2019-03-13 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 13, 2019, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of February 27, 2019
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
B. City Sustainability Activities Update
C. ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules
D. Parks Department Update
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
March 13, 2019
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes of February 27, 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:
PB190227d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 27, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Phil Lovell (excused)
Mike Rosen (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING ON INCORPORATING SMALL CELL STANDARDS INTO THE WIRELESS ORDINANCE
(FILE NUMBER AMD 20180010)
Mr. Clugston advised that, in addition to the items that were included in the Board's meeting packet, staff also provided an
attachment of a redline/strikeout version of the ordinance that was submitted by AT&T just prior to the meeting. He
reviewed that the topic was introduced to the Planning Board on January 9". On February 13', the Board reviewed and
discussed the Interim Small Cell Wireless Ordinance that was approved by the Council on February 12" and scheduled a
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
public hearing for February 27". He reminded them of the short time line for adopting the ordinance. As per the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) September 27, 2018 ruling, local jurisdictions only have until April 14, 2019 to
implement small cell aesthetic standards.
Mr. Clugston provided several pictures to illustrate different situations where small cell wireless facilities could be located in
Edmonds and described potential options for locating the equipment within the ROW and on zoned property. He
summarized that there are a variety of options for the industry to site the small cell wireless facilities, and it is important for
the City to have an ordinance in place to address their location and appearance.
Mr. Clugston explained that, as per the FCC's definition, a small cell facility is a support structure that is about 50 feet tall,
antennas no larger than 3 cubic feet in size, and related equipment no greater than 28 cubic feet in size. He provided some
examples of how the antennas and equipment might look, noting how they could be either concealed or camouflaged. He
explained that small cell facilities are intended to offload macro service capacity and provide new coverage in some areas.
Because it is anticipated that the facilities will be located throughout the entire City, it is important to have standards in place
to minimize their visual impact as much as possible. As proposed, locating small cell facilities on zoned properties would
still be the priority. If that is not possible, the facilities could be located within the ROW. He pointed out that macro
facilities have been located on zoned properties, and there seems to be no reason why small cell facilities could not also be
located on zoned properties. He shared a number of examples of how they could be located on existing buildings or on
freestanding poles just behind the sidewalk.
Ms. McConnell advised that staff met in a phone conference with industry representatives last week and learned about the
things that were not working well within the code. However, they didn't receive a lot of technical information that could
have been useful in putting together a code that would work well for them. Subsequently, staff enlisted help from a technical
consultant and learned some critical information related to the installation of small cell facilities on buildings. Antennas
mounted on the sides of existing buildings do not project well, especially considering that single-family residential homes are
set back further from the ROW. An omni-directional antenna could work on the rooftop of an existing building, but the
building that the antenna is mounted on would not benefit from the antenna because the signal would be projected out and not
down into the building. There would not be a great reason for a building owner to want to work with the industry to place the
antenna on his/her building. She summarized that staff gave additional consideration to this technical information and they
are now recommending that "locating outside of the ROW on existing buildings" be removed as Priority 1. It would still
remain as an option, and the City would encourage it if feasible, but the provider would not be required to work through the
steps to demonstrate why it is not feasible. This change would place "freestanding small cell poles outside of the ROW" as
Priority 1. She shared examples and reviewed the location hierarchy as follows:
• Priority 1 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way on a building. As discussed earlier, staff is recommending
that this option be removed as the top priority but remain an option that providers should consider when appropriate.
• Priority 2 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way on a freestanding small cell pole. A freestanding small
cell pole could be located on private property within 5 feet of the ROW line. It would be kept out of the right-of-
way, but still look as though it is part of the utility corridor. This option provides wireless providers the ability to
place antennas in a way that works well for their system (omni-directional antenna at the top), and allows for
complete concealment of conduit and equipment. It will require the providers to work with private property owners
prior to submitting an application.
Vice Chair Robles summarized that the current proposal would remove location on the building as a first priority because the
building owner would not benefit from the antenna. Obviously, the building owner would still have service, but where would
the signal come from? Ms. McConnell said removing it as Priority 1 is consistent with concerns raised by the providers that
they do not want to locate on existing buildings. Vice Chair Robles asked why it was the first priority to begin with. Ms.
McConnell explained that the initial thought was less clutter in the ROW and reserving the ROW for other uses such as City
utility systems and infrastructure. There is already a provision in the code that allows macro facilities on existing structures,
and staff felt it would be a good first -priority option for small cell facilities, since they would be away from the ROW and
concealed on the building. Currently, there are macro facilities located on existing structures in Edmonds that work well, but
it apparently won't work so well for small cell facilities.
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
Vice Chair Robles asked staff to explain the technical reason why small cell facilities on existing building would not work.
City Attorney Taraday explained that there will be instances where this option will work, particularly with buildings that are
located close to the ROW. The more staff learned about all of the problems and challenges associated with placing the
facilities on existing buildings, they did not feel it would be appropriate to require wireless providers to rule out placement on
a building in every situation before moving down to the next priority. It seemed highly unlikely they would find many
willing takers. Even if they did, because of the technical limitations associated with property setbacks, the facility would not
provide as good of coverage as something located closer to the ROW. Staff learned that there is an inverse relationship
between transmission beam width and the power of the signal. Antennas mounted on existing buildings would be panel
antennas that shoot out in one direction. While degrees of transmission can be angled, the most typical range is between 60
and 90 degrees of beam width. For example, if a panel antenna is mounted on the front of a structure that is setback 25 feet
from the ROW, it would provide very narrow coverage for the surrounding area and no coverage to the site host. It is not
likely that property owners would want to allow facilities to be attached to their homes if there would be no benefit from the
strength of the signal. On the other hand, a freestanding small cell pole located close to the ROW would significantly benefit
the host site. While the monetary benefit would still be relatively small, some property owners might be attracted to the
option because they would have better service than anyone else in the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Robles summarized that it is important to articulate the reasons for moving away from mounting facilities on
existing structures as the preferred option. Giving citizens an opportunity to benefit economically appeared to be a sound
approach. City Attorney Taraday said there were several reasons. They always knew it would not be easy, but staff later
learned that there would be no transmission to the house the facility is located on. Vice Chair Robles commented that the
house where the facility is located would likely receive a signal from another small cell facility. City Attorney Taraday
agreed that there would be some service to the house. He emphasized that it is not the City's intent to make the industry
jump through unnecessary hoops. He questioned why a property owner would want something located on a home for the
very small amount of money a provider would offer when he/she would not benefit from the signal.
Board Member Crank said her understanding of the current proposal is that location on existing buildings would not be
eliminated as an option, but it would no longer be the top priority. Chair Cheung agreed that the likelihood of someone
agreeing to put an antenna on their house that would not benefit them is small. He questioned why the City would want to
require the providers to send letters to all nearby property owners if the responses are likely to be negative. Vice Chair
Robles said the benefit would be notifying the community and allowing them an opportunity to discuss what is happening in
their area. City Attorney Taraday clarified that Priority 2 would also require providers to send letters to property owners in
the vicinity, and property owners would still have an opportunity to host a facility.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the minutes of the February 13' meeting when Chair Cheung voiced concern that
"the proposed regulations try to do too much in dictating the actual design of the small cell facilities. He questioned if the
City would have the ability to uphold all of the criteria if it is deemed unfeasible by the industry. " She suggested that the
proposed change would help to address this concern. Staff has determined that the industry is correct in saying that requiring
facilities to locate on existing buildings would be a hardship on residents because they would not get a benefit. Chair Cheung
observed that because locating on freestanding poles outside of the ROW would become Priority 1, providers would still be
required to send letters to property owners offering the option of locating a pole in their front yards.
• Priority 3 — Locate within the public right-of-way on new existing hollow street light or utility poles. Staff has
had some conversations about replacement of wood poles with steel poles as an option, as well, but we haven't quite
got enough information together from the PUD to understand all of the impacts related to that. With this option, an
omni-directional antenna would be located at the top of the pole and equipment and wires would all be concealed
within the pole.
• Priority 4 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a new freestanding small cell pole or street light. If it has
been determined by the Public Works Director that if a street light is necessary or beneficial to the public at the
location, the City would require installation of a streetlight instead of a freestanding pole. This option would include
an omni-directional antenna at the top of the pole with all of the equipment and conduit concealed within the pole.
• Priority 5 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing Public Utility District (PUD) single-phase
pole. The placement of the antenna would be on top of the pole, so there would still be a streamlined look to it.
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
would be attached to the side of the pole, and there would be conduit running up the pole. The code addresses color
matching to the pole so that the conduit and external equipment blends in with the pole.
• Priority 6 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing PUD transmission pole (installation in
communication space). The PUD has indicated that it is not possible to locate antennas on top of transmission
poles, so the panel antennas used in this application would be located on the side of the pole within the
communication space. This option would require multiple antennas in order to transmit the signal in all directions.
All equipment and conduit would be external on the pole.
City Attorney Taraday commented that, depending on its coverage objective, a provider may decide to use just two panel
antennas shooting down the ROW at a fairly narrow beam width and not necessarily spray the houses, but three or four panel
antennas would be needed to create an omni-directional affect. Chair Cheung asked if panel antennas are more powerful than
omni-directional antennas. City Attorney Taraday responded that the more you spread the beam width, the less power the
antennas have distance wise. To get more power, the signal would have to be more narrowly focused, but then the coverage
would be less and more antennas would be needed. Chair Cheung asked if a number of panel antennas placed around the
pole in a circle would cover a larger area than an omni-directional antenna. City Attorney Taraday said he learned that if the
goal is 360-degree coverage and each panel antenna has a 90-degree beam width, four panels antennas would be needed. If
the beam width is only 60 degrees, then 6 panel antennas would be needed. The more the beam width is spread, the less
powerful the signal will be.
• Priority 7 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a strand -mounted installation in communication space.
