
facilities. The City must have regulations in place if they want to review and regulate them, and right now, they are not really
covered in the City's code. He also advised that the Board would get started with the Five Corners Subarea Plan in 2019, as
well. The Board's next meeting will be January 9'.
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that at the recent Housing Strategy meetings, the public has expressed interest in
knowing how building types currently under consideration might look in a neighborhood. This begs the question of how the
City's existing zoning would support new alternatives in housing. She asked if the Board would be reviewing the
development code and zoning code at some point in 2019. Mr. Chave answered that the City will not undertake a
comprehensive update of its development code in 2019, but some specific elements will be addressed (i.e. subdivisions,
accessory dwelling units, zoning related to shorelines, etc.).
Mr. Chave reported that the Architectural Design Board has been looking at the design review process and will present some
recommendations for the Board and City Council to consider soon.
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Board Member Rubenkonig advised that during the housing meetings, people have voiced concern about how the new
subdivisions are looking. She is not sure if they are referencing the City's subdivision regulations or the County's
subdivision regulations that apply to projects within the county on properties adjacent to the City. When the topic of
subdivisions comes up, she suggested it would be helpful to clearly make this distinction.
Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council's adopted 2019 budget includes funding for a downtown parking study. He
noted that the Economic Development Commission has recommended that a viable parking study be done for the downtown
to figure out not only where they stand now, but what can be done in the future. Board Member Crank noted that the parking
study was included in the initial budget that was presented to the City Council by Mayor Earling and it was not pulled for
specific discussion. Therefore, she assumes that it was included in the budget that was approved on December 11'.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe commented that 2018 was an interesting and dynamic year for the Board, and it reminded him how the gears
of government grind slowly. He said he hopes he did a decent job steering the Board. Each Board Member has a unique view
and he looks forward to working together in 2019.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
All of the Board Members thanked Chair Monroe and Vice Chair Cheung for their leadership throughout 2018. Board
Member Cheung thanked the Board Members for electing him to serve as chair in 2019.
Board Member Crank reported that she7 is participating on an ad hoc committee that was put together by Director Hope to
triage the housing discussion. The biggest thing that came out of that effort is a suggestion by the City Council that a new
commission be formed in 2019 to focus just on housing. If the commission comes to fruition, it might be appropriate for the
Planning Board to meet jointly with them to discuss what the housing strategy could potentially look like. She concluded
that it was an interesting experience to sit with other Edmonds residents to try to straighten out some misconceptions that
were voiced by the community.
As a member of the Paine Field Airport Commission, Board Member Crank reported that flights have been publicized and
people have started to purchase tickets to fly out of Paine Field starting in mid -February. She announced that the next
commission meeting will be on January 24t' at the new terminal. She said she recently participated in a tour of the new
facility, which is small but very comfortable. She encouraged the Board Members to attend the Commission meeting to see
the new facility. She expects the conversation to expand now that they know what the flight schedule will be, and there will
likely be conversation at the City level regarding flight noise and what the flight patterns will look like.
Board Member Robles reported that he attended the event where the City's downtown was designated as Washington State's
first Certified Creative District.
Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the November 28r' Economic Development Commission meeting where
the Commission voiced strong support for a parking study of the downtown to come up with strategies relative to assisting
the current stress level of parking in the downtown area. This affects visitors, tourists, residents and businesses, particularly
during major events such as the Edmonds Arts Festival. The Commission also discussed the findings of a subcommittee that
was charged with reviewing the City's Strategic Action Plan that was adopted in 2015. Each of the action items in the plan
were categorized into the following groups: action items accomplished, action items that are still being worked on, action
items that have been abandoned, and action items that were put aside because they do not have a leader. He noted that most
of the action items have either been accomplished or are in process. He indicated that he would provide the Board Members
with a written summary of the review once it is available.
�ILfill "0u_I_0I01"
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 12, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/9/2019
Introduction on small cell wireless and order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Discussion on incorporating small cell standards into the City's wireless code (ECDC 20.50) and possible
interim ordinance.
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is an introduction to this subject, with potential code amendment(s) to be brought forward by staff
in the near future.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a new Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and
Order (the "Order") on September 27, 2018, adopting new rules limiting how state and local
governments may treat applications for the installation of small wireless facilities on public property and
other property located inside and outside the public rights -of -way. The Order goes into effect January
14, 2019 and local jurisdictions have until April 14, 2019 to have aesthetic rules in place.
