Loading...
2019-01-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 9, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused) Mike Rosen (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder As discussed at the last meeting, Board Member Lovell announced that the final report from the Economic Development Commission's subcommittee that was charged with reviewing the City's Strategic Action Plan is now available. In the report, each of the action items were assigned a status. He agreed to email the report to staff to forward to the Board Members. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: SMALL CELL WIRELESS STANDARDS Introduction on small cell wireless and the Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Discussion on incorporating small cell standards into the City's wireless code (ECDC 20.50) and possible interim ordinance. Ms. McConnell announced that the FCC released a new "Order" on September 27, 2018, adopting new rules limiting how state and local governments may treat applications for the installation of new small cell facilities. The Order goes into effect on January 141, and local jurisdictions have until April 141 to adopt aesthetic rules relative to small cell facilities. She explained that small cell facilities are mounted on structures that are 50 feet or less in height. They work best at lower levels, which is different than macro cell facilities that function best at higher levels. The Order also limits the size of the equipment and antenna. She provided a graphic to illustrate the differences between macro cell and small cell facility types, summarizing that small cell facilities are used in densely populated areas to obtain faster data transfer. Ms. McConnell provided pictures of existing macro cell facilities in Edmonds, noting how the antenna and equipment are clustered together on the top of poles. She also provided pictures of small cell facilities located in other cities (there are none in Edmonds). She noted how some are located on existing poles and appear chunky and unattractive while others are located on existing buildings and appear to blend in. She also provided examples of small cell facilities located on standalone poles or streetlights, with all of the wires and equipment enclosed within the poles. Board Member Lovell commented that the standalone poles are definitely more attractive, but they must be costlier, too. Ms. McConnell agreed that standalone poles will likely cost more. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers to use standalone options in areas where new development occurs. Ms. McConnell agreed that is an option. She explained that the location of small cell sites will be determined by the specific providers (carriers) based on what is needed in order for an area to function well from a utility standpoint. Carriers do not typically share a single site since they all run on different frequencies. Chair Cheung asked who would be responsible for maintaining the facilities that are located on existing structures. Ms. McConnell responded that the City has not assessed the capacity of its current signal lights to accommodate small cell facilities. However, small cell facilities can be placed on existing Public Utility District (PUD) poles via a lease agreement. Although the City would require a permit, the pole would continue to be under the PUD's ownership and responsibility. Board Member Monroe asked if locating small cell facilities on existing structures would be governed by a Franchise Agreement. Ms. McConnell said it would actually require a Master Use Agreement, which is very similar to a Franchise Agreement. The Master Use Agreement would establish ownership and address the maintenance requirements. Ms. McConnell advised that the FCC's Order allows state and local jurisdictions to put aesthetic requirements in place for small cell facilities, but they must be reasonable, objective, and no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments. They must also be published in advance. Undergrounding requirements may be permissible, as long as they do not effectively prohibit the use or materially inhibit wireless facilities. Minimum spacing requirements are also permissible. For example, local governments have required installations to be sited a certain distance away from other facilities to avoid excessive overhead clutter that would be visible from public areas. Chair Cheung asked about the typical range of a small cell facility. Ms. McConnell answered that she has heard anywhere from a block to '/4 mile, depending on the density and where the demands are. The macro cell facilities handle a large portion of the needs, but as technology advances, the demand will continue to increase, particularly in densely populated areas, and small cell facilities will be needed, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if it is possible that multiple carriers will want to locate a small cell facility on a single block. Ms. McConnell advised that would be possible unless the City establishes some spacing requirements. While the FCC's ruling requires the City to allow small cell facilities, it also gives it the opportunity to mitigate the impacts to a degree. Board Member Monroe observed that technological advancements have necessitated the need for the FCC's Order. As the carriers discover through experience, testing and development that certain system works, they go to the FCC for approval. Although the City has the ability to regulate aesthetics and location to some degree, it cannot prohibit the use. He said he anticipates additional FCC orders as technology and demand changes over time, and the City will be required to accommodate the new equipment. By requiring a permit, carriers must submit plans that address the City's aesthetic and location requirements. Vice Chair Robles cautioned that small cell facilities could also be used to enable new technology that the City may not want, such as autonomous vehicles. He also asked if the FCC has addressed potential health and safety hazards that might be associated with small cell facilities. He pointed out that the small cell facilities are located closer to the ground and in Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 2 densely populated areas, which may create health issues. He asked if the City has the ability to mitigate potential health hazards. He recalled that the City recently banned crumb rubber sports fields based on unsettled science. Ms. McConnell explained that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to regulate the health aspect of wireless facilities, but the FCC has regulations in place for their installation and all must comply. The City currently has provisions in the Wireless Communications Code that requires carriers to submit documentation to show that they have complied with the FCC regulations, as well. Her understanding is that while there may be more small cell facilities and they are closer to the ground, the frequency output is much less than that of the macro cell facilities. Vice Chair Robles noted that there are other alternatives such as fiberoptic and Wi-Fi, but they likely aren't as convenient for the carriers. He asked if there are feasibility studies to back up and support small cell technology. Again, Ms. McConnell reminded the Board that local jurisdictions do not have the ability to implement health regulations for wireless facilities. However, the City can require documentation from the carriers to ensure the FCC standards are adhered to. Board Member Rubenkonig asked what would encourage carriers to install the newer standalone poles or light standards. Ms. McConnell answered that staff s draft proposal would establish general citing criteria and a priority order for installation. