Loading...
2019-02-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 13, 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 — 51 Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles, Vice Chair (excused) Mike Rosen (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, LLC, a consulting group for AT&T, said he was present to comment on the proposed small cell updates to the wireless ordinance. He said AT&T would like to express its support for the City's efforts in updating its code and restate its commitment to work with City staff to establish workable policies for all carriers and providers. However, AT&T has significant concerns with the current draft of the wireless code update, which was passed by the City Council on February 121 as an emergency ordinance. Specifically, he identified the following: The current seven -step preference hierarchy requires that carriers locate small cells on private property. Before being allowed to locate on public right-of-way, carriers must demonstrate that it is not possible to go on private property. This requirement is more complex than other jurisdictions require and out of line with any other jurisdiction in Washington State. It would result in more clutter to the street corridor. Requiring that carriers go on private property instead of using a utility pole that could be five or six feet in the right-of-way would encourage carriers to put up poles specifically for small wireless facilities. • The draft code may conflict with the recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order. Because of the shot -clock deadlines and increased complexity, it may not be possible to complete the review within the 60-day time period set out by the FCC. It may also enforce burdens not applied to other types of infrastructure deployments such as cable. Mr. Busch summarized that AT&T urges the City to continue working with the industry to develop workable policies. He advised that a phone meeting has been set up for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. to go over the issues with staff. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, supported the comments made by Mr. Bush. She explained that wireless data usage has increased 40-fold since 2010, and the way people use wireless data is changing. Cell phones have become the remote controls of our lives, and the things that are connected to the data network are proliferating. More and more of our lives are becoming connected through technology via wireless data, and that is why it is critical that Edmonds has a workable code and a path forward for this technology. Verizon Wireless is grateful for the engagement that staff has had with the industry to date, but they are concerned because the interim code that was passed on February 121 is inconsistent with Federal Law and it does not provide carriers with a workable path forward for small cell wireless facilities. Verizon Wireless submitted a comment letter that was drafted by Kim Allen of the Wireless Policy Group, and they are looking forward to the meeting with staff tomorrow when they will have a detailed redline prepared to review their concerns line -by-line. She said she is a wireless network professional and a subject matter expert and would be happy to answer the Board's technical questions. She understands the topic is highly technical, and knowledge is required to determine what truly will inhibit the deployment of a technology. She summarized that Verizon's primary concerns have to do with the siting hierarchy, as well as inconsistencies with the most recent FCC order. She said they look forward to continued work with the staff to create a code that is workable for the wireless industry but maintains the character and integrity of the City's values. 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. DISCUSSION OF SMALL CELL UPDATES TO WIRELESS ORDINANCE Mr. Clugston provided a map of the current wireless facilities in the City, including those on private property and within the rights -of -way. Currently there are 24 macro sites, and most are on private property. The City expects there will be dozens more macro sites over time. With multiple carriers and the level of deployment required for small cell technology, there could be 100s of small cell sites in the future, as well. He pointed out that the majority of the small cell sites will be located in residential areas, and that is why staff feels the requirements need to be different. Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed updates are on a short timeline, as local jurisdictions must have aesthetic rules in place by April 14, 2019. The City Council adopted an interim ordinance on February 121 as a starting point, recognizing that refinements would need to be made. The interim ordinance included a seven -step preference hierarchy related to location. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for February 27', and the Board could continue its public hearing and discussion to the next meeting before making a recommendation to the City Council. However, the timeline is tight. Mr. Clugston explained that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) came out with an order last October that outlined the ability for local jurisdictions to regulate small cell wireless facilities. Specifically, local requirements must be reasonable, no more burdensome, objective and published in advance. The proposed changes outlined in Attachments 1 and 2 of the Staff Report include aesthetic standards, a master permit requirement for being in the right-of-way, and application requirements. 