In this option, the antenna would actually hang on an existing utility wire. As written, antennas can be hung on the
wire, but the associated equipment must be located on a pole. The code would not allow the installation of a strand -
mounted facility on an existing wooden pole that already has a street light on it. The end result would be more
clutter in the air space and greater visual impact. Conduit and equipment would be camouflaged as much as
possible.
Ms. McConnell advised that there is a provision in the code that requires a Sternberg streetlight model for installations in the
BD zones so they closely match the existing lighting. She has reached out to a Sternberg representative, but he is unavailable
until next week. The intent is to make sure they end up with something in the code that actually exists, is feasible, and
matches the goals they are trying to get at.
Mr. Clugston explained that, in addition to the aesthetic and location standards (ECDC 20.50.130) and application
requirements (ECDC 20.50.070.H), the interim ordinance also requires a Master Permit Agreement (ECDC 20.50.020.C) for
installations within the ROW. This requirement is similar to what is required of any other utility that wants to locate within
the ROW.
Mr. Clugston said that, in addition to the location criteria, other proposed amendments are related to eligible facilities
requests (ECDC 20.50.080), permit timelines (ECDC 20.50.060), and existing macro/monopoles (ECDC 20.50.110). He
explained that the current code references eligible facilities requests for existing approved facilities, and the proposed
amendment would add a size limitation. The City receives a number of eligible facilities requests that often involve
swapping out a large antenna for another large antenna that is similar. Additionally, the FCC order identified time limitations
for permit review, and language was added to the code describing how the shot clocks work. For example, the City has 60
days to review eligible facilities request applications, 90 days for new macro facilities that are co -located, 150 days for new
macro facilities that are not co -located, 60 days for new small cell facilities that are not co -located and 90 days for small cell
facilities located on new poles or structures. The clock starts at the time of application, so the City needs to make sure the
application requirements are clear and something that can be met easily. There are very limited circumstances under which
the City can pause the shot clock. If the City does not act within 60 days on an eligible facilities request, the application is
deemed approved, which means the provider could seek a court order to get the City to move on the permit. There is no
"deemed approved" provision yet for macro or small cell facilities, but he anticipates it will happen soon.
Mr. Clugston advised that the City has not had problems meeting the timeline for macro facilities, but a significant amount of
time will be required to review small cell facility applications. An application hatching provision is provided in the code,
which allows a provider to submit applications for multiple sites at one time. While there may be some efficiency in looking
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
at multiple sites as opposed to one in a given area, it will require the City to process multiple permits at one time within the
timeframe allotted.
Mr. Clugston said another main focus of the update is related to new monopoles for macro facilities and would eliminate the
exceptions for height and setbacks and require that monopoles must meet the zoning requirements for wherever they are
located. They will typically be located on commercial properties where additional height is allowed. In addition, the
facilities would have to be completely concealed, providing for a cleaner look. A new macro facility would no longer require
a Conditional Use Permit. Instead, it would be permitted similar to any other structure allowed in the commercial zone.
Board Member Monroe observed that the City's code uses the word "feasible" a lot, and the FCC requirements use the term
"reasonable." He asked the City Attorney to explain the differences between the two terms as they apply to wireless
facilities. City Attorney Taraday said it depends upon the context. At a basic level, reasonable means there must be a reason
for it. When the City is told that their regulations have to be reasonable, it means they need to articulate the reason they are
proposing the code. It cannot be done arbitrarily. Feasible is more of a "does it work" type test. Board Member Monroe
asked if cost factors are considered when determining whether something is "reasonable" or "feasible." City Attorney
Taraday explained that the City cannot charge a fee for using the ROW. When it comes to the cost of a new pole, he does not
see anything in the FCC order that would suggest that those types of costs would be considered by the FCC to be
unreasonable, infeasible or illegal.
Kim Allen, Wireless Policy Group, Issaquah, said she was present to represent Verizon Wireless. She disclosed that she
served five years on the Redmond Planning Commission and is now the chair of the Kitsap County Planning Commission.
She also served 11 years on the Redmond City Council as a hearing examiner. She has worn most of the hats that go into
decisions like this, and she thanked the Board for their time. She read the minutes from the Board's last meeting and saw that
some members were concerned that the proposed ordinance might be outside the scope of the City's authority with respect to
land use, and she felt they were right to be concerned. The proposal before the Board is not workable and no other
jurisdictions have tried to prohibit access to the ROW by requiring a provider to rule out private property locations. The
reason why other cities are not doing this is because it is not consistent with federal or state law. If the ordinance is adopted,
Edmonds will be an outlier, and as a former council member, she would be very concerned if her city was going to be an
outlier on something as important as this. She would be concerned about the risk of liability and exposure and she would
want to know why the approach of all the other cities wouldn't work for her city.
Ms. Allen said the proposed ordinance goes far beyond the aesthetic regulations allowed under the FCC order. While she
appreciates the changes staff revealed tonight, the proposed 7-step hierarchy limits access to the ROW, not for issues of
safety, but to try and compel wireless providers to pay rent to private property owners. State and federal law requires cities to
provide reasonable access to the ROW for wireless deployments, and the current proposal is not reasonable. She noted that
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.99.040 specifically provides that a city or town shall not adopt regulations,
specifically relating to the use of the ROW by a service provider, that either conflict with federal or state law or unreasonably
deny the use of the ROW by a service provider. The recent FCC order, which is a federal regulation, describes as a barrier to
entry, municipalities that restrict access to the ROW by imposing onerous zoning restrictions on small cell installations when
other similar ROW installations are erected with simple building permits. She summarized that the 6-step hierarchy, which is
not required of other users of the ROW, is an onerous requirement.
Ms. Allen said the City has a number of problems in constructing the 7-step hierarchy. The first is that the City has no land -
use authority to set lease rates for private transactions on private property. The requirement that the providers offer a certain
dollar amount to private property owners for leasing is certainly outside of the City's scope of authority with respect to land
use. On existing buildings, especially residential structures, there are significant safety issues because it is impossible to
secure a small wireless facility from people who are not trained in Radio Frequency (RF) safety, such as children and
teenagers who like to climb on roofs.
Ms. Allen commented that long-term leases for freestanding poles on single-family lots near the ROW can interfere with the
efficient transfer and sale of property. They also end up creating a new corridor of structures along the streetscape where
there are no structures, fiber or power now. She said 3 to 6-story buildings were also mentioned as a good place for small
wireless facilities, but that is not true. They are too tall for wireless antennas that need to be placed at 20 to 40 feet high,
depending on topography and existing vegetation around the proposed small cell site. She summarized that there are a
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
number of problems with requiring a provider to rule out all private property options before being allowed access to the
ROW. In essence, it is a prohibition on using the ROW if the option they are required to explore is putting a pole in
someone's front yard. The FCC order and state law require access to the ROW and she asked the Board to reconsider the
ordinance. The providers would like to continue to work with staff to review the parts of the ordinance that are non-
compliant with the FCC order or existing state law. The goal should be to create a workable ordinance that will provide an
efficient path forward for the new technology in a way that respects the aesthetics of the community.
Linda Atkins, Davis Wright Tremain LLP, Bellevue, said she was present to represent T Mobile. She echoed the concerns
raised by Ms. Allen. She noted that, earlier in the day, she provided staff with a memorandum that outlines the specific legal
concerns that T Mobile has with the locational hierarchy and the amount of effort and documentation that is required to move
down the hierarchy. In addition to the points raised in the memorandum, she said T Mobile is concerned that an effort by a
local city to direct carriers, as a matter of preference, to go on private property for the specific reason of generating income
for private individuals raises some significant questions under Washington State Constitution, which prohibits a gift of public
funds to private parties.
Ms. Atkins pointed out that the Staff Report includes pictures that provide information about T Mobile's small cell design.
She explained that all of the wireless carriers operate their own networks on their own frequencies. They each have their own
equipment and technology that is used for the purposes of deploying small cells. The T Mobile design is different than what
Verizon and AT&T are using. It is a unified enclosure that is approximately 3 cubic feet. It is basically a small box that has
the antenna and radios all enclosed within the shroud. It is designed to be deployed on the exterior of the pole. On a metal
pole, all of the cables can be inside the pole. The information provided in the Staff Report describes the dimensions of the
shroud and what it looks like deployed on a metal pole. She emphasized that, as currently drafted, the proposed standards
would not allow T Mobile's small cell design on any pole other than utility poles, as current Priorities 5 and 6 are the only
options that are allowed to have exterior elements. While the City has the discretion and authority to establish aesthetic
standards, it does not have the authority to tell the wireless provider what type of technology to use. She encouraged the
Board to allow additional time for staff to work with them to develop design standards that will allow the T Mobile design on
more types of poles.
Ms. Atkins said the Staff Report also includes a detailed drawing and photograph of T Mobile's strand -mount design. The
current proposal would limit the size of strand mounts to 1 cubic foot, which is not large enough to allow T Mobile to deploy
its strand -mount design. They have found that some communities actually prefer the strand -mounted design because it
doesn't attract any visual attention. Again, she encouraged the Board to give staff the time necessary to work with them to
adjust the dimensional standards so that T Mobile is able to use the types of technology that is designed for use in its
network.
Lastly, Ms. Atkins referred to the proposed provisions related to macro facilities and commented that it is important that the
Board understands that, although the industry is fully invested in the use of small cell technology to help networks function
better, macro sites will still be the backbone of a network. They will still provide the primary coverage and carriers will need
the ability to place macro facilities in all zones, particularly as there is more and more demand for wireless services. The
macro sites work to provide the primary coverage, and the small cells work to help carry the traffic and make sure that the
network functions in a manner that is most efficient and provides good service to customers.
Rebecca Dever, Mountlake Terrace, noted that the Board's focus so far has been on the aesthetics of wireless facilities, but
she has recently read studies about health concerns related to 5g networks in Europe. She can't say if the concerns relate to
placement on buildings or placement on towers, but she asked the Board to take this concern under consideration and error on
the side of caution. She doesn't necessarily want to see the facilities located on buildings.
