2019-01-23 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JANUARY 23, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of January 9, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan Amendment Introduction (File No. AMD20180011)
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 23, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/23/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes of January 9, 2019
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB190109d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 9, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Phil Lovell
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank (excused)
Mike Rosen (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
As discussed at the last meeting, Board Member Lovell announced that the final report from the Economic Development
Commission's subcommittee that was charged with reviewing the City's Strategic Action Plan is now available. In the
report, each of the action items were assigned a status. He agreed to email the report to staff to forward to the Board
Members.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: SMALL CELL WIRELESS STANDARDS
Introduction on small cell wireless and the Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Discussion on incorporating small cell standards into the City's wireless code (ECDC 20.50) and possible interim
ordinance.
Ms. McConnell announced that the FCC released a new "Order" on September 27, 2018, adopting new rules limiting how
state and local governments may treat applications for the installation of new small cell facilities. The Order goes into effect
on January 14', and local jurisdictions have until April 14' to adopt aesthetic rules relative to small cell facilities. She
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
explained that small cell facilities are mounted on structures that are 50 feet or less in height. They work best at lower levels,
which is different than macro cell facilities that function best at higher levels. The Order also limits the size of the equipment
and antenna. She provided a graphic to illustrate the differences between macro cell and small cell facility types,
summarizing that small cell facilities are used in densely populated areas to obtain faster data transfer.
Ms. McConnell provided pictures of existing macro cell facilities in Edmonds, noting how the antenna and equipment are
clustered together on the top of poles. She also provided pictures of small cell facilities located in other cities (there are none
in Edmonds). She noted how some are located on existing poles and appear chunky and unattractive while others are located
on existing buildings and appear to blend in. She also provided examples of small cell facilities located on standalone poles
or streetlights, with all of the wires and equipment enclosed within the poles.
Board Member Lovell commented that the standalone poles are definitely more attractive, but they must be costlier, too. Ms.
McConnell agreed that standalone poles will likely cost more. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers
to use standalone options in areas where new development occurs. Ms. McConnell agreed that is an option. She explained
that the location of small cell sites will be determined by the specific providers (carriers) based on what is needed in order for
an area to function well from a utility standpoint. Carriers do not typically share a single site since they all run on different
frequencies.
Chair Cheung asked who would be responsible for maintaining the facilities that are located on existing structures. Ms.
McConnell responded that the City has not assessed the capacity of its current signal lights to accommodate small cell
facilities. However, small cell facilities can be placed on existing Public Utility District (PUD) poles via a lease agreement.
Although the City would require a permit, the pole would continue to be under the PUD's ownership and responsibility.
Board Member Monroe asked if locating small cell facilities on existing structures would be governed by a Franchise
Agreement. Ms. McConnell said it would actually require a Master Use Agreement, which is very similar to a Franchise
Agreement. The Master Use Agreement would establish ownership and address the maintenance requirements.
Ms. McConnell advised that the FCC's Order allows state and local jurisdictions to put aesthetic requirements in place for
small cell facilities, but they must be reasonable, objective, and no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
infrastructure deployments. They must also be published in advance. Undergrounding requirements may be permissible, as
long as they do not effectively prohibit the use or materially inhibit wireless facilities. Minimum spacing requirements are
also permissible. For example, local governments have required installations to be sited a certain distance away from other
facilities to avoid excessive overhead clutter that would be visible from public areas.
Chair Cheung asked about the typical range of a small cell facility. Ms. McConnell answered that she has heard anywhere
from a block to '/4 mile, depending on the density and where the demands are. The macro cell facilities handle a large portion
of the needs, but as technology advances, the demand will continue to increase, particularly in densely populated areas, and
small cell facilities will be needed, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if it is possible that multiple carriers will want to
locate a small cell facility on a single block. Ms. McConnell advised that would be possible unless the City establishes some
spacing requirements. While the FCC's ruling requires the City to allow small cell facilities, it also gives it the opportunity
to mitigate the impacts to a degree.