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 that it could be concealed, painted to match, etc. By comparison, macro facilities tend to be larger. Ms. McConnell reviewed the proposed location preference hierarchy, noting that a lot of consideration was given to what currently exists within the right-of-way and what's the best use of the right-of-way now and moving forward. There are already a lot of City facilities within the right-of-way, and they are crowded. Staff believes it is important to keep the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 2 remaining space available for City and public uses. While the proposed hierarchy does not exclude small cell facilities from being located in the right-of-way, it requires that providers first look at locations on private property. The interim ordinance establishes criteria that walks applicants through the process of reviewing, assessing and documenting how the proposal steps down through the hierarchy. She reviewed the proposed hierarchy as follows: • Priority 1 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure. The structures could be either commercial or single-family residential homes. Deployment of small cell facilities will be through residential neighborhoods where they are needed to transfer data and densify the demands for cellular service. • Priority 2 — Locate outside of the public right-of-way on a freestanding small cell pole. If the industry is unable to secure space by working with a private property owner, a freestanding small cell pole could be located on private property within five feet of the right-of-way line. It would be kept out of the right-of-way, but still look as though it is part of the utility corridor. This will require the carriers to work with private property owners prior to submitting an application. Board Member Monroe said he is confused about how an applicant would move through the hierarchy process. He asked if there would be a cost component associated with the application. He also asked how the City would determine whether or not a carrier has done its best to work with a private property owner. Ms. McConnell referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.50.070(H), which outlines the application process. She explained that an applicant would have to exhaust all efforts to locate on private property before being allowed to go to a lower priority of locating on public right-of-way. Chair Cheung summarized that, as currently proposed, it appears that in order to locate a small cell facility within the right- of-way, a carrier would have to obtain statements from all property owners in the area stating they will not let them locate on their property. Ms. McConnell clarified that the industry will identify areas where small cell facilities are needed to accommodate customer demand. The City is asking carriers to contact the property owner in that specific location to see if it is possible to locate on the private property. If they say no, the carrier would need to contact adjacent property owners within 150 feet in all directions. • Priority 3 — Locate within the public right-of-way on an existing street light pole or utility pole. An applicant would have to go through the established criteria and exhaust all efforts of locating on private property (Priorities 1 and 2) before moving to Priority 3. If it is not possible for an existing pole to accommodate a small cell facility, the pole could be replaced with a new freestanding cell pole or streetlight. This option would allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • 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 a street light is necessary or beneficial to the public at the location, they would ask for installation of a streetlight versus a freestanding pole. This option would also allow for complete concealment of wires, equipment and antennas. • 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 the pole. It would look like an extension of the pole versus something hanging off the side. Equipment 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. Currently, the utility wires section of the Code (ECDC 18.05) is being updated with similar provisions. • 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 antennas would be located on the side of the pole within the communication space. Equipment and conduit would be external on the pole. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 3 • Priority 7 — Locate within the public right-of-way on a strand -mounted installation in communication space. These facilities would actually hang on existing utility wires. As written, antennas can be hung on the wire, but equipment must be on poles. 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. Ms. McConnell showed a number of pictures to illustrate the clutter that is already on many of the utility poles, emphasizing that the hierarchy is intended to limit additional attachments to the existing wooden poles. She referred to the Sternberg model lighting that is currently located in the downtown core, and noted that there is a Sternberg streetlight model that would allow for containment of small cell facilities. Staff will look into this option further and contact the supplier for more information. As proposed, installations in downtown Edmonds that are not on buildings would need to be on a Sternberg type of light. To maintain the current look and feel, freestanding poles would not be allowed within the downtown core. Ms. McConnell shared pictures to illustrate the different types of installations that are possible including externally mounted antennas on existing wooden poles and streetlights. Again, she noted the extensive amount of conduit and looped wires on many of the installations and advised that the City would not allow external conduit on streetlight installations. She summarized that the code needs to be updated across the board to clean up all utilities in the City, and not just small cell facilities. Requirements will include limiting the amount of conduit, color matching, etc. Mr. Clugston said that, in addition to the location criteria, other proposed amendments are related to eligible facilities requests, permit timelines, and existing macro/monopoles. 