Julie Auni, Edmonds, said she has done research on the health impacts of 5g wireless facilities and was present to share her
findings. She submitted a copy of her research and specifically made the following points:
• From www.americansforresponsibletech.org. "Published science proves harmful health effects from exposure to RF
microwave radiation. Studies show a wide range of biological affects at levels far below the current FCC exposure
guideline. " RF microwave radiation affects everyone, and with 4g/5g installations in every neighborhood,
Americans will not be able to escape continuous, involuntary exposures in their own homes, not to mention schools.
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
From a letter written by David Carpenter M.D., Director, Institute for Health and Environment at the University of
Albany New York. `Because wi-fi and radio transmission towers and smart meters all generate similar RF
radiation, if the whole body is exposed, leukemia is a major cause of concern. If only the head is exposed, as in
using a cell phone, one sees increased risk of local cancer such as brain cancer. Radio frequency electromagnetic
fields have been rated by the World Health Organization as a possible human carcinogen. Last year, the U.S.
National Toxicology program showed definitively that radio frequency radiation, like those from wi-fi and cell
phones causes cancer in lab animals.
• From the American Journal of Men's Health, "Mobile Base Station Tower Settings Adjacent to School Buildings
Impacts Students' Cognitive Health (November 2018). "Significant impairment in Motor Screening and Spatial
Working Memory was identified among the groups of students who were exposed to high RF-EMF produced by such
towers. "
• The Municipal Research and Services Center (MSRC) provides several sources of local governments who have set
their own codes, including Sammamish, Renton and Snoqualmie in Washington State. These codes set forth
location hierarchies and location standards for cell towers. Petaluma, California put forth a zoning code to make
sure that small cell towers are located 500 feet from homes.
Ms. Auni also provided a sample ordinance the City might want to use. She questioned whether small cell wireless facilities
are needed in residential neighborhoods when most people already have wired or wireless wi-fi in their homes via a
connection in the ground leading from the property line to the home. She also asked if people could opt out of having small
cell towers on their road when they already have a connection to the web.
Board Member Crank asked if the service providers would be beholden to the ordinance if it is passed as is with the aesthetic
requirements, or if they could elect to not do any further upgrades in the community. City Attorney Taraday said the goal is
to land on an ordinance that works for the industry and the citizens of Edmonds. It is not the City's goal to make it so
difficult for the industry that they do not deploy here. Legally speaking, ordinances are presumed valid until some court
determines they are not. If the industry has strong objectives to some element of the ordinance, they can challenge it. If the
industry can establish that some aspect of the ordinance was not in compliance with the FCC order, they can request that a
court preempt the ordinance. While a decision to no longer deploy in Edmonds is an alternative remedy, it seems unlikely,
given the demographics of the City, that carriers would ignore Edmonds. They would rather sue and try to get the ordinance
preempted.
In the event that a carrier sues, Chair Cheung asked if there would be any other liabilities to the City other than having its
ordinance preempted. City Attorney Taraday said his understanding is the primary risk to the City is that certain aspects of
the ordinance would be invalidated, and there would be no significant financial risk. The City Attorney's fees are on a flat -
fee basis. The City pays his firm the same amount regardless of whether or not they are defending litigation. He has an
incentive to keep the City out of trouble because his firm bears the risk of litigation.
Board Member Crank asked if her recollection from the last meeting is correct in that the poles identified in Option 2
(freestanding pole on zoned property) do not exist and the service providers would have to create them. Ms. McConnell said
there are currently no freestanding small cell poles in Edmonds. Board Member Crank asked if they exist in the industry, and
Ms. McConnell answered affirmatively. Board Member Crank asked if service providers would be required to pay for
streetlight installations and if they would be City owned. Ms. McConnell answered that the providers would be required to
pay for the poles. City Attorney Taraday added that the details of ownership would be worked out in the Master Use Permit,
but he doesn't see any legal reason why the industry couldn't continue to own poles that are located in the ROW. There are
already third -party utilities that own poles in the ROW.
If the ordinance is passed, Board Member Crank asked if it would be applied to all wireless facilities going forward or if it
would be retroactive. City Attorney Taraday noted that there are no small cell facilities in Edmonds now, but the ordinance
would not be retroactive to apply to existing macro facilities.
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Chair Cheung what would happen to a front -yard monopole if the property owner decides to sell the home and the new
homeowner doesn't want it. City Attorney Taraday explained that long-term leases run with the land. If a provider has a 30-
year lease with a homeowner for a freestanding pole in the front yard, the lease would remain valid even if the property
changes hands.
Board Member Monroe asked staff to address why the Board can or cannot consider health concerns and cancer risk studies
as part of the discussion. City Attorney Taraday said the City has no authority to address health concerns. If the Federal
Government decides that RF emissions are safe, there is nothing the City can do about it. Board Member Monroe
summarized that the scope of the hearing is to discuss aesthetics.
Board Member Monroe asked the City Attorney about the likelihood of the City being sued. City Attorney Taraday said that,
at this time, he is not aware of any aspect of the ordinance that would run afoul of federal law. However, he will continue to
work with staff to evaluate the ordinance and have dialogue with the City's consultant and the providers to better understand
their positions.
Board Member Monroe raised concern about how the City would functionally enforce the requirement that providers contact
property owners within 150 feet and demonstrate how it would not be feasible to locate on private property before being
allowed to locate in the ROW. City Attorney Taraday said the scheme laid out in the code now contemplates that the
industry would start with Priority 2. The process would be fairly streamlined and would not require long, drawn -out
negotiations with property owners. Basically, the provider would send out "canned" offer letters to nearby property owners.
If none of the property owners are interested, they can move on to Priority 3. Board Member Monroe pointed out the
significant cost involved with digging a trench and installing the conduit and fiber optic power. City Attorney Taraday
acknowledged that carriers will probably prefer Priorities 5, 6 and 7 because they will cost less, but the cost of implementing
Priorities 3 and 4 would be about the same as Priority 2. He said he is not so concerned about what the industry's preferences
are. He is interested in what the City's preferences are and what the Board's preferences are as representatives of the citizens
in the community. The industry has already had its way with the FCC and gotten most of what they need. All the City needs
to do is comply with the FCC order and look out for the interests of the community.
Board Member Monroe observed that it is estimated that carriers could put up to 1,000 small cell facilities throughout the
City, which means they will want to get through the process as quickly as possible using the least costly options. City
Attorney Taraday said he anticipates that deployment will happen gradually, and he does not necessarily see that there will be
1,000 poles in the near future. Board Member Monroe said he can support the hierarchy approach, which will encourage
providers to minimize the number of poles and space them in the most efficient way to get the best coverage. However, he
would like to see some real -world examples of how the strategy would play out in individual neighborhoods around the City.
Board Member Monroe said he would prefer Priority 5 over Priority 4 and he would support Priority 7, too. He said he has a
hard time thinking they will get 1,000 new poles throughout the City, and most installations will end up occurring on existing
power poles. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that many of the new poles can be designed to house more than one carrier.
Board Member Monroe recalled previous discussion that only one carrier could locate on a pole. City Attorney Taraday said
that is true for existing wood poles using cantennas at the top. However, new hollow poles for small cell facilities could be
designed to host more than one carrier. It could also be viable to swap out existing wooden poles for hollow poles that can
host more than one carrier, with all of the equipment and conduit inside. He summarized that there are feasible solutions to
combine carriers into one location rather than adding a large number of new poles.
Chair Cheung asked who would be responsible for coordinating contracts for multiple carriers that are located on a single
pole on private property. City Attorney Taraday explained that, whether the pole is on private property or in the ROW, he
envisions that the carrier that installs the pole would be the owner and maintain the rights to sublease it to other carriers to
spread the cost.
Board Member Monroe agreed with Vice Chair Robles that notification to the neighbors is important. He asked if it would
be possible to add a notification requirement into the code. City Attorney Taraday commented that, if Priority 2 (locating on
a freestanding pole on private property) is retained as part of the proposal, carriers would still be required to send letters to
owners in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Clugston added that no public notice would be required for any of the installations
since no land -use permit would be required. The permit would be an administrative permit with no notice required. Board
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Member Monroe asked staff to explore options for including some type of notification process. Mr. Clugston asked about the
intent behind requiring notification. Board Member Monroe commented that the public has raised health concerns and they
need to understand what is going on in their neighborhoods.
Vice Chair Robles said he was surprised to see the industry coming to the hearing with such a heavy hand, and it is not doing
anything to inspire him to look at their point of view. He asked why the industry cannot share antennas. There should be
enough incentive for them to do everything possible to create a uniform design as opposed to every carrier having a different
antenna and requiring that the community subsidize that view. He emphasized that the City is making an effort to bury
utilities whenever possible, and they should not be obligated to allow antennas aboveground. He said he supports the use of
hollow poles that are purposely constructed to be functional utilities in all communities. He explained that 5g technology
will be used to enable things like autonomous vehicles, which the carriers will make a lot of money on. The community
needs to address whether they want autonomous vehicles, IOT devices, drones, etc. in the future. These new uses are why
land lines and hard lines will not be adequate. He summarized that they need to be truthful about what 5g will bring to the
community and understand what they are getting into if they adopt the technology.
Vice Chair Robles said he is interested in more collaboration amongst the various carriers. If they can collaborate to come to
public hearings with the same points of view, they can certainly collaborate to provide a solution that meets the needs of the
community. Continuing to hang equipment off poles because that's the current approach is not enough of a reason to support
their proposed changes. He said he appreciates the City's attempt to consolidate facilities and put a hierarchy in place, and he
would like to see it continue.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she requested the City Attorney's presence at the hearing to make sure the discussion stays
on task. The City was given a directive by the FCC that provides the scope of what they are allowed to address. While
health issues have been raised, it is not something that can be addressed at the City level.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the language in the provisions related to freestanding small cell placement
requirements uses the phrase, "so as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight lines. " She asked if
"property sight lines" would apply to the view while driving down the road or if it would include preserving views of the
mountains or the Sound. Ms. McConnell said the intent of the provision is to encourage freestanding small cell facilities to
be placed towards the property line where they will not obscure the sight line from a front window, etc. Board Member
Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps more words could be added to make this intent clearer.
Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that design criteria that addresses how the facilities will appear to people
who are looking at them has been addressed as much as possible by the proposed ordinance. Now she is looking towards the
future. As a participant in the Energy Management Program, she has heard discussions about the vulnerability of the
substations that are located throughout the community. In many cases, security is quite low. She asked if security issues
have been raised in discussions with providers. Mr. Clugston said security is not something discussed in the ordinance, but it
is likely a concern of the industry. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is concerned that facilities be designed in a way that
provides the most service, but also has adequate security to reduce vulnerability.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, as proposed, permits for wireless facilities would be administrative decisions
made by staff. She asked if a process would be in place for the industry to appeal a decision made by City staff. Mr.
Clugston said the appeal process would be the same as for any other administrative permit. It would be a Land Use Permit
Appeal (LUPA) and not a local appeal process.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there are any provisions in the ordinance for approving alternative designs or measures
outside of the proposed regulations. She cautioned against getting stuck by old technology in just a few years by limiting
installations to those specifically called out in the ordinance. Mr. Clugston said there is some discretion in the ordinance for
Director approval looking at small carrier designs, but he suggested that they review the ordinance again to make sure it is
properly and adequately addressed. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be appropriate to allow for innovations in
technology moving into the future.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that language be added to the ordinance to address new technology for which the
proposed guidelines might not be feasible or might limit options that are a better fit for the community. The ordinance should
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
acknowledge that the provisions represent the City's best approach given current technology, but recognize that technology
evolves over time. Mr. Clugston said he believes the "whereas" clauses in the ordinance get at this issue. Right now, the
ordinance is intended to deal with 4g that exists in the real world, but 5g is coming and they will likely deal with that for the
next five years. At some point, they will have to revisit the issue. His hope is that with the proposed language, and some
additional discretion, the ordinance can be functional for the better part of a decade.
Chair Cheung expressed his belief that Priorities 1 and 2 should always be options if carriers want to negotiate with private
property owners because they believe it is the best place for the facility to be. However, he questioned the benefit to the
public of requiring the facilities to be on private property versus ROW. He suggested it would make more sense to locate
them in the ROW because he considers wireless to be a type of utility. It also makes more sense for the large wireless
corporations to negotiate with the City rather than individual property owners who may not understand what they are
agreeing to. While he understands the City's preference to have the facilities located on private property, he does not think it
necessarily helps the community. Again, he suggested that Priorities 1 and 2 should be options and not requirements. He
said he doesn't have a strong preference about whether the facilities in the ROW are located on streetlights or on the side of
poles; it depends on the technology. He would like to put more trust in City staff to negotiate with the providers and not have
to worry about his next -door neighbor deciding to allow a carrier to locate in his yard. He is concerned that allowing them to
be placed on private property could become confusing and messy. They would be more consistent if the City is responsible
for deciding where they can be located.
Chair Cheung said he does believe it is realistic to think that a lot of property owners will want to have a pole placed in their
yard because the benefit would be no greater than if it was placed in the ROW. In the end, carriers will end up working with
the City in most cases to place the facilities within the ROW, and requiring them to send out letters to private property
owners seems like extra work for nothing.
With respect to the suggestion that the preference for locating on private property has something to do with where the City
wants the money to go, City Attorney Taraday clarified that is not what is driving the preference. The City does not care
whether the money goes to the PUD or the private property owner who hosts a facility. What is driving the preference is that
the ROW is already really crowded, both above and underground, with existing linear utilities that need the continuity of
ROW. A small cell pole is not a linear utility; it is a spot utility. It takes a spot of space, and that's it. While small cell
facilities must tap into fiber and power connections, they do not have to be in line with these connections to have continuity.
They can function just as well outside the ROW as inside the ROW, especially if located within the front 5 feet of the
property line.
City Attorney Taraday acknowledged that the City does not know how many property owners will agree to host a small cell
facility. However, in talking with the consultant, there is a significant drop in single strain with distance. The small cell
antennas are not powerful, and the further you get away, the weaker the signal. He anticipates there will be enough people
who will value having the best service on the block that they will invite them onto their property in exchange. The monetary
benefit would be very small and would not likely be the motivator. The motivation will come from wanting the best signal
on the block. Vice Chair Robles agreed that carriers will want to have the ability to locate in optimal locations, including
both ROW and private property.
Board Member Crank recalled that, at the last meeting, there were some strong stances from both the carriers' representatives
and staff. She is encouraged that there have been subsequent conversations between the staff, carriers and consultant that
have led to some collaborative changes. She hopes that more inroad can be made as the ordinance moves forward to final
adoption. She voiced concern that the window for adopting the ordinance was short and the City had huge aspirations, but
there had not been any conversations with the carriers or the consultants. This appears to be happening, and she is hopeful
the ordinance will get to a point where it is amenable for all. Having an all or nothing stance is never a good place, especially
if decisions are made that result in litigation. If she makes the decision to recommend approval of the aesthetic aspects of the
ordinance, it will be with the understanding and hope that inroads continue to be made to reach a decision that meets the
needs of all sides.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the City is faced with implementing a service that the FCC has deemed to be in the best
interest of the public. The City's usual process allows people an opportunity to voice their concerns about land -use
decisions, yet the FCC's direction skips over that public process. Before approving the ordinance, the City should provide
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
clear reasoning for why it is allowing one person in the neighborhood to benefit from a pole in his/her yard without giving the
neighbors an opportunity to voice opposition. City Attorney Taraday explained that there are a number of permits in the City
where no notice is required. Creating a public process in this situation would be a problem given the short 60 to 90-day
turnaround. In addition, as currently drafted, there is not a lot of discretionary language in the ordinance that would benefit
from comment on an application. While he cannot say there would be zero value in such comments, it is hard to see how
they would significantly inform the administrative decision on the permit.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked the City Attorney to speak to the fact that the FCC has more authority in this decision
making that the City cannot oppose. They have already decided this is for the greater good of the community. City Attorney
Taraday said the FCC has taken the clear position that small cell deployment throughout the United States will benefit the
public in a significant way. For that reason, the FCC has knocked down just about every possible barrier to that deployment.
The City is left with just a few aesthetic tools, but not a lot of broad, police -power authority to regulate the land use.
Chair Cheung closed the public hearing.
Mr. Clugston commented that, at this point, the Board could deliberate further and ask additional questions. If the Board
supports the changes made so far, they could send the bulk of the ordinance on to the City Council with a note of additional
suggestions and concerns. The interim ordinance was a good starting point, and some refinements have already been made.
He anticipates more changes as the ordinance moves forward to the City Council.
Board Member Crank asked if there will be ongoing conversations with the service providers that might result in changes to
the ordinances. Mr. Clugston answered that staff will continue conversations with the service providers and their own
technical consultants. Board Member Crank commented that if the Board supports moving the ordinance forward as
currently drafted, there is a possibility that it will be changed between now and when it is presented to the City Council.
Again, she said she is hoping that the ordinance gets to a more amenable balance between the service providers and the City.
While the current proposal is fine from an aesthetic standpoint, she is concerned that it may not address the needs of the
service providers.
Board Member Crank said she would support switching Priorities 4 and 5, as recommended by Board Member Monroe,
which would favor attaching to an existing pole over adding a new pole. She said she is also concerned about requiring the
facilities to locate on private property as the first priority. Placing this onus on property owners could result in a ripple effect
that needs to be considered before moving forward.
Vice Chair Robles said he would be in favor of switching Priorities 4 and 5 if the carriers had a common system, but the
benefit of an individual hollow pole is that multiple carriers can locate in a single device. He would not want to see three
cans replacing one pole, but that is what the incentives of the industry are driving towards (each with its own can on separate
poles). If the sweeping priorities are identified, the details can be left to the City to negotiate with the carriers. Board
Putting aside the technical components and how the ordinance matures and develops, Board Member Monroe asked if the
Board would support switching Priorities 4 and 5 based on aesthetics only. Vice Chair Robles said he likes the priorities as
currently recommended by staff for the reasons he stated earlier. Chair Cheung said he does not think anyone can say which
option would work better. At this time, it is not entirely clear if more than one carrier can locate on a single pole.
Notwithstanding the City's persuasive argument that they should consider private property adjacent to ROW first, Board
Member Rubenkonig cautioned that there are issues of site development that the Board has not even started to address. For
example, will there be setback requirements for monopoles and small cell facilities in the front yard? Also, how will locating
the facilities on private properties limit opportunities for future development of a property? Mr. Clugston commented that
facilities in the ROW currently have no setback or height limitations, but the City could apply height limitations as per the
FCC's order. As currently proposed, facilities on private property must be within 5 feet from the property line to keep the
freestanding poles in line with existing utility poles. The height limit would be 30 feet. He advised that because the facilities
would be located so far forward on a lot, they would not have a significant impact on future development. Board Member
Rubenkonig noted the small lots in Edmonds where development gets very tight. Mr. Clugston advised that the minimum
front yard setback is 20 feet for single-family and 15 feet for multi -family. It may not be appropriate for a small cell facility
to locate on properties in zones where there is no setback requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City could
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
guarantee that a facility would not impact the development of the site. Mr. Clugston answered no, but that would be true for
anything that is placed on a site. He said it is up to the property owner to figure out whether it makes sense or not, but he
cannot imagine a situation where a facility would limit a future property owner's ability to do something on his/her property.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are so many items that the Board does not have time to address before a
final decision is made relative to the ordinance. However, it is important to identify potential issues that the City might have
to address at some point in the future.