Board Member Monroe observed that technological advancements have necessitated the need for the FCC's Order. As the
carriers discover through experience, testing and development that certain system works, they go to the FCC for approval.
Although the City has the ability to regulate aesthetics and location to some degree, it cannot prohibit the use. He said he
anticipates additional FCC orders as technology and demand changes over time, and the City will be required to
accommodate the new equipment. By requiring a permit, carriers must submit plans that address the City's aesthetic and
location requirements.
Vice Chair Robles cautioned that small cell facilities could also be used to enable new technology that the City may not want,
such as autonomous vehicles. He also asked if the FCC has addressed potential health and safety hazards that might be
associated with small cell facilities. He pointed out that the small cell facilities are located closer to the ground and in
densely populated areas, which may create health issues. He asked if the City has the ability to mitigate potential health
hazards. He recalled that the City recently banned crumb rubber sports fields based on unsettled science.
Planning Board Minutes
January 9, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
Ms. McConnell explained that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to regulate the health aspect of wireless facilities, but
the FCC has regulations in place for their installation and all must comply. The City currently has provisions in the Wireless
Communications Code that requires carriers to submit documentation to show that they have complied with the FCC
regulations, as well. Her understanding is that while there may be more small cell facilities and they are closer to the ground,
the frequency output is much less than that of the macro cell facilities.
Vice Chair Robles noted that there are other alternatives such as fiberoptic and Wi-Fi, but they likely aren't as convenient for
the carriers. He asked if there are feasibility studies to back up and support small cell technology. Again, Ms. McConnell
reminded the Board that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to implement health regulations for wireless facilities.
However, the City can require documentation from the carriers to ensure the FCC standards are adhered to.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked what would encourage carriers to install the newer standalone poles or light standards.
Ms. McConnell answered that staff s draft proposal would establish general citing criteria and a priority order for installation.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that it would be better for the regulations to call out the aesthetic requirements rather
than focusing on specific products because technology will continue to change over time. She asked who would be
responsible for removing old technology when it becomes obsolete and is no longer used. Ms. McConnell explained that if a
wireless facility is attached to an existing structure, the required Master Use Agreement would address this issue.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that the current Wireless Code (ECDC 20.50) provides general siting criteria that deals with
wireless facilities, but not specifically small cell facilities. Currently the location of wireless facilities is encouraged in non-
residential areas and monopoles are prohibited in residential and multi -family zones, the downtown waterfront activity
center, the public and open space zones and within the rights -of -way. The current regulations also establish a priority order
for locating wireless facilities. Staff is proposing additional provisions specifically related to small cell facilities given the
anticipated need and demand. She reviewed the draft proposal, specifically noting the priority order for installation as
follows:
• Priority 1 — Locate outside of the rights -of -way within zoned property on an existing structure or a
standalone pole or streetlight. With standalone poles and streetlights, the equipment and wires can be concealed
inside the poles. If located on an existing building, the equipment could be camouflaged to be less obvious. As
proposed, the facility must be located within 5 feet of a right-of-way so it lines up with the existing utility corridor.
Board Member Monroe asked if the City could require that the connecting wires be placed underground. Ms.
McConnell answered that if there are no overhead power lines, the City could require that the wires that serve the
facility be placed underground through the Master Use Agreement. She provided examples of facilities located on
existing structures, as well as facilities located on standalone poles and streetlights.
Priority 2 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing streetlights or traffic signal lights or new standalone
poles or streetlights. The first priority would be to locate on an existing structure, with the wires and equipment
being concealed inside or on the top of the pole. The City has not done an assessment of its signal lights to
determine if they can accommodate the wires and equipment associated with a wireless facility. The second option
would be to locate on a new standalone pole or new streetlight. It may make more sense to install a streetlight that
would serve a function beyond just a wireless facility. She provided examples of different installations within the
rights -of -way on existing streetlights and traffic signal lights. She also provided examples of standalone poles and
streetlights. She noted the Sternberg model of streetlight that is currently used in downtown Edmonds and
suggested that should be the model used by carriers to be consistent with the existing character.