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 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 batching 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 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. The City has not received a request for a new macro facility for at least 15 years, and the proposed changes are fairly straightforward. It would eliminate the exceptions for height and setbacks and require that monopoles must meet zoning 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. Mr. Clugston summarized that staff has done its best to prepare the draft code language, recognizing the FCC's requirements yet still trying to make the code specific to Edmonds. He invited the Board Members to ask questions of either staff or the industry representatives who were present in the audience. Board Member Crank said that as she listened to last night's presentation to the City Council, as well as the staffs presentation, she has heard a lot about aesthetics, but not a lot about durability. As she thinks of the areas in Edmonds that often lose power, there might be a disconnect in the sense of making sure that people in those areas are able to use wireless data in instances of emergency. While she supports the aesthetic provisions that will result in clean lines, they may not necessarily fit in wooded, treed areas where there are a lot of private properties. There might not be appropriate locations on Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 4 private property for small cell facilities to locate, yet they are needed in order to provide wireless data to folks in the area. Ms. McConnell referred to the application requirements in ECDC 20.50.070(H) and explained that when looking at installations outside of the right-of-way, there are provisions written into the code where the carrier could provide an engineering and technical analysis to demonstrate that it is not feasible to locate outside of the right-of-way for these reasons. The applicant would have to submit the analysis as part of their application, and it would allow them to move down the hierarchy list and locate in an area that would be feasible for the type of technology being installed. Board Member Crank asked if this requirement would be considered extraordinary in comparison to other communities. Ms. McConnell answered that there is similar language throughout other jurisdictions, as well. Board Member Crank referred to the industry's comments about the location hierarchy and asked if the concerns are related to the levels, themselves, or the order they are in. Lelah Vaga, Network Engineer, Verizon Wireless, responded that the hierarchy has accurately outlined the kinds of small cell facilities that exist. Their challenge to the hierarchy is that it prioritizes those that are least likely to be feasible, the most onerous to deploy, and least likely to be technically affordable. She explained that small cell facilities are typically deployed in groups of 10 to 20 at a time. Their range is a few hundred to a few thousand feet, and they are designed such that when the range drops off from one, the signal is picked up by another. They add an underlayer to the macro site network to add capacity without creating interference. To site a small cell facility on a building requires that they bring in new utility services for power and fiber and put nodes on the faces of the buildings. Ms. Vaga explained that, often with small cells, they try to provide ground level or home level capacity in groupings, and bringing in utilities and working with a landlord often pushes it right out of the area where it is cost effective to do that short of a range. The FCC's presumed reasonable attachment rate is $270 a pole, and they have master lease agreements with major pole owners in the area, including Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County PUD, and generally, small cell facilities are deployed by leasing these in groups. They also deploy them where there is already power and fiber (in the right- of-way) so they can avoid unnecessary trenching on private properties. Sometimes buildings will work, but often they won't. She is much more concerned about the requirement to site on private property next to the right-of-way and the requirement to provide documentation that the private property owners have denied their request. That means instead of working with one utility pole owner with set standards, they must work with individual property owners or provide proof that they are unwilling to work with them. The requirement makes the project much more complicated and is inconsistent with what is required in surrounding communities. It's also inconsistent with the FCC's requirements and onerous to a point where it would slow the deployment of the technology into the community of Edmonds. Generally, they work with existing infrastructure. When there are aboveground utilities, they typically site on the poles because that is where the power and fiber is. When locating in the right-of-way, there is an opportunity to point the antennas such that they serve the surrounding community more effectively than tucking them in on private properties and being held to the linear faces of buildings. Ms. Vaga said strand mounts are their most effective solution for a lot of areas, and they are the smallest compact box. Many communities are prioritizing this option. There is a challenge when siting standalone facilities in areas with