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBER AMD20190010 TO THE
CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
• ELIMINATE PRIORITIES 1 AND 2 (LOCATING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) AS PRIORITY
LOCATIONS.
• PLACE PRIORITY 5 BEFORE PRIORITY 4 IN THE PREFERENCE HIERARCHY.
• IF POSSIBLE, INCORPORATE A PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS TO LET PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE VICINITY KNOW WHEN A NEW SMALL CELL INSTALLATION WILL BE LOCATING
CLOSEBY.
• ADD LANGUAGE THAT GIVES ADDITIONAL DISCRETION TO THE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS OR MEASURES OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS.
CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Rubenkonig questioned the need to require public notification if there is no public comment process in place
to feed the comments and concerns. Although it seems awkward that the City would allow the installations without public
notification, the City Attorney has stated that there are other land -use permits for which there is no public process. Board
Member Monroe said the intent is to replace the notice to property owners that would have occurred with Priorities 1 and 2.
Chair Cheung agreed that no public notice should be required for small-scale installations on existing poles in the ROW, but
the situation is different if new poles are placed on private property in single-family neighborhoods. A new streetlight could
impact an adjacent property. While he understands that an adjacent property would not be able to stop an installation, the
City should at least let them know when something is happening next to them.
Chair Cheung said he does not know enough about the technology to have a strong opinion about which type of installation
would be best. However, aesthetically, he supports Board Member Monroe's recommendation to swap Priorities 4 and 5
because he would rather see fewer new freestanding poles. If at all possible, he would like the antennas to be added to
existing structures, even if they are on the wire. Board Member Monroe pointed out that placing the antennas on existing
wires creates another safety hazard for cars.
THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES AND RUBENKONIG VOTING IN
OPPOSITION AND BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG, CRANK AND MONROE VOTING IN FAVOR.
CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED TO CLARIFY THE MOTION THAT PRIORITIES 1 AND 2 SHOULD BE OPTIONS
AND NOT REQUIREMENTS. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
BY A VOTE OF 3-0 (Board Members Robles and Rubenkonig did not vote on this motion.)
Priorities 1 and 2 should be options and not requirements
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung announced that the March 13' agenda will include a presentation on the City's Sustainability Initiatives and a
Quarterly Report from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. The Planning Board's retreat is currently
scheduled for March th.
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 12
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank announced that Paine Field Airport will begin operating commercial flights on March 4'.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
as
T
0
N
ti
N
M
7
L
d
U.
4-
0
U)
d
Cam_
G
L
O
O
L
0.
Q.
Q
N
N
O
0)
T-
eo
a.
a)
E
z
c�
Q
Planning Board Minutes
February 27, 2019 Page 13
Packet Pg. 15
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
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.03.08.19
Packet Pg. 16
5.A.a
°F E L Af
rrrc. i !t'y.
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
MEMORANDUM
March 8, 2019
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"Make certain that the full cycle of life is represented and balanced in each
community."
-Christopher Alexander
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board meets next on March 13, 2019. The agenda includes a Presentation on City
Sustainability Initiatives and the Parks & Recreation quarterly report.
REGIONAL NEWS
VISION 2050 Open House by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
F1 An open house in Edmonds is scheduled for March 12 to provide information and receive
comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for VISION 2050.
VISION 2050 is being developed as the region's long-range plan to keep the central Puget
Sound region health and vibrant as it grows. It will update and replace VISION 2040
(https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents). Several open houses are planned
around the region. The one in Edmonds is on March 12 (Tuesday) from 4 to 6 pm at the
City Hall Bracket Room.
Sound Transit Parking Permit Program
A permit parking program is being established in high -demand transit station areas where riders
often have a hard time finding a parking space. The permit program in Edmonds for the Sounder
Station goes into effect April 1. Permits are available now (https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-
with-us/parking) and will be issued for up to half of the spaces in the Sound Transit -owned lot.
Permits for carpool parking are free; single -occupant vehicles pay a fee. After 8 am, no permit is
required for any space. Note: Since Sound Transit only owns the parking lot directly east of the
Sounder Station, that is the only lot in Edmonds to which the permit system applies.
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
LOCAL PROJECTS
Homelessness Report
A new report to assess homelessness in Edmonds has been issued by the City Council. It can be
viewed at:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/City Council/Web Edmonds Homeless
ness Assessment Final 02212019.pdf. The assessment, conducted by Kone' Consulting, notes
different types of homelessness (for example, people living in vehicles) and finds that about 230
people living in Edmonds are homeless. It also recognizes different factors associated with
people having lost their home. The City Council discussed the assessment on March 5 and
concurred that additional information would also be useful and that an expansion of the
project's contract scope can be considered in the near future.
OTHER LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB has no meeting scheduled in March.
The ADB is currently accepting applications for (2) layman positions. The ADB serves as an
advisory board to the City Council on proposed multiple -family and commercial developments
including site, landscape, and building design. The appointed layman board member shall reside
within city limits.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission met on March 4, with an agenda that included:
❑ Henbart project presentation
❑ Concerts
❑ Meeting with Diversity Commission
❑ Best Book
❑ On the Fence/Public Art Map
❑ Creative District
❑ Annual Report
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board meets next on March 21. An agenda will be posted on line when available
Citizens Climate Protection Committee
The Committee will not have a March meeting but will meet again in early April to further discuss
a recommendation for a climate target.
21
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on March 6, with an agenda that included:
❑ Update from city
❑ Youth Forum — 4/12/19
❑ Prioritize use of surplus funds
❑ New Logo
❑ Grand Alliance project progress
❑ Commission Retreat — 4/10/19
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The EDC meets next on March 20. An agenda will be posted on line when available.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner meets next on March 14, with an agenda that includes:
❑ The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence 35 feet from the top
of a bluff in shoreline jurisdiction. A shoreline variance permit is required to build closer
than 50 feet to a bluff in shoreline jurisdiction. The subject property is zoned RS-12 and is
located within the Shoreline Resident I shoreline environment.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission's next meeting is March 14. An agenda will be posted on
line when available.
Planning Board
A student representative is being sought to serve on the Edmonds Planning Board. The Planning
Board makes recommendations to the City Council on plans, codes, and issues related to
community development, including transportation, environment, and housing,
The selected student would serve the remainder of the school year and attend Planning Board
meetings. The Board meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month, starting at
7:00 pm. Information about the Board is online at http://www.edmondswa.gov/planning-
board.html.
Student representatives must live in Edmonds and be attending either high school or college
For questions or to get an application, contact the City's Planning Division:
diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov or 425.771-0220.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met on March 7, with an agenda that included:
❑ Urban Forest Management Plan status
❑ Small Tree Brochure
❑ Garden club presentation
❑ Art Commission collaboration
❑ Demo garden work party
❑ City Council presentation
❑ Earth Day
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.a
❑ Rec Center CRAZE collaboration
❑ Tree shopping for farmers market in September
Youth Commission
The Youth Commission met on March 6, with an agenda that included:
❑ Discuss Skype call
❑ Gun violence work place + presentations
❑ Salmon work plan
❑ Homework
City Council
The Feb. 26 City Council meeting included:
❑ Consent agenda:
o WWTP Phase 6 Energy Conservation Project —Carbon Recovery Full Design
Services —Approval
❑ Public Defenders' Office Annual Report —Presentation
❑ Community Transit Update —Presentation
❑ Edmonds Homelessness Assessment —Presentation
❑ Public hearing on ban of single -use plastic utensils (including straws) in 2020
The March 5 City Council meeting included:
❑ Approval of Ordinance Banning Single -Use Plastic Utensils (including straws) —with
effective date of 2020
❑ Presentation of Sound Transit Permit Parking Program (which, starting April 1, will
provide a permit parking system for some of the spaces in the Sounder lot that's owned
by Sound Transit)
❑ City Attorney annual report
❑ Discussion of land use permit decision -making and quasi-judicial process —with motion to
keep the current quasi-judicial process tabled, so that further direction on quasi-judicial
would be postponed until all 7 Council members (one was absent from the meeting)
could weigh in
❑ Presentation on PSRC's Vision 2050 planning process
❑ Council discussion of Homelessness Assessment (report from Kone, consultants) —with
Council concurrence to propose additional scope for the project
❑ Announcement by Councilmember Tom Mesaros that he would not seek re-election this
November.
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• Feb. 9 — April 14: FIRE, Bucket Brigades, Calamity & Conflagration - Museum exhibit
highlights the 105 year history of the Edmonds Fire Dept.
• March 16: Diversity Commission Film, "Just Charlie", Edmonds Theater, 12pm
• March 21: Edmonds Art Walk, Downtown, 5pm
• March 21: Music at the Library, Edmonds Plaza Room, 6:30 pm, "Los Flacos"
• May 4: Garden Market, Bell St., 9 am — 2 pm
41
Packet Pg. 20
5.6
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
City Sustainability Activities Update
Staff Lead: Brad Shipley
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Brad Shipley
Background/History
The City of Edmonds has been active in promoting community livability, environmental protection, and
economic health. These concepts, when integrated together over the long term, are at the heart of
"sustainability."
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Sustainability activities have been performed by City staff, consistent with Mayor and Council direction,
in broad and numerous ways over the last few years. To highlight some of these activities, a slide
presentation (attached) has been prepared for the Planning Board's March 13th meeting.
Attachments:
Sustainability_Presentation_2019.03.13
Packet Pg. 21
Planning Board
March 13, 2019
Presented by
Carrie Hite, Parks Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Sust inabi
sty
Activities
( Packet Pg. 22
5.B.a
f are,
a
r _
c�
.r
3
meet th eds e
�^T M
� � r
Mal F
pre it/ 11CD
l `j�r fi N
mull n
_ 1_ •
■. enerations
Ln
L
P� I ILI meet the .......... ............... % .............. ... ........... n e e
to
3
jib
Packet Pg. 23
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 24
Development Services &t Cross Depl-
Plans Et Codes
Public Information
Projects
5.B.a
city of Edmonds
rehensIV Plan
Com p
Adopted July 2g, 2015
v Update fiber 15, 2017
Q
Packet Pg. 26
p
. p
A.