• Priority 3 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing wooden utility poles. The PUD has explained that if a
wireless facility is installed on a single-phase pole, they can be located on top of the pole. However, they can only
be located within the communications space on transmission poles. In both instances, the equipment and conduit
would be placed on the outside of the pole.
• Priority 4 — Allow strand -mounted facilities. The antennas would be installed on existing utility wires and not on
the poles.
Planning Board Minutes
January 9, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers to locate small cell facilities on existing streetlight poles rather
than utility poles in the downtown. Ms. McConnell said that is the intent of the draft priorities.
Board Member Monroe asked how the City would decide if a carrier can move from a higher priority to a lower priority. He
specifically asked if cost would be a factor in the decision. Ms. McConnell acknowledged that Priority 1 would cost more
than Priorities 2 and 3, but cost would not be a factor when deciding whether or not an applicant can meet the higher priority
installation.
Board Member Monroe asked what situation would warrant allowing a small cell facility to locate within the public right-of-
way as opposed to private property. Ms. McConnell answered that there might not be a feasible space for a facility to locate
on private property or a carrier may be unable to negotiate an agreement with a private property owner to locate a facility
where it is needed. As per the proposed installation priorities, a carrier would have to document the steps taken to locate
consistent with Priority 1 before being allowed to consider Priority 2 and 3 options.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked about the process for allowing additional height beyond the 35-foot height limit in order
for a small cell facility to be located on top of an existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said the draft code could establish a
height limit, but by definition, small cell facilities must be located no higher than 50 feet and most of the existing power poles
are between 45 and 50 feet in height.
Board Member Monroe questioned why strand -mounted facilities would be considered less desirable than facilities mounted
on existing utility poles. Ms. McConnell cautioned that the graphics were pulled from a number of jurisdictions to illustrate a
variety of installation types. The size of the equipment and the angle at which the photographs were taken can make it
difficult to compare the different types of installation. She suggested the Board should focus on the location of the
equipment and where the conduit is placed rather than the size of the equipment since strand -mounted equipment is not
necessarily smaller than pole -mounted equipment. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be helpful for staff to provide
additional photographs to illustrate the differences and allow the Board to make a more informed recommendation.
Ms. McConnell summarized that one carrier has attempted to make an application with the City for a small cell facility, but
the application has not been accepted for review because the required Master Use Agreement is not yet in place and the City
is working to iron out its regulations. Again, she advised that the FCC's regulations go into effect on January 14t'', and it is
imperative for the City to get regulations in place to begin accepting applications no later than April 14'. She advised that
staff would introduce the draft regulations to the full City Council on January 151. A public hearing and a proposal for an
interim ordinance for small cell aesthetic regulations is scheduled to go before the City Council on February 5r''. The Board
will continue its review, including refinements to the interim ordinance for the next few months and then hold a public
hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The intent is to have a public hearing before the City Council,
followed by final adoption of a permanent ordinance by April 2nd. She emphasized that if the City does not adopt a
permanent ordinance by the April 14t1i deadline, it will have lost its opportunity to regulate small cell aesthetics and permits
would be processed based on the current regulations only.
Ms. McConnell advised that when the proposed regulations were presented to the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public
Works Committee, the Council President indicated support for the installation priorities and criteria that are intended to make
small cell facilities as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Again, she reminded the Board that the City does not have the
choice about whether to allow small cell facilities or not. Staff if doing its best to understand the FCC's standards and come
up with regulations for Edmonds. She invited the Board to provide feedback and suggestions as the process continues.
Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed installation priorities but felt the City would have difficulty getting the
carriers to install new poles because it will be less costly to use existing infrastructure. He also expressed his belief that the
City would be remiss if the draft regulations do not address view impacts, as well. Putting up new streetlights to
accommodate small cell facilities will provide an added benefit to the community, but it may be cost prohibitive and difficult
to obtain.