overhead powerlines. If they are in the right-of-way, they interfere with the lines. If they are on private property, they have to bring the utilities to the private property, which usually disrupts the right-of-way, too. Verizon's strong preference is to work with existing infrastructure. She pointed out that having a preference first for new infrastructure as opposed to going on existing utility poles means that where they are successfully able to site them, you will see a lot more poles in and around the right-of- way and a lot more stuff that is 20 to 30 feet high. This is unnecessary, as they could use the existing infrastructure without needing to put more poles in the ground. Board Member Lovell said he read the proceedings from last night's City Council meeting. Only five members were present and the vote was 3-2 in favor of the interim ordinance. He asked staff to explain why the emergency interim ordinance was needed. Mr. Clugston said it turned out not to be an emergency ordinance because there were not enough Council Members present to vote. It will be adopted after five days. The main intent of the ordinance was to get something on the books and to have a starting point for continued discussion. Board Member Lovell asked if the application process is a new requirement in the code. Mr. Clugston said the application process was already in place for macro facilities, but the application process for small cell facilities would be a little different. The order of preferences is also different. He reviewed ECDC 20.50.050, which outlines the City's preferences for macro installations over the past 10 to 12 years. He said that, generally, these same preferences would hold for small cell facilities. Nearly all of the macro facilities in the City are building mounted, and the first priority for small cell facilities would be Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 5 building mounted, as well. This priority is particularly desirable in view areas such as the bowl. With the updates to the utility code in ECDC 18.05, the intent is to get utility lines underground. However, antennas for wireless need to be above ground. The intent is to balance these two needs. If it is technically unfeasible to locate on an existing structure or the landlord won't allow it, they can move to another lower priority option. Board Member Lovell asked if the requirement for a master permit is new. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. The provision already exists for other utilities within the right away via a franchise agreement, and the new provision would be specific to small cell installations. Based on the City Council's discussion, Board Member Lovell summarized that certain members of the City Council were rather upset by the fact that the City couldn't charge the utilities for putting stuff in public right-of-way and they wanted to put the small cell facilities on private properties instead. On the other hand, the utilities do not want to locate on private property because it is too expensive or there is no fiber available. They would rather locate on existing poles and infrastructure. From a practical standpoint, he suggested the City should be as strict as possible relative to the waterfront and downtown areas and less restrictive up in the residential areas and let the utilities use what works, provided it is reasonable. In reality, they are dealing with a network that the public relies on, and people do not really understand the technology. All they care about is that they get service. There seems to be a built-in conflict. He predicted that it will not be too far in the future when the City declares the downtown as a historic district, and this will make it even more difficult for any utility infrastructure to locate. There is a very strong desire to preserve the historic nature of the downtown. He expects the carriers will come back to the City with plans for locating on existing structures and poles in the right-of-way because that is where small cell facilities will work the best. Mr. Clugston agreed that is a possibility and acknowledged that locating on existing poles and structures in the right-of-way would be the easiest option for the carriers. However, he is not sure the City should allow the option quite that easily. He commented that the City anticipates redevelopment along Highway 99 that will include new, taller buildings. He questioned if they want small cell facilities located within the right-of-way along Highway 99 or if they would rather have them located on the sides of five or six -story buildings. In the downtown, they would like to see them on buildings. It becomes more of a challenge in the residential areas because there are fewer tall structures to locate on. Mr. Clugston explained that the City is not allowed to charge utilities to use the right-of-way, and there is nothing the City can do to change that situation. The question becomes, if it goes into a residential area, can the mass of units be sited in such a way to reduce the amount of impact on the right-of-way. The intent is to bury utility lines wherever possible. Perhaps in 20 years there will be fewer PUD poles with lines running off them and more freestanding poles every few hundred feet that are camouflaged. He concluded that there is no right answer, but he suggested they try the proposed siting hierarchy. If locating on private property is found to be unfeasible, the right-of-way would still be an option. Chair Cheung asked for clarification about the process an applicant would use to work with private property owners. Mr. Clugston said a lot of work still needs to be done, but the intent is to provide a letter that carriers could use when reaching out to private property owners. He is not