5.B.a
d
r
sa.
N
N
r
r
Haw Does a Rb�n G3fde�
B
c
U
M
M
O
O�
O
N
a
I
O
O
C
O
N
Cl)
L
a
I
c
N
7
C
Cl)
Packet Pg. 28
Example of hand-out showing standard detail for raingarden design.
EXISTING
GROUND
BOTTOM WIDTH
12- (MIN)
�4" (MIN) FREER
B" fPONDING
INLET CONNECTION
PER STD DETAILS 2.5 MIN 2
EXCAVATION EXTENT 12' TO 24"
1' (MIN) ABOVE SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER
TABLE OR HYDRAULICALLY RESTRICTIVE LAYER
SECTION
NTS 1
CL
a
RAIN GARDEN VEGETATIOP .9
PER STD DETAIL SD-64' y
M
ARD 1' (MIN)CD
M
!!!f rn
r
O
RAISED BERM,
i MIN WHERE REOUIRED. N
SEE NOTE 1. E'
/ a
a+
SCARIFY NATIVE SUBGRADE,
SEE NOTE 2 S
2
MULCH, SEE STD DETAIL SD-64
c
BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA OR COMI E OT
AMENDED NATIVE SOIL PER STD DE L
SD-642
Packet Pg. 29
El
� i �� a YlItiRawar
i
p CAip
�a
�-
A
�f
wow
A
SHIM
son
NO
Ma 7_7
IFMCLLS_ � w r
Spam
rr=
iwwwl
r
5.B.a
m
r
a
AD
r
U
ST RN
Q
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Projects undertaken in2016-2017
academic year included:
o 4t" Ave. Cultural Corridor o
o Edmonds Marsh Restoration o
o Zero Waste/Food Waste o
o Visitors' Mobile App o
o Wastewater Treatment Plant o
Education
o Stella's Landing opportunities
N
7
N
V
M
M
0
CD
r
O
N
Playful City °
Edmonds Cemetery Mappin
Sea Level Rise
Green Business Program
Walkability Assessment U)
a
Packet Pg. 31
dv ? —
f
-01
40�`
5 y Y ti
OPP
- * ;
Photo Vetht CreativeC!jmmons
77
i`77t-
2 +RQ90.i ', '.+sue - Y r _ '� '_` i�` � � - � . �• ,....ram-�..��C .iia:-
n
Sustainability I Development Services
rma Gea, h
- - 216th St S W
Point Edwards PI
M
n
0
n
00
f �P
E— dni��n�i_.-
King=.tnn
4 Sounders
Edmond s
-Edmonds Staton Jd�0
a
s= rn
ton St
r
v
Q
R
Alder St
Cn
3
N
w
.i,
M
r
M
O
O
O
N
C
R
•
r
C
E
�
to
Z
N
p
L
IL
monds =
C ity
Park
to
3
to
r
C
0
Pin e E
t
-- Q
f
Packet Pg. 34
Q
c
W
W
�
W
•�
W
4J
can
N
N
Q
N
5.B.a
Packet Pg. 35
Q
ME
Packet Pg. 36
[\MIM/
Sustainabhty | DeveiopmentSenvices
`
�
1�
Packet Pg. 37
� r
�'•� ���,,� jv ,gin �, � c �''" 4� � ��.
��r•,
�F'w��4,A � _ % s, ,��. �k �'� •.a*sy"Y�p�� "'^�'+,5n �y,®� r`�' i''� °_
sell
30
krS,�/°�?F
.� �, • � � ,�{ • = � i�Y'�z ' sip
�._ .mac. eft'.:' _; . A. r�. ,F '4'. ��sf —i , r . q � n.`•fT`} � � �, a r'.'�i
' &�yaPacket Pg.
-0
'o z
fB
VI
Am
5.B.a
Chainsaw..•
Grab That "own Trees
Before You ves to cutting
Here Are Some Alternati
consltler windowing) allows a tree [o
Homeowners may and foliage to
Perhaps the bea appeals Unhealthy. Is vN1te pmnbB (also called tree
(here are mznY iaar.ons why rernaln f0 place While removing branches
cutting down a Uee improve a view.
Impshingviews, or has lution -the ken alien Howe Consider eleL �ry•alt it
there arc many other solutions to these challenges. skle branches olr a tree or several trees
Theme k a view
DePendmg on which of these 810 et the''oot" of your that bloc
igobfenl, lalt0 a IOOk to "a some 91lelnatrv0410 ChOPP'ng
down treed -01
al
Ir or water cash tree
bq tacktngnutrienls a
A tree may mulohlnQ• aerattnQ the loll. fertPizing or
care, such Ba rove the neaah of A Tree.
watering, cad drasticafly Imp it
Consider InlMe•r•g� aondlllo"a
Lewes Or needles Of
the tree appeal yellow •
Fo140 I$ 6,else or
dropping out of season Crown withoutradV0100
pping. decreases the helgnt o
th Is stunted cosid r ell
v V'
, tree 8roe' 1 Consider crew^ r�'�O• d:
The top of a tree blocks �V u
�b
a view
A tree is growing too
close ro a building
broken or A tree Is growing too Prune ne more
e close to a utility ilne then sea or tM
Proper pruning can remove rove the health of a be crown Her reel
diseased branches and IMP
Consider avow" aleaala{ It ra srorm be UlocNing lines of sight or
There is damage ro a tree afte
branches A tree' s lower Dr"nches may removes lower branches
rove safety and aesthetics.
Thereare dead or dying close rogether hlndedng traffic. Crown rafsln
• henches are growing too from trees. This can Imp
• are unhealthy r"Nhlt d. vehicle baffle
Foliage In the tree center eDPa Consider arowa eding Pedestrian or
The Plant has diseased leaves Or Drenches A tree Is ImP affecting a view
ThO tree has two leaders lower branches a'
Re.,.
teedere
eroeeo llmM Deed umee a 1
a / 67i^
ttown
• l
331
UM MIA,
run/ M1en Mre
•• Mre
Planning for the Future..•
regent tree problems before they
To D choose the right bee
begin, always lanting.
for the right place• when p
think longterm. Consider a tree's
height and width at Maturity,
how
much room the roots r
what the tree might impede as it
glows, Keep In mind the beneltte
of bees, and how to Plant trues
to enhance. rather
a �men4 The
etract
from. the exlsting
chalnsaw will never ba Called on
when the right tree Is Pranled In the
right place In the first Place.
getote YOU undertake a large-scale
pruning prolxt, please contact
the City of Edmonds peveloPment
services DepartmemWill
d dsrda.@011L
_ �atlnleDL
find on alb°list licensed ce rbonculture
International society YOU
for professional pruning or N Yo
concerned about the health of a tree.
�, e�no� camL
1 I 1 1 1 er year. An acre OfeSrbs
roduced by driving a car 26,000
le large tree can consume 4810s of carbon dloxlde p
NNNNNN
A sing ear to equal the amount p
enough C0 over 1 y
Decrease energy
♦ Improve air quality
Decrease crime rates in
♦ urban environments
♦ Regulate tempetaturas
♦ Provide oxygen
♦ Increase Property values
♦ provide wildlife habitat
Finer stormwate, and decrease
1 storm runoff and floods
provide windbreaks
tce views end
ran aesthetics
provide Privacy
Improve mental health
sequester carbon
Block nolae I)OIIU Wn
�eMUM n0•�lKna-K.o...__-
� x•e pwmn6 P+nwrtitl4
,rw moliio�ri'i0. d .fax KK,mF.nrir
rpmrtu�U'eer'011.
oerwreuamecnee"e
1eeBW4
ceJ d eeme'N°
Packet Pg. 40
Solar radiation powers
the climate system.
Some solar radiation
is reflected by
the Earth and the
atmosphere.
The Greenhouse Ef ec'
Some of the infra:
radiation passes throe
the atmosphere but rn:
is absorbed and re-ernittk
to all directic)L
by greenhouse c
molecules and clot;
The effect of this iE
warm the Earth's surf, -
and the lower atrnosphe
FA
ATMOSPHE
l-AM&- /=F4equoi
w
kk
About half the solar radiation
is absorbed by the
Earth's surface and warms it.
Infrared radiation is
emifted from the Earth's
surface.