Vice Chair Robles commended staff for taking on the issue. The City has been backed into a corner, and staff has had to
come up with regulations that balance a variety of priorities. He suggested they also consider the following:
Planning Board Minutes
January 9, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
• What happens if someone hits a pole that has a small cell facility located on it? Would the liability be externalized
on the public? Will the driver's insurance be required to pay for the pole to be replaced and for the loss of service?
• If the City were to establish its own Wi-fi network, would the carriers view this as sabotaging their business?
• Can the presence of a small cell facility on a public structure delay the undergrounding of wires?
• Is there a plan to put the wires underground whenever possible?
• Who would pay for the streetlight poles and installation, the City or the carrier?
• Who would be responsible for removing derelict antennas that are no longer being used, and how would the City
identify equipment that needs to be removed?
• What is the public recourse relative to the noise and potential nuisance associated with a small cell facility?
• Can a citizen mount a small cell facility on his/her own home as a revenue source?
Board Member Lovell asked how many different carriers might be interested in locating small cell facilities in Edmonds.
Ms. McConnell answered that there at least 3 or 4 carriers that could come to Edmonds, but there may be more.
Board Member Lovell recalled that the Board went through a similar process several years ago when updating the current
Wireless Communications Code. As discussed at that time, there is not a lot the City can do to regulate the use. It is a
private industry that is licensed by the Federal Government to provide a service that is paid for by the public. The public has
created a demand for the service, and the public may not be happy if the City chooses to oppose or be unreasonable about the
carriers' ability to install the equipment needed. The proposed priorities force carriers to utilize existing infrastructure
whenever possible, and that is about the best the City can do.
Chair Cheung agreed with Board Member Monroe that the regulations should make it clear that views should not be
obstructed, and the proposed regulations should find ways to minimize the visual impacts. He suggested that the public will
likely be concerned about health impacts, as well. While the regulations cannot stop small cell facilities from being located
in the City, it would be helpful to provide available studies and/or data to help alleviate some of the public's concerns related
to health.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung announced that the January 231 agenda will include a presentation on a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
change for the Meadowdale Marine Area from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space and a zoning change for the marine
tidelands from RSW-12 to Marine Resource (ECDC 16.70). The agenda will also include a continued discussion on the
wireless ordinance for small cell standards.
When the Board continues its discussion related to small cell standards, Board Member Lovell asked that staff provide
additional examples of the types of installations that might be located in Edmonds.
In addition to the items listed on the Board's extended agenda, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board consider the
following topics:
• An annual report from the Public Works Department relative to the Transportation Improvement Plan.
• A quarterly report from the Planning Division.
• Reports from other City Departments. For example, the community has expressed an interest in what is taking place
at the Police Department.
• Items discussed at the Board's retreat that need to be added to the agenda.
• Special presentations from invited guests related to specific topics.
• A report from the Planning Division regarding the built environment (i.e. how many projects and project
descriptions).
• The impact of recent zoning changes along Highway 99.
Planning Board Minutes
January 9, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung reminded the Board of a recent discussion with the City Attorney where he advised that Board Members can
only be excused from meetings for illness, work, and vacations of more than two weeks. Three unexcused absences will
result in automatic removal from the Board.
Chair Cheung recalled that, at their retreat, the Board discussed a desire to find a student representation. He asked staff to
start the notice process for applications.
Chair Cheung said he discussed with Mr. Chave the idea of having a training session on planning, including planning
terminology and planning procedures. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would also be helpful to have a discussion about
regulating development in the City. Most of the Board Members do not have a lot of experience on this topic, yet they deal
with it frequently.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell advised that he would attend the Economic Development Commission meeting on January 16t1i. He
said he also plans to attend the Housing Strategy Open House on January 10' from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. in the Conference Room
at Swedish Edmonds Hospital. He urged other Board Members to attend, as well.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
January 9, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/23/2019
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director Report 01.18.19
Packet Pg. 9
5.A.a
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
MEMORANDUM
January 18, 2019
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in
goodness, humility, service, & character."
-WA Ward
Next Planning Board Meeting E
The Planning Board meets next on January 23. The agenda includes an introduction to a c
a)
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map for the Haines Wharf area from Mixed- >
as
Use Commercial to Open Space.