sure exactly how the negotiations would work, and there might be some way to provide incentives to private property owners. Chair Cheung expressed his belief that the process seems complicated and could require a carrier to negotiate with dozens of property owners in one area. Some property owners might be opposed to allowing wireless facilities to locate on their homes, yet a neighbor could negotiate to have multiple facilities on top of their house because they want the money. Chair Cheung said that if a carrier can offer whatever compensation they want to a private property owner, it would seem like the providers would offer as low amount as possible, anticipating that everyone would reject the option and they will be allowed to locate in the right-of-way. He expressed his belief that it would be difficult for the City to oversee the bargaining process between a provider and a homeowner. Chair Cheung asked if multiple carriers could locate on the same pole or if their signals would interfere with each other. Rather than having separate locations for each carrier, it would be nice to have them all located on the same infrastructure. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the PUD will only allow one carrier to locate on a utility pole. Ms. Vaga explained that there are certain restrictions related to co -locating on a utility pole in terms of clearance for the different lines. The pole must also remain climbable. In addition, Verizon's target height for small cell installations is between 20 and 40 Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 6 feet, and pushing higher risks interference with the macro site network. As you push higher on the utility poles, you move out of the range where small cell facilities are most effective. Also, because of the different frequencies and equipment that the carriers utilize, the range of area that each small cell node covers varies. This makes it difficult to have a standard protocol for co -location. Verizon is happy to co -locate where it is feasible, but with small cell facilities, they don't find it feasible very often. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands all of the other issues being discussed, but she came to the meeting thinking the Board was limited to just discussing the design aesthetics of wireless facilities. The specific provision relative to the Sternberg model of streetlight for the downtown is a design aesthetic, as is the requirement that future monopoles must conceal the equipment. However, the provisions relative to siting and the location of the antenna and equipment on a pole are more technical than aesthetic. She commented that the City Attorney is very clear as to what influence the City can and can't have, and the documents he provided prior to the meeting indicate that the FCC requirements trump the City requirements in terms of providing the service to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the Board has not been informed about the position of the City Attorney as to what the Planning Board can and cannot do. While some issues might need attention, they might be outside of the Board's purview to discuss. Mr. Clugston said aesthetics are addressed in ECDC 20.50.130 and includes two parts: location and the actual visual appearance of the facilities. It provides different aesthetic criteria depending on the location of the installation. For example, small cell facilities located outside of the right-of-way within zoned property on an existing structure (Priority 1) can be built to the maximum height of the underlying zone or use the height exception in Subsection C, provided they are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and materials. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that she served previously on the Architectural Design Board at a time when the term "aesthetic" was like firecrackers going off throughout the City and State. Yet, she is not sure the term has ever been carefully defined. She asked if the City Attorney has deemed the proposed changes to fall into the category of aesthetics the City can regulate based on the FCC order. Mr. Clugston said staff worked close with the City Attorney to prepare the draft interim and draft ordinances, including the aesthetic components called out in ECDC 20.50.130. There are also amendments related to permitting and timelines, but the bulk of the changes are deemed aesthetics (location and appearance). Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the FCC has already decided that local jurisdictions must allow small cell facilities to locate, and the Board should keep their discussion focused strictly on the aesthetic components that the City has some control over. Small cell facilities are necessary in order to expand the network and provide the service the community desires and needs. Board Member Monroe referred to the diagram provided in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 70), which shows electrical and small cell fiber both connected at the base of the pole. He asked if it is really practical to trench fiber and electrical underground through the right-of-way, or will they likely take it off the existing utility pole. Ms. McConnell said it all depends on where the fiber and power are located for the specific pole they need to attach to. Franchise agreements require that new fiber runs must be installed underground. They may attach to an existing pole, but the fiber may be underground in that location. In that case, they would come from the bottom with fiber. There may be overhead power on that same pole, so the power may be pulled from top down. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would allow aerial power and/or fiber when new facilities are connected to poles. Ms. McConnell answered that the fiber for new locations it is not installed by the industry providers and must always come from underground. Board Member Monroe observed that the additional equipment that would be added would be minimal given that all conduit must come from underground. Ms. McConnell pointed out that conduit would still run outside the pole, and antennas would be placed on the poles. The infrastructure attached to an existing wooden pole would be more intrusive compared to a hallow streetlight or freestanding pole where everything is concealed on the inside. Board Member Monroe cautioned that the camouflage that is used to help conduit blend in can often end up looking worse over time than the conduit, itself. He asked if the code addresses this issue. Ms. McConnell said the PUD requires an offset so that the pole can still be climbed. In addition, the City's code requires offsets depending on the type of pole the facility is attaching to. She referred to Item 2 in ECDC 20.50.130 (Packet Page 69), which states that equipment shall not be mounted more than 6 inches from the surface of the pole. Item 3 limits the number of conduits allowed on a pole to just two, and the Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 7 PUD's limitation is no more than six. Board Member Monroe asked who would be responsible if a conduit deteriorates and needs to be fixed. Ms. McConnell answered that the owner of that specific equipment would be responsible. She said the goal of the proposed update is to minimize the visual impact as much as possible. . McConnell referred to the earlier concern about the dollar amount that a carrier must offer to private property owners in exchange for locating on his/her property. ECDC 20.50.130(C)(1)(b) on Packet Page 72 requires the provider to offer the FCC -approved rental amount of $270 per year or an amount equal to the per -pole annual fee charged by the PUD, whichever is greater. This section also outlines the steps a carrier would need to take before small cell facilities would be allowed to locate within the right-of-way, and the City's intent is to prepare a standardized offer letter, as well. She acknowledged that the hierarchy approach may require more work and other jurisdictions may not have the same requirements, but staff believes it is right for Edmonds. Board Member Crank asked what happens if someone changes their mind or a property is sold and the new owner no longer wants the wireless facility on their property. Is the offer letter a contract that is binding for a certain amount of time? Ms. McConnell said that is something that still needs to be addressed. Board Member Lovell asked if the City has received any public comments regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Clugston answered that there have been no public comments except those provided by representatives of the wireless industry. However, he anticipates more public input as the proposal moves forward to public hearings. Mr. Clugston advised that a public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for February 27', followed by further discussion by the Board and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision. Chair Cheung summarized that the City's only ability is to direct the aesthetics, and the question is whether all of the proposed changes fall within the City's authority. This is an important consideration in order to avoid legal issues that might result if the requirements are determined to impede a carrier's ability to provide service via small cell facilities. While the City Attorney has indicated that all of the proposed changes fall within the City's purview, he would like more time to digest them and consider their potential impacts. Mr. Clugston suggested that the Board invite the City Attorney to attend the public hearing and provide his take on the proposed ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance is still in flux as staff continues to work with the industry representatives over the next few weeks. Staff is also working to address some of the administrative issues. Board Member Crank said she would like more guidance on the specific amendments that will be presented at the public hearing. She questioned if it is reasonable for the Board to just focus on aesthetics at the public hearing when there will be citizens who want to talk about things that are outside of the Board's purview. Mr. Clugston summarized that the interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council and the provisions in Attachment 1 are considered aesthetic regulations that apply to small cell facilities. He agreed that some people may be concerned about the health impacts of wireless facilities. While staff can check to make sure an applicant has met all of the FCC's requirements, the City does not have the ability to further regulate health impacts. At the request of Board Member Rubenkonig, Mr. Clugston walked the Commission through the small cell code revisions that are contained in Attachment 1 starting on Packet Page 63. First, he referred to ECDC 20.50.130(A), which outlines the permitted locations for small cell facilities. As proposed, small cell attachments to buildings would be permitted in any zone and would not be subject to the dispersion requirement. The dispersion requirement would prohibit small cell wireless facilities from being located within 300 lineal feet of each other as measured along the right-of-way line. For example, a single landowner could not locate multiple freestanding poles next to each other. The dispersion requirement would apply to locations on PUD poles, as well. Lastly, installations in the Downtown Business District would be limited to building attachments or through the replacement or new installation of a Sternberg streetlight. Staff still needs to talk with the streetlight manufacturer to find a design that works with wireless. Next, Mr. Clugston reviewed ECDC 20.50.130(B), which outlines the proposed location hierarchy that was described in detail by Ms. McConnell earlier in the presentation. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 8 Location Preference LA is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the roof of an existing building, and design criteria for roof -mounted installations are provided to ensure they are screened consistent with the existing building and completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. A height exception of 3 feet above the maximum height of the underlying zone is provided, as well. This height exception parallels the height exception currently allowed for chimneys. The maximum footprint of the horizontal section would be limited to 12 square feet. The total area would be 36 feet, which is sufficient to contain the antennas and equipment as per the FCC's information. Location Preference LB is to locate outside of the right-of-way on the fagade of an existing building. Criteria is provided for fagade-mounted installations to ensure that they blend with the architectural theme. New architectural features should be added to conceal the antennas. If that is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. All other equipment would have to be located within the building, screened by an existing parapet or completely concealed and well -integrated to look like common rooftop elements. Antennas can be located on buildings that are nonconforming for height, provided they are constructed to be no taller than the adjacent fagade or an existing parapet. Location Preference 2 is to locate on a freestanding pole on private property very near the right-of-way. A graphic was provided to illustrate what that could look like. Height would be limited to 30 feet, and the maximum height in residential zones is currently 25 feet. The provision provides size requirements for the pole, the cantenna and equipment cabinet, as well as appearance criteria that requires that the same pole be used along adjacent blocks and that equipment must be housed internal to the cabinet or hidden in the cantenna. All connections and hardware must be hidden from view, and no equipment can be attached to the outside of the pole. The pole may also provide space for co -location, which may be more of an option than with the PUD pole. The pole must be served by underground power and fiber. Placement requirements are also outlined in this section. The intent is to keep them on private property, but near to the street and side property lines. The poles must be located so they do not impede, obstruct or hinder the usual pedestrian or vehicular traffic or affect public safety, and they must be within 5 feet of the street or side property line. They would not be allowed in the Downtown Business District or on the front of a structure that is deemed "historic" on a federal, state or local level. Property sight lines must not be impacted and the poles must align with existing trees, utility poles and streetlights. No two freestanding poles can be located within 300 lineal feet of each other. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed size restrictions are consistent with the industry standard. Mr. Clugston answered that they were taken from codes in other jurisdictions and appear to work. However, they may need to be adjusted after staff meets with the industry representatives. Board Member Lovell asked if the carriers would have to have their equipment custom made to meet the City's particular size criteria. Mr. Clugston agreed that is likely. Rather than reviewing the details of the other location preferences again, Ms. McConnell explained that the criteria is all very similar. Concealment is desired where possible. Given the type of infrastructure that the small cell is located on, if it cannot be concealed within a pole color matching or camouflaging would be required. In addition, the number of conduits would be limited and there would be specific criteria for equipment placement. Board Member Lovell asked if there are currently any installations on hollow light poles or utility poles within the City's right-of-way or freestanding small cell poles on private property. Ms. McConnell answered that neither of these installations (diagrams on Packet Pages 64 and 65) exist in the City currently. Board Member Lovell noted that, as proposed, these two options are preferred, which means that the providers would have to have the poles fabricated in order to install the equipment shown in the diagrams. Ms. McConnell agreed but reminded the Board that staff will be meeting with industry representatives, and some of the dimensional requirements may change. 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. Ms. McConnell said staff intends to continue to work with the industry representatives to come up with a code that works for Edmonds on the whole, but allows for small cell installations as dictated through the FCC order. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 9 REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung announced that a public hearing on the Wireless Ordinance for Small Cell Standards is scheduled for February 27'The March 13t1i agenda includes a presentation of the City's Sustainability Initiatives and a Parks and Recreation Quarterly Report. The Board's retreat is scheduled for March 27'. The Board discussed the possibility of moving one of the March 13' agenda items to another meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no comments from Board Members. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2019 Page 10