Pubt*r Works
Alternative Fuel Fleet
Facilities Energy Reductions
10
Eu38% of the fleet is
sing alternative fuel!!
m
U
Q
C
'R
li VJ
11 4be U
M
M
O
' O
N
O%y
C
tJs o
FDR �-
r
C
m
IL
C
r N
kS- C
f Packet Pg. 43
5.B.a
4,500,000
3,500,000
t
3.000.000
0
i=+
Q
2,500,000
c
O
U
U
2,000,000
W
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
E
WWTP Electrical Consumption
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
� Electric Consumption (kWh) a ■ Trend
a a a • ■
OXIJVA
CL
U
Q
c
7
N
M
M
O
O
r
O
N
r-
O
i
d
N
a
U)
r-
w
E
Q
Packet Pg. 44
5.B.a
Facilities Electrical 2012 - 2017 ESCO Project Results -Electrical/Gases
Energy Savinc
41w
SBaseline
Rated
Measured
Proposed
Savings
Baseline
Proposed
Savings
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
Energy
(kWh)
Demand
(kW)
City Hall Interior
70,490
274
38,510
169
31,980
105
70,171
273
38,566
169
31,605
104
City Hall Exterior
5,081
14
1,892
6
3,189
7
5,081
14
1,892
6
3,189
7
Cemetery
1,016
3
263
1
753
2
1,016
3
263
1
753
2
Yost Pool
28,658
79
7,266
20
21,392
59
28,571
78
7,266
20
21,305
58
Senior Center
10,622
29
3,390
9
7,231
20
10,897
30
3,390
9
7,507
21
Public Works Interior
9,921
50
4,926
32
4,995
18
9,694
49
5,020
32
4,674
17
Public Works Exterior
35,574
97
11,717
32
23,858
65
34,839
95
11,717
32
23,122
63
Public Safety Exterior
9,703
36
4,748
18
4,955
18
9,649
36
4,438
16
5,211
20
Public Safety Roadway
30,537
84
7,818
21
22,719
62
29,280
80
7,875
22
21,405
59
Park Roadway
3,557
10
1,625
4
1,932
5
3,955
11
1,625
4
2,330
6
Old Public Works Exterior
14,213
39
3,149
9
11,064
30
14,213
39
3,149
9
11,064
30
Medowdale Exterior
2,247
6
613
2
1,634
4
2,260
6
618
2
1,643
1 5
Library Exterior Parking
37,633
103
10,889
30
26,744
73
36,792
101
10,240
28
26,552
73
Frances Anderson Exterior
32,321
98
16,496
65
15,825
33
23,471
70
8,186
30
15,286
40
Totals
291,574
922
F113,302
419
178,271
503 1 279,890 885
104,245
380
1175,646
505
63% energy savings
Packet Pg. 45
CL
a
cu
3
N
w
U
M
r
M
O
O
NI
C
0
r
cu
r-
a
i
r
U)
r
a
s
5.B.a
m
r
• Compost collection at City Hall reduced City Hall garbage
volume by 33%
a
• Use of bleach has been eliminated for regular usage in
cleaning.
N
• All new paint purchased is now sourced as zero VOC.
• Replacement lighting converted to LED park bollards. M
r
• Seven new VFD's for HVAC equipment at Public Safety and
0
Library.
• Continuous direct digital controls upgrades and
commissioning city wide for HVAC equipment efficiency.
• Staff Development- Sarah Brinkley lead custodian) achieved
her Sustainable Community Steward Certificate from WSU-
extension, Dan Housler, Larry Lafave achieved their Lead
Paint Restoration Certification in 2018.
a
Packet Pg. 46
^arks &t F creation
Green Practices
Habitat Restoration
Environmental Education
Capital Projects
5.B.a
Fast Acting
Ready To Use
DiO �Af�ORGANIC
GARDENING
Non -Selective, Controls most weeds, grasses & broadleaves
KEEP OUT OFREACH OfCHILDREN
CAUTION
1�Nu�il..Ni°,
..
Xli CONIkNlO 21 i1 07 p1010m1I
� t
KILLS YEL*W yam+
NLITSEUGE! U
Rou M
o
FOR S r G
NI
<� O
1 .,
r
I �
1 L w
1. 11 1 1 1 1.L1
cc
c
M
N
c
N
Ei
Q
Packet Pg. 48
� y�%�•r"�'-� � ���� ��. .r ��� ";'$a k.. ti Ali. if•+� � r �P'�,� ✓ a -ate .: �.
f .w+
�+1' �7„Tf/ ,•� l"R� �� .1 -� ' ems, +Y 1 y '� � r 4..r'Y„ i -
' 1 , •- � ,� +,* � 5s s� . Zvi "rr."� . � - •-a, �+;-
it ftr�p .:ice - 1: 4 � � •� � 'f't�'. - �-
.50
• y �.AAA .. N'
r ►�e'+'��E�f ,� `� s r ,� �a ,•-� ��+! a 2 _'rX v�'.'.�, �'� y„ r y�..
LAW
f-� %'. - � �,f.y � l�/ rti. � � �/i •'� �-2.'�j 4 -4i ! -Y - � `�a,- n�'-f'�,t. � r� rr.+�` i ,.
_ .. .._ z, �, '- 5 `r,• -r � ,. '�j t � -� �.,# rod- - -
dr
n.` €� - ° ,yr�Y'Ny-_ k'.'i ti„ ' •!M 1 .r" , .:
ram-. Y' � ;;�� ,, �. :,:�.' � i1.��:. —� �;. �- `4• . _ ,
i • lrtf' " y., f,� y
e�=r'i �. �a�- �,I• � ./' . _ ',� •. � to j�- j 4 . - � '� . n. �r
Vt Iwo
r ,f �%?�; � ,� �. � -� t1 fie_ r•rr r �% Y �°ti .., 'T. � �_ -_J;� il• - _.
- l ti s✓ j_ '' 'ram t ;�.1�•:�' I -�
'�'_, 1 fir- �► � �,i 'u-" �; _+a ��+' �-�� + A 4 �,-�` �' � • `a'' ° s i► 'bI�•
Habitat Restoration is underway in the following areas...
RIB fiffift,
MA
2
EM
Meadowdale Natural Area
12,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant q p 7� Y
removal and native planting
M
Hutt Park
10,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant �• � a;
planting
N
removal and native p
� J
Yost Park . �������s��y�a�
8,000 sq. ft. of invasive plant 1�1��11�1111�� • C '
removal and native planting
a
City Park ���a
Forest: One acre of invasive plant removal and native planting:
Wetland: 5,000 sq. ft. wetland enhancement and ...........
demonstration project y
Edmonds Marsh
- m
Maintenance in 10,000 square feet of previously s
restored buffer including planting, weeding, and r
Z mulching. Daylighting Willow Creek Q
Hickman Park
4,000 square feet of ero
stabilized and planted w Packet Pg. 50
5.B.a
Ike
ri'. � art+-+ Y '.L "R �F,1 ""�• _---��Iy�i �r � }ti
n� f�
Packet Pg. 51
r +
M
r� 4 `
4
' i K
L , r .
r, pr -
O;:
bow-
:AF "" i i
L73
yy�
Education
During spring of 2018, more than 4,000 school -aged children participated in K-6,
education classes including the Discover the Forest, Spring Beach Ranger, and IVafii.rP
Packet -.
Discovery series
r
r Packet Pg. 54
I.
pis —
AP
y
Al
Watershed
Education
170
"s,
_ .""him-:
0.7
''a y_ .�"• ` -;;t, ;. mat=
AW
Ov I
Rain Garden`
5 ; � ¢ sip , `
Education
---------
----
-
---------
PWN*d M"
L..6,g
Xd AOMU" RWO
M
CL
CO
lkabr , A—
(D
PNOON4 wiftm
Pw..d A,
4
vi
CD
•
(3i
CD
C14
r_
0
O
U)
E
I Packet Pg. 57 1
_
� v � Tit. -- �_
-
••„
'�
`
T6
e�- t
i k5Y{' � Tn ■ �4•�1.
Packet Pg. 58
m
S
m
cn
r+�
,a
M
cM
O
O�
O
N
5.0
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Carrie Hite
Background/History
This is a new discussion to consider recommended changes to the Park rules in the Edmonds City Code.
Staff Recommendation
Please discuss and give staff guidance.
Narrative
There are several recommended changes to the Park rules that are being requested. These will assist in
operating parks for the safety of all.
The changes include the following:
1. Adding a chapter to prohibit smoking/vaping in parks.
2. Add a chapter to prohibit feeding wildlife on waterfront beaches.
3. Changing park hours to read " from dawn to dusk".
4. Clarifying chapter 5.32.030 about the allowance motor vehicles in parks.
5. Clarifying 5.32.040 to be consistent with our practice.
6. A few smaller housekeeping items.
In addition to these recommended changes to the Park rules, staff are also recommending changes to
chapter 5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds as it relates to parks. Currently, if someone with a dog wants
to follow the rules, they would need to consult the City code to determine where they can walk their
dog. Staff are recommending that we allow dogs in all parks, on leash, with the exception of playfields,
beaches, and school grounds. Currently, the school district is exploring their policy and will work with
the City if they would like this amended. The Parks department is prepared to install dog waste stations
at all of our parks and encourage dog walkers to pick up after their pets.
Attached are strikeout versions for both ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060 as it relates to recommended changes.
Attachments:
Park Regulations Redline 3.4.19 ch
Dogs on Public Grounds Redline 3.4.19 ch
Packet Pg. 59
5.C.a
5.32.010 Park closing hours.
All parks shall be closed from sunrise to sunset between the ,,,.u+s of 10;
,n 6.00 a.m. each and every day unless otherwise posted by the city
park and recreation department. It is unlawful for any person to loiter on,
remain in, or otherwise be on said premises between the stated hours unless
written permission is granted by the mayor, a department head or a police
officer or firefighter of the city.
5.32.030 Motor vehicles prohibited from city parks.
It is unlawful to operate motor vehicles of every kind and description,
whether licensed or unlicensed, speeifieall including but not limited to
two -wheeled motor vehicles such as mini -bikes, motorcycles ood
trailbikes, and Segways in or on any park, with the exception of the
waterfront marine walkway; provided, the director of parks and recreation
is authorized to post a notice or notices prescribing parking areas, roadways,
entrances and exits for motor vehicles to and within said parks which posted
areas, and only said areas, shall be open for motor vehicular purposes. The
owner and/or operator of any motor vehicle found within or on any said
public park, other than in the areas posted as hereinabove provided is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
5.32.040 Drinking intoxicants in public parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to consume any intoxicating liquor as defined
by ECC 5.19.010, within any public park, beach or playground within the
city of Edmonds whether owned by, leased or otherwise under the
supervision of the city, unless authorized by pecial Event Permit.
5.32.045 Smoking and vaping in public parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to smoke or light cigarettes, cigars, tobacco or
other smoking material, or to use electronic cigarettes or vaping devices
within cityparks. The director of parks and recreation shall post signs in
appropriate locations prohibiting smoking and vaping in the cit'sparks.