00
REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
C PSRC is continuing to work on developing VISION 2050 to update VISION 2040
(https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents) as our four -county regional growth plan.
VISION 2050 is intended to "build on VISION 2040 to keep the central Puget Sound region
healthy and vibrant is it grows." This year is the year for completing SEPA review and
issuing a draft regional plan for 2050. Adoption would be scheduled in 2020. The
regional plan helps guide the countywide planning policies adopted be each county —in
our case through the Snohomish County Tomorrow process —and ultimately is associated
with each city's planning process.
C PSRC performs ongoing research about transportation, jobs, and other topics for our
region. A recent report from PSRC shows that the average travel time to work in our
four -county region is steadily increasing across all modes.
LOCAL PROJECTS
Civic Field
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 10
5.A.a
The redevelopment of Edmonds Civic Field received a big boost of support with the
announcement that the Snohomish County Council has agreed to allocated$450,000 over three
years to the project.
Housing Issues
An informational public meeting about housing issues was held January 10 in the evening at the
Swedish/Edmonds 4t" floor conference room. To view the slides that were shown, go to:
https://www.edmondshousingstrategV.org/get-involved/. Topics covered included: two housing
projects that have gotten public attention, multifamily tax exemption, and the status of the
housing strategy process.
Climate Goals Project
A new Greenhouse Gas Inventory has been prepared for the City of Edmonds. The inventory
follows up on extensive work that the City has accomplished regarding climate protection and
sustainability. (For the Climate Goals Resolution guiding this project, go to the City webpage at:
Resolution 2017 #1389). An open house for the public was held January 17 (Thursday) in the
Brackett Room of City Hall. About 45 people came, viewed display boards, and observed a
presentation from the City's consultant. Numerous questions and comments were offered, with
attendees' general support expressed for the project. A new City webpage is being prepared for
the project. An announcement, including a hyperlink to the new webpage, will be provided next
week.
Enviro5tars
Four new Edmonds' businesses have joined the ranks of EnviroStars, Washington's green
business program. The business joining are: Seattle Sugar Spa, The Refinery Salon, ARTspot, and
Ombu Salon & Spa. The first Edmonds business to ion was Walnut Street Coffee. Consumers can00
visit EnviroStars.org to find businesses of all types that share their environmental values —
whether they're looking for a brewery, auto body shop, insurance agency, or others.
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB has no meeting scheduled in January.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission met on January 7, with an agenda that included:
❑ Creative District
❑ Program Expenditures
❑ Inclusion/Diversity Discussion
❑ Temporary Public Art
❑ Exhibit Wall in Library
❑ Concerts
❑ Capital Projects
❑ Funding & Administration
21
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met on January 17, with an agenda that included:
❑ Chairman's Report
❑ Cemetery Sales, Burials & Financial Report
❑ Walk Back in Time for Teachers
❑ Memorial Day Planning
❑ Satisfaction Survey & Columbarium Repair
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee has been reviewing and providing input on elements of the
Climate Goals Project, as well as continuing its regular work. The Committee met last on
December 6 with an agenda that included:
❑ Draft result of citywide greenhouse gas inventory
❑ Subcommittee updates
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on January 9, with an agenda that included:
❑ Interview Commissioner applications
❑ Update from the city
❑ 2018 Subgroups
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC met on Jan. 10, with an agenda that included:
❑ Strategic Action Plan
❑ 2019 Priorities
❑ Development Feasibility
❑ Arts/Tourism
❑ Business Attraction
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner has no meetings scheduled in January.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission meeting January 10 was cancelled. Copies of the 2019
Historic Calendars, featuring "Transportation in Edmonds", are available for pick-up at the
Edmonds City Hall lobby and the Edmonds Museum.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met on Jan. 3, with an agenda that included:
❑ UFMP discussion on positions to guide members on Citizens group
❑ Brochure to City web site responsibilities
❑ Set 2019 activity calendar
❑ Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2019 (Elections were postponed until the next
meeting.)