The City's existing Wireless Communications Facilities code (Edmonds Community Development Code
Chapter 20.50) will need to be updated to specifically address small cell facilities as well as aesthetic
regulations throughout the City.
The presentation contained in Attachment 1 highlights some of the issues involved.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Small Cell Staff Presentation
Packet Pg. 10
8.A.a
tl4i111C4ikdrs-I kwi7imWiYi6i��ri7itiliTi/!'rtj�liiiYt
January 8, 2019
Packet Pg. 11
8.A.a
�aerai Vvmmunicarivns mission
ma I I C_e_I i r�e_less F.d oo I
R_u_ . _
FCC Ruling (the "Order") released on September 27, 2018
■ The Order adopted new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for
the installation of small wireless facilities
■ January 14, 2019 — The Order goes into effect
■ April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place
E
N
C
O
C
O
W
v
7
O
L
Packet Pg. 12
8.A.a
�eA 0
Small Wireless Facilities are facilities that meet each of the following conditions:
1) The facilities —
■ are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height, including their antennas, or
■ mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
■ 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 is no more than three cubic feet in volume
3) Wireless equipment (new and existing) is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume.
cc
E
N
C
O
C
O
t�
7
O
L
Packet Pg. 13
Calls
V
TF,r4T{ L
ioiw^"
w ty fthw:
Invom
THY# X
rrAWd
un die
rwtw ri4
Facility Types
Macro Cell and Small Cell
Q
au
C14 Ou
Data
.ka tram% by
arwxwrs
LI.&w rmmrIft%r
�p.yer ar
Hsu
pole
ft t"
04 a+
uu w
CW m1 W
r tw Uft (AN
dmi SIN
t�
-Fan t% Now *- mi& d ffD ar tally Kong" sa4kh" O&W Sff� CW pak% rwwrg ridatralfrt to PO4k � Q
v a OAW ear cgwm to- Itw %Fnrifeprtr�4i 4w 4ob w r"We okra" to "in umw 1wmw va plane wrxks Yn F�+o,bc�n w t k"" tuft
xwY�fiveyOftr nt�rr�vltlwdbslfnibantallph4ru_ wGh+Larontttfi In d�lhN4 :�I�FiM4w+�r++t
https:/l dnrorr munications.com/m diatfiles/Landing/ mad!- eII-1nfogr ph1c Packet Pg__
�T !T Fr (-I 1 7 77 1
d
E
0
c
0
r
0
0
L
kk
-rr
-
-
fC
E
i
5
e �
_
Packet Pg. 15
11
I
r `
I rV-7
'
Packet Pg. 16
Fi D - (4 (7c, (7c,
-�([ 1�
(,t cc, (�L 9111
Aesthetic Requirements
M.T.•I.7C-
• No more burdensome
than those applied to
other types of
infrastructure
deployments
• Objective
• Published in Advance
VS
Packet Pg. 17
8.A.a
o Undergrounding Requirements - May be permissible under state law as a general matter. Regulations
would not survive the following:
■ Effective Prohibition — requiring all wireless facilities be deployed underground
■ Materially Inhibits Wireless Service
o Minimum Spacing— Found to be a reasonable requirement
■ Local governments have required installations to be sited at least 100, 500, or 1,000 feet, or some other
distance away from other facilities "ostensibly to avoid excessive overhead "clutter" that would be
visible from public areas."
Packet Pg. 18
8.A.a
O O O O �YC ^—
,_
General siting criteria:
1. Co -location, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure upon which the facility
would be located;
2. Co -location, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
➢ Location of facilities in non-residential areas is encouraged
➢ Monopoles are currently prohibited in residential and multi family zones, downtown waterfront
activity center, public and open space zoned parcels and within the ROW
cc
E
N
C
O
C
O
v
7
O
L
Packet Pg. 19
8.A.a
'roaosed Loc..cffL'"eq=,PirTe-q',Irer7�ence
➢ Installation on zoned (private) property preferred over ROW
1. Locate on Zoned Property
i. Existing Structure
ii. Standalone Pole
2. Locate in the Rieht-of-Wa
i. Existing Street Light Pole or Traffic Light (hollow poles)
ii. New Standalone Pole or Street Light
iii. Existing PUD Single -Phase Pole (installation on top of pole)
iv. Existing PUD Transmission Pole (installation in communication space)
v. Strand -mounted (do we want this as an option?)