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that it would be better for the regulations to call out the aesthetic requirements rather than focusing on specific products because technology will continue to change over time. She asked who would be responsible for removing old technology when it becomes obsolete and is no longer used. Ms. McConnell explained that if a wireless facility is attached to an existing structure, the required Master Use Agreement would address this issue. Ms. McConnell reviewed that the current Wireless Code (ECDC 20.50) provides general siting criteria that deals with wireless facilities, but not specifically small cell facilities. Currently the location of wireless facilities is encouraged in non- residential areas and monopoles are prohibited in residential and multi -family zones, the downtown waterfront activity center, the public and open space zones and within the rights -of -way. The current regulations also establish a priority order for locating wireless facilities. Staff is proposing additional provisions specifically related to small cell facilities given the anticipated need and demand. She reviewed the draft proposal, specifically noting the priority order for installation as follows: • Priority 1 — Locate outside of the rights -of -way within zoned property on an existing structure or a standalone pole or streetlight. With standalone poles and streetlights, the equipment and wires can be concealed inside the poles. If located on an existing building, the equipment could be camouflaged to be less obvious. As proposed, the facility must be located within 5 feet of a right-of-way so it lines up with the existing utility corridor. Board Member Monroe asked if the City could require that the connecting wires be placed underground. Ms. McConnell answered that if there are no overhead power lines, the City could require that the wires that serve the facility be placed underground through the Master Use Agreement. She provided examples of facilities located on existing structures, as well as facilities located on standalone poles and streetlights. Priority 2 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing streetlights or traffic signal lights or new standalone poles or streetlights. The first priority would be to locate on an existing structure, with the wires and equipment being concealed inside or on the top of the pole. The City has not done an assessment of its signal lights to determine if they can accommodate the wires and equipment associated with a wireless facility. The second option would be to locate on a new standalone pole or new streetlight. It may make more sense to install a streetlight that would serve a function beyond just a wireless facility. She provided examples of different installations within the rights -of -way on existing streetlights and traffic signal lights. She also provided examples of standalone poles and streetlights. She noted the Sternberg model of streetlight that is currently used in downtown Edmonds and suggested that should be the model used by carriers to be consistent with the existing character. • Priority 3 — Locate within the rights -of -way on existing wooden utility poles. The PUD has explained that if a wireless facility is installed on a single-phase pole, they can be located on top of the pole. However, they can only be located within the communications space on transmission poles. In both instances, the equipment and conduit would be placed on the outside of the pole. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 3 • Priority 4 — Allow strand -mounted facilities. The antennas would be installed on existing utility wires and not on the poles. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could require carriers to locate small cell facilities on existing streetlight poles rather than utility poles in the downtown. Ms. McConnell said that is the intent of the draft priorities. Board Member Monroe asked how the City would decide if a carrier can move from a higher priority to a lower priority. He specifically asked if cost would be a factor in the decision. Ms. McConnell acknowledged that Priority 1 would cost more than Priorities 2 and 3, but cost would not be a factor when deciding whether or not an applicant can meet the higher priority installation. Board Member Monroe asked what situation would warrant allowing a small cell facility to locate within the public right-of- way as opposed to private property. Ms. McConnell answered that there might not be a feasible space for a facility to locate on private property or a carrier may be unable to negotiate an agreement with a private property owner to locate a facility where it is needed. As per the proposed installation priorities, a carrier would have to document the steps taken to locate consistent with Priority 1 before being allowed to consider Priority 2 and 3 options. Board Member Rubenkonig asked about the process for allowing additional height beyond the 35-foot height limit in order for a small cell facility to be located on top of an existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said the draft code could establish a height limit, but by definition, small cell facilities must be located no higher than 50 feet and most of the existing power poles are between 45 and 50 feet in height. Board Member Monroe questioned why strand -mounted facilities would be considered less desirable than facilities mounted on existing utility poles. Ms. McConnell cautioned that the graphics were pulled from a number of jurisdictions to illustrate a variety of installation types. The size of the equipment and the angle at which the photographs were taken can make it difficult to compare the different types of installation. She suggested the Board should focus on the location of the equipment and where the conduit is placed rather than the size of the equipment since strand -mounted equipment is not necessarily smaller than pole -mounted equipment. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be helpful for staff to provide additional photographs to illustrate the differences and allow the Board to make a more informed recommendation. Ms. McConnell summarized that one carrier has attempted to make an application with the City for a small cell facility, but the application has not been accepted for review because the required Master Use Agreement is not yet in place and the City is working to iron out its regulations. Again, she advised that the FCC's regulations go into effect on January 141, and it is imperative for the City to get regulations in place to begin accepting applications no later than April 14'. She advised that staff would introduce the draft regulations to the full City Council on January 151. A public hearing and a proposal for an interim ordinance for small cell aesthetic regulations is scheduled to go before the City Council on February 5r''. The Board will continue its review, including refinements to the interim ordinance for the next few months and then hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. The intent is to have a public hearing before the City Council, followed by final adoption of a permanent ordinance by April 2"d. She emphasized that if the City does not adopt a permanent ordinance by the April 14t' deadline, it will have lost its opportunity to regulate small cell aesthetics and permits would be processed based on the current regulations only. Ms. McConnell advised that when the proposed regulations were presented to the City Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee, the Council President indicated support for the installation priorities and criteria that are intended to make small cell facilities as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Again, she reminded the Board that the City does not have the choice about whether to allow small cell facilities or not. Staff if doing its best to understand the FCC's standards and come up with regulations for Edmonds. She invited the Board to provide feedback and suggestions as the process continues. Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed installation priorities but felt the City would have difficulty getting the carriers to install new poles because it will be less costly to use existing infrastructure. He also expressed his belief that the City would be remiss if the draft regulations do not address view impacts, as well. Putting up new streetlights to accommodate small cell facilities will provide an added benefit to the community, but it may be cost prohibitive and difficult to obtain. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 4 Vice Chair Robles commended staff for taking on the issue. The City has been backed into a corner, and staff has had to come up with regulations that balance a variety of priorities. He suggested they also consider the following: • What happens if someone hits a pole that has a small cell facility located on it? Would the liability be externalized on the public? Will the driver's insurance be required to pay for the pole to be replaced and for the loss of service? • If the City were to establish its own Wi-fi network, would the carriers view this as sabotaging their business? • Can the presence of a small cell facility on a public structure delay the undergrounding of wires? • Is there a plan to put the wires underground whenever possible? • Who would pay for the streetlight poles and installation, the City or the carrier? • Who would be responsible for removing derelict antennas that are no longer being used, and how would the City identify equipment that needs to be removed? • What is the public recourse relative to the noise and potential nuisance associated with a small cell facility? • Can a citizen mount a small cell facility on his/her own home as a revenue source? Board Member Lovell asked how many different carriers might be interested in locating small cell facilities in Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered that there at least 3 or 4 carriers that could come to Edmonds, but there may be more. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Board went through a similar process several years ago when updating the current Wireless Communications Code. As discussed at that time, there is not a lot the City can do to regulate the use. It is a private industry that is licensed by the Federal Government to provide a service that is paid for by the public. The public has created a demand for the service, and the public may not be happy if the City chooses to oppose or be unreasonable about the carriers' ability to install the equipment needed. The proposed priorities force carriers to utilize existing infrastructure whenever possible, and that is about the best the City can do. Chair Cheung agreed with Board Member Monroe that the regulations should make it clear that views should not be obstructed, and the proposed regulations should find ways to minimize the visual impacts. He suggested that the public will likely be concerned about health impacts, as well. While the regulations cannot stop small cell facilities from being located in the City, it would be helpful to provide available studies and/or data to help alleviate some of the public's concerns related to health. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung announced that the January 23Cd agenda will include a presentation on a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change for the Meadowdale Marine Area from Mixed Use Commercial to Open Space and a zoning change for the marine tidelands from RSW-12 to Marine Resource (ECDC 16.70). The agenda will also include a continued discussion on the wireless ordinance for small cell standards. When the Board continues its discussion related to small cell standards, Board Member Lovell asked that staff provide additional examples of the types of installations that might be located in Edmonds. In addition to the items listed on the Board's extended agenda, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board consider the following topics: • An annual report from the Public Works Department relative to the Transportation Improvement Plan. • A quarterly report from the Planning Division. • Reports from other City Departments. For example, the community has expressed an interest in what is taking place at the Police Department. • Items discussed at the Board's retreat that need to be added to the agenda. • Special presentations from invited guests related to specific topics. • A report from the Planning Division regarding the built environment (i.e. how many projects and project descriptions). • The impact of recent zoning changes along Highway 99. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 5 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung reminded the Board of a recent discussion with the City Attorney where he advised that Board Members can only be excused from meetings for illness, work, and vacations of more than two weeks. Three consecutive unexcused absences will result in automatic removal from the Board. Chair Cheung recalled that, at their retreat, the Board also discussed a desire to find a student representation. He asked staff to start the notice process for applications. Chair Cheung said he discussed with Mr. Chave the idea of having a training session on planning, including planning terminology and planning procedures. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would also be helpful to have a discussion about regulating development in the City. Most of the Board Members do not have a lot of experience on this topic, yet they deal with it frequently. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell advised that he would attend the Economic Development Commission meeting on January 16t1i. He said he also plans to attend the Housing Strategy Open House on January 10' from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at Swedish Edmonds Hospital. He urged other Board Members to attend, as well. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Planning Board Minutes January 9, 2019 Page 6