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission met on January 16, with an agenda that included:
❑ Team building activity
❑ Commission rules 101
❑ Continued work plan discussion
❑ Homework assignments
City Council
The Jan. 15 City Council meeting included:
❑ Consent Agenda Approval of:
o Confirmation of Youth Commission Appointments
o Appointment of 2019 alternate for Tree Board
o Dedication of ROW at 7902 203rd SW (Select Homes)
❑ Sound Transit Update presentation (including overview on planning for future Edmonds
area parking)
❑ Report from County Prosecuting Attorney
❑ Annual Report from Prosecutor's Office
❑ Public hearing on ordinance to ban Non-Compostable Food Service containers —with
Council adopting the Ordinance, which goes into full effect at the beginning of 2020.
❑ Small Cell Wireless —presentation of key issues for adopting new regulations, esp. related
to aesthetics.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• January 17: Climate Goals Open House, 6:30 — 8pm in Brackett Room
• January 19: Diversity Commission Film movie "Bully", 12 pm at Edmonds Theater
• January 21: City Offices Closed in honor of Martin Luther King
• February 9: Music at the Library, 6:30 pm, Cascade Mountain Boys
• February 11: Public meeting on "Welcome to Edmonds" sign, 6pm in Plaza Meeting
Room, 650 Main St.
• February 23: Clam Chowder Cook -off, 12 — 3pm, Edmonds Yacht Club
4 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 13
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/23/2019
Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan Amendment Introduction (File No. AMD20180011)
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
Set public hearing date for comprehensive plan amendment.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds is initiating a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the Haines Wharf site and
adjacent properties.
The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 2017.
Prior to the comprehensive SMP update, Haines Wharf had an Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation
(Attachment 1). The shoreline designation for the Haines Wharf site was changed to Aquatic I during
the comprehensive SMP update process (Attachment 2). Pursuant to the SMP as codified in the
Edmonds Community Development Code:
The purpose of the aquatic low -intensity environment (Aquatic 1) is to protect, restore, and manage
the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark
(ECDC 24.30.030.A).
The current Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the property is Mixed Use Commercial
(Attachment 3) and the property is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan identifies Mixed Use Commercial or a mixture of zones as compatible zoning
classifications for the Mixed Use Commercial designation.
Given the recent SMP update, the City is initiating the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan designation to a more appropriate designation consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Old SMP Environment
Attachment 2: Current SMP Environment
Attachment 3: Comprehensive Plan Map
Packet Pg. 14
rr,F
I
Legend
SMP Designations
Aquatic I
Aquatic 11
Conservancy
dF Natural
Shoreline Residential I
Shoreline Residential 11
Shoreline Residential III
Urban Mixed Use I
Urban Mixed Use II
- Urban Mixed Use III
Z�� Urban Mixed Use IV
Urban Railroad
• Planning Segement Break'
OHW City of Edmonds
Edmonds City Limits Shoreline Master Program Updat
'
Railroad
Stream
I I acket Pg. 16
elm =goIsolo] sle
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/23/2019
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:
01-23-2019 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 18
OY F.➢M
N
pLANNN9 BOARD
7911 Extended Agenda
January 23, 2019
Meeting Item
IANUARY, 2019
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
January 1. Comp. Plan Map change for the Haines Wharf area from
23 Mixed -Use Commercial to Open -space.
FEBUARY, 2019
February 1. Discussion on wireless ordinance for small cell standards
13
February 1. Public Hearing on wireless ordinance for small cell standards
27 (Tentative)
2. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Map change for the Haines
Wharf area from Mixed -Use Commercial to Open -space.
(Tentative)
MARCH, 2019
March 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Report
13
March 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Map change for the Haines
27 Wharf area from Mixed -Use Commercial to Open -space.
(Tentative)
APRIL, 2019
April 1.
10
April 1.
24
a
Packet Pg. 19
items ana liates are
9.A.a
to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2019 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
✓ Parking standards
3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
Packet Pg. 20