5.32.050 Horses and similar animals.
Unless otherwise directed by the director of parks and recreation as set forth
in ECC 5.05.150, it is unlawful for any person to ride, lead or otherwise
permit any horse, ass, mule, donkey, burro, pig and/or bovine animal to
be within or on any park unless utilized for ADA purposes.
5.32.100 Fishing pier regulations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any of the following
regulations on the Edmonds public fishing pier at the Edmonds boat harbor
Packet Pg. 60
5.C.a
adjacent to Dayton Beach Park:
A. No person shall permit any animal to enter or remain on the fishing pier;
provided, however, that this section shall not apply to service animals seeing
eye dogs that are being used by bhnd persons needing an accommodation
for the purpose of aiding them going from place to place.
B. No person shall use or operate any wheeled vehicle upon the fishing pier,
including but not limited to any motor vehicle, bicycle, roller skates,
skateboard, or Seg_way; provided, however, this section shall not apply to
authorized police, fire and public works vehicles, wheelchairs being used
by handicapped persons and carriages/strollers for children.
its.
C. No person shall cast fishing tackle of any kind or description, including
but not limited to, hooks, lines and/or sinkers, from the fishing pier at any
location where signs are posted to prohibit such casting.
5.32.106 Feeding wildlife on city beaches prohibited.
No person shall intentionally feed, attract, or artificially sustain wildlife on
city beaches. The feeding of indigenous wildlife is prohibited in all city
beach areas unless otherwise posted. This section does not apply to
authorized feeding_ programs established with the Washington state
department of fish and wildlife.
Packet Pg. 61
5.C.b
5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds.
A. It shall be unlawful for an owner to allow any dog to stray and/or enter
with or without a leash or other means of restraint upon any school ground,
playfield, pares or beach, waterf ont ^ other public „ port..
rim. WI•isse�eess. _ rsjrleree:sezres:�s.�e��
..
. s
�.�
BE. All dogs Dogs are permitted in city parks, waterfront and on other
public property not listed in subsection (A) of this section, and the areas
shall be on a leash at all times,
except for dogs permitted in Marina Beach Park South at the dog park.
CD. Nothing herein shall be determined to require the posting of notices to
Packet Pg. 62
5.C.b
exclude animals; provided, however, that such postings may be undertaken
at the discretion of the director ffianage of parks and recreation.
DE. The regulations under ECC 5.05.070 relating to animal waste and the
removal and proper disposal of said waste will be strictly enforced.
Packet Pg. 63
5.D
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
Parks Department Update
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Prepared By: Carrie Hite
Background/History
Every 3-6 months, the Parks Department provides an update to the Planning Board.
Staff Recommendation
Receive update and discuss.
Narrative
Attached is the update.
Attachments:
Planning Board Report March 2019
Packet Pg. 64
5.D.a
Edmonds Parks Recreation & Cultural Services
Planning Board Report
March 2019
Submitted by Carrie Hite, Director
Civic Field Design Development
This year we have been full speed ahead on the design development of Civic. The Council
awarded the design contract to Walker Macy to continue their work with the community. We
have reviewed the schematic and are working with WM on design development. We have CU
been engaged with all the stakeholder groups and including their input into the design. We
applied and are in good position for three RCO state grants for Civic. We recently received a
$450,000 commitment from Snohomish County. E
r
L
Q
Fishing Pier:
0
We are still trying to resolve issues with the contractor. The Pier is open, safe and busy! Y
L
Edmonds Marsh
The City is continuing to contract with Keeley OConnell to project manage the phases of the
Edmonds Marsh rehabilitation efforts. In addition a very active Friends of the Edmonds Marsh
group made up of citizens and citizen scientists has been working with the Port, the City,
Earthcorps, and other entities to implement the plan "to expand and restore functional
estuarine habitat within Edmonds Marsh and protect the remaining wildlife by engaging the
community to preserve, steward, and enjoy our most natural asset". A major goal of this effort
is daylighting Willow Creek and this gained traction with the installation of a box culvert at
Marina Beach Park with the double tracking project. We are in the process of applying for
grants to complete the design development of this project.
Seaview Playground Replacement
This year we are planning on replacing the Seaview Playground. Led by Council member Mike
Nelson, the Council adopted an additional $200,000 to apply towards ADA upgrades in our
playgrounds. We have applied some of this to Seaview and will be installing the first inclusive
play area in the City.
Outdoor Fitness Zones
We were awarded a grant from Verdant and will be installing an Outdoor Fitness Zone at
Mathay Ballinger and Civic Park ( as part of the redevelopment).
City Storage Building:
The replacement shed installed and we are now completing the internal components.
Packet Pg. 65
5.D.a
Community Garden
This is pending a property acquisition, and as soon as we close, we will install the garden.
Waterfront Redevelopment and walkway completion
The City has been working parallel to the Sr. Ctr efforts to rebuild the center. The City's
interest is to pull back the creosote pier from the Sound, and introduce a filtration system from
the parking lot to the Sound. We have received $1,125,000 in grants for this project. In
addition, it is the City's interest to complete the walkway south of the Sr. Ctr. The City owns an
easement in front of the Ebbtide, and is working with a designer to figure out the possibilities
of connecting the walkway. This project is slated for construction this year.
Edmonds Youth Commission
Edmonds City Council adopted an ordinance last June to establish a Youth Commission. This
Commission is now seated for the first year, and the Parks Department has hired a PT
coordinator to work with the Commission. Their top two items to work on this year include
gun violence and mental health for youth.
Student Conservation Association:
The City has collaborated with the Student Conservation Association to bring a youth
work/education program to the City to help in the parks over the summer. We continue to
work with this program which has been very successful.
Willow Creek Fish Hatchery
Sound Salmon Solutions has now completed the transition to operate the Hatchery. After their
first 3 quarters, the transition has been very smooth. They are raising funds to help with some
building upgrades and continued salmon education for the community.
Urban Forest Management Plan
Parks is working with Development services to bring to completion the Urban Forest
Management Plan this year. We have rolled up our sleeves as staff to complete final edits
before bringing back to Council for final adoption. In addition, Council adopted additional
funds in the budget to hire a PT arborist to help jumpstart the UFMP goals.
Edmonds Arts Commission Programs
Literary Arts —
The Best Book Poster Contest for third graders is underway and soon the halls of the Frances
Anderson Center will exhibit the selected posters. Staff has been working with the steering
committee for Write on the Sound to begin putting together the program for the 341n
conference next October.
Visual Arts —
2
Packet Pg. 66
5.D.a
The On the Fence temporary public art project continues provide changing visual interest in
town and a two new flower basket pole artworks have been installed. To find out where
outdoor art is located in Edmonds the Arts Office has developed a new web based walking tour
of art viewable in public spaces which is available on the Arts Commission website under Public
Art.
Performing -
Complementary to the free summer Concerts in the Parks, the Music at the Library partnership
program between the Arts Commission, Library and Friends of the Library, has become
increasingly popular throughout the winter months. A series of 7 concerts in the Plaza Room
are presented, mostly on third Thursdays but with two on Saturdays. The February bluegrass
program on a Saturday attracted about 100 people for the afternoon.
Creative District Designation Process
In December the Washington State Arts Commission announced that Edmonds was selected as
the first certified Creative District for the new State program. The program was created by the
State Legislature in 2017. Creative District designation is intended to foster growth in the
arts/culture/creative sector in local communities, enhance economic vitality, and grow jobs.
Cultural Services and Economic Development worked together to lead public process, develop
a five year work plan, and determine a walkable geographic area for the Certified Creative
District application. The Creative District boundaries include much of the core downtown and
the major cultural venues as well as the waterfront. Last week Frances Chapin and Patrick
Doherty attended a conference in Olympia regarding Creative District programs and they are
currently working on putting together an advisory committee for the Creative District.
Gateway Sign
Last fall the department convened a community process to consider new sign options for the 51" Ave S
& SR 104 gateway sign. A committee of nine community members has met five times since November
to work with designer Clayton Moss on developing three new concepts. The first public Open House
was held on November 29 and was followed by an online survey with about 500 respondents
commenting on preferences for sign types. Those comments helped inform the work of developing
new options. At the February 27 Open House the three new options were presented. The existing sign
(replicated) was also included as an option. In addition, a design by Mack Benek was presented as a fifth
option. About 40 people attended the Open House and a wide range of opinions were expressed. An
online survey is posted as follow-up and results will be available later in March.
Recreation
Our Adult sports are in full swing. Over the past 2 seasons we have 15 teams in our 3 on 3
basketball league, 23 Women's Volleyball teams, 26 Coed Volleyball teams and 165 Pickle -ball
teams. Spring Softball is right around the corner.
We just recently had our Daddy, Daughter Dance at the Senior center and had 142 energetic
dancers. We had a DJ, Photographer, arts and crafts and of course food and punch for all.
3
Packet Pg. 67
5.D.a
We are in the process of hiring our Rangers to help with educational programs and patrol the
beaches again this summer.
Wear gearing up for our summer season with registration starting March 15t. We are all looking
forward to the warmer weather.
Our department is fully staffed again with the addition of our new Deputy Director Shannon
Burley and Recreation Coordinator Kim Anderson and we couldn't be more excited.
11
Packet Pg. 68
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/13/2019
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:
03-13-2019 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 69
Of FDA,
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
KAKKN(s BOARD
,ago Extended Agenda
March 13, 2019
Meeting Item
MARCH, 2019
March 1. City Sustainability Initiatives Presentation
13 2. Parks & Rec Quarterly Report
March RETREAT
27
APRIL, 2019
April 1. Public Hearing on Comp. Plan Map change for the Haines
10 Wharf area from Mixed -Use Commercial to Open -space.
(Tentative)
April 1. VISION 2050 Update
24
MAY, 2019
May 1. Legislative Updated
8
May 1.
22
TUNE, 2019
June 1.
12
June 1.
26
r
a
Packet Pg. 70
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 (1s' meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
Packet Pg. 71