Packet Pg. 20
�J
In Downtown Activity Center can't exceed height
of zone
Outside Downtown Activity Center wireless
currently gets "structure height + 9 feet")o
8.A.a
SF Zoned property-
- Standalone pole
within 5 feet of right
of -way;
- on same side of
street as power
lines;
- height limit 35 feet;
Other Zoned property-
- Standalone pole
consistent with
zoning height
Packet Pg. 21 1
,, Rooftop
I Placement
I
Packet Pg. 22
Right of-�-k
a
-
Insfallati
8.A.a
nepsa-
MAx�NG CiY,ES SMAf�TERK
Historic preservation is an important and growing concern of many municipalities, as cities seek
to differentiate themselves and compete for citizens, business and revenue while maintaining the
historic and authentic appearance that often defines who they are,
'%- nepsa solutions can provide municipalities with concerns around historic preservation with a
range of custom -solutions for:
Arts districts Historic districts
0 Gaslight districts
e) Waterfront and residential enclaves
nepsa solutions has partnered with several major street lighting SternbergLighting
manufacturers, including Sternberg Lighting, one of the nation's ESTAOLISeED F123 I EUP[OTEE OWNER
premiere designers and manufacturers of decorative street lighting and architectural street
furniture, a leader in the industry since 1923.
With the addition of Sternberg Lighting, nepsa solutions has extended its ability to provide a one -
stop, custom solution for mobile network operators and municipalities requiring the design and
fabrication skills necessary to install Small Cell infrastructure that meets the most stringent
a historical requirements.
MEN Sternberg's Decorative Street lighting and architectural products are well -received by public
works officials in many state and local municipalities across the country. Applications include
streetscapes, downtown revitalization projects, parks, train stations, not to mention shopping
centers, golf courses, hotels, colleges, banks and more.
COMPANY CLIENTS SOLUTIONS FAQ CONTACT US
Sternberg
Models
currently used
in downtown
Edmonds
Packet Pg. 24
kof on @I M
0
0 11 [ 0 1110
Installation on top of a single
A
phase pole
External conduit
External equipment
E
0
C
0
O
PROF
Packet Pg. 25
8.A.a
D
•le1Q•
- Installation on transmission pole, in
communications space
- External conduit
- External equipment
Packet Pg. 26 1
Allow strand -mounted
facilities?
Packet Pg. 27
8.A.a
E
N
C
O
C
O
t�
7
O
L
■ January 81h —Introduction to Council PWW Committee
■ January 9th —Introduction to Planning Board
■ January 141h — FCC Order goes into effect
■ January 15th —Introduction to full Council
■ January 22nd — Potential adoption of interim ordinance
■ Late January and into March — Discussions at Planning Board, review interim ordinance and discuss
refinements for small cell aesthetic regulations and bring back to Council
■ April 2nd or sooner — Hearing before City Council
■ April 14, 2019 — Local jurisdiction to have aesthetic rules in place
Packet Pg. 28
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/9/2019
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting.
Attachments:
01-09-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 29
of EbAf
U� O�6
PLAMNS BOARD
,�18go Extended Agenda
January 9, 2019
Meeting Item
JANUARY, 2019
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
January 1. Introduction to wireless ordinance for small cell standards
9
January 1. Comp Plan Map change for the Meadowdale marine area
23 from Mixed -Used Commercial to Open -space and a zoning
change for the marine tidelands from RSW-12 to Marine
Resource (MR, Chapter 16.70 ECDC).
2. Discussion on wireless ordinance for small cell standards
FEBUARY, 2019
February 1. Public Hearing on wireless ordinance for small cell standards
13 (Tentative)
February 1. Public Hearing on wireless ordinance for small cell standards
27 (Tentative)
MARCH, 2019
March 1.
13
March 1.
27
APRIL, 2019
April 1.
10
April 1.
24
a
Packet Pg. 30
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
M
C
d
a�
a
C
x
W
L
M
O
m
IM
C
C
M
(L
3
as
as
C
as
a�
Q
a�
C
a)
x
w
m
a
00
0
N
C6
O
O
C
w
E
t
C�
r+
Q
Packet Pg. 31
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2019 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 32