HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2020 Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 2020
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. via Zoom due to Governor
Inslee’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” initiative due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and City
Ordinance No. 5533 which establishes the official meeting place, as virtual.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Commissioners present: Chair Judi Roland, Vice-Chair Lee, Commissioner Mason,
Commissioner Moutzouris, Commissioner Khanal and Commissioner Stephens.
Staff present: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager; Ingrid Gaub, Public Works
Director; Kendra Comeau, City Attorney; Doug Ruth, Assistant City Attorney; James
Webb, Senior Traffic Engineer; Dustin Lawrence, Senior Planner; Thaniel Gouk, Senior
Planner; Anthony Avery, Senior Planner; Jenn Oliver, Administrative Assistant.
Members of the public present: Virginia Smith; Calvin Smith; Bob Sanders; Greg
Gratias; Alison Moss-Schwabe; Alvin Prakash; Blake Gesik; David Troyer; Doug Bing;
Greg Heath; Jacob Schneider; Jeff Grose; Kim Allen; Meridee Pabst; Peter Fackenthall;
Rick Hathaway; Hans Thygeson
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 20, 2020 – Special Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to approve the minutes
from the October 20, 2020 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0
B. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CPA20-0003 2020 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment – Academy
Special Planning Area Policies. Planning Commission to conduct public
hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2020 Privately-Initiated
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text Amendments).
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on CPA20-0003 Comp Plan Text
Amendment at 7:21 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Private Initiated Comprehensive Plan policy/Text Amendments (CPA20-0003)
The Auburn Adventist Academy is making multiple updates to their Adopted Special
Area plan document to better address their current needs and long-term direction of
their campus. Some changes to maps as part of the special area plan cannot be
ruled out, and may be needed. A number of documents are provided to complete
and evaluate the application and are presented into the record. The staff report
(Exhibit 1) references these documents in Finding of Fact and analysis of the
application. A map was provided by Staff to the Commission to show the proposed
location. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Land Use Policy LU-135 and to
the Academy Special Planning Area policies A.1.2 and A.1.8.
nd
The site abuts Auburn Way South, between 32 Street SE & Academy Drive SE.
While the Academy occupies multiple parcels within this area, the proposed text
amendment is primarily associated with King County Parcel Numbers 2721059117,
2721059090, 2721059055, 2721059086, and 2721059079.
Representatives spoke to the Commission on behalf of The Academy explaining the
growth and development of the Academy. The purpose of the amendments is to
clarify that multi-family uses providing long-term revenue to the Western Conference
of the Seventh Day Adventists supporting its educational mission. This will allow for
the Academy to increase its enrollment and expand programs that are offered. While
the Comprehensive plan amendments are limited to policy changes and do not
represent a specific development proposal, it lays the basis for the future proposal of
396 Multifamily units and 224 senior housing and memory care units to be developed
in phases.
The Commission mentioned reading about the school’s hope to provide career and
technical training to students once the facilities are built. The Commission asked if
this was still the case. Principal Peter Fackenthall from the Academy confirmed that
there is every intention on establishing programs such as a Certified Nursing
Assistant Program (CNA) for students that would work with the future nursing home
facility.
The Commission inquired about the 396 residential units and asked for clarification
on whether is was multi-family or single family residential. The developer confirmed it
is a planned community that will be built in phases and that is designed for work
force development for the students and will be attached housing in the initial phase.
Staff reiterated to the Commission that as permits come in, in the future, additional
traffic studies and environmental reviews with additional public notice will take place.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 7:47 PM.
With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Moutzouris moved and Vice Chair Lee seconded to recommend
Comp Plan Text Amendment CPA20-0003 be moved forward to City Council for
approval.
Approved 6-0
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
CPA20-0002 & REZ20-0002, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
& Rezone – Westport Capital Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment &
Rezone. Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and recommend to City
Council approval of the Westport Capital Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Rezone (zoning map amendment), with conditions.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on Comp Plan Map Amendment CPA20-
0002 and rezone REZ20-0002 at 7:48 p.m.
Private-Initiated Map Amendments:
CPA20-0002: Request by Westport Capital Investments to change the designation of
King County Parcel numbers 0004200024, 0004200022, and 0004200003 totaling
approximately 32.4 acres and located approximately 650 feet east of the intersection
of I Street and 40th Street NE, from "Single Family Residential" to "Multiple-Family
Residential" and an associated rezone from “R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per
acre” to “R-16, Residential”. The requested changes are not directly related to a
project, however, if approved it would allow any use permitted in the R-16
Residential zone. This includes uses such as apartments, assisted living facilities,
mixed-use buildings, and single family houses.
The Commission inquired if this property is owned by one person. Staff confirmed
that it was all owned by Westport Capital Investments. The Planning Commission
asked with all 6 different parcels, would development extend into each parcel. Staff
responded that there are different options to develop that could come in, in the
future. The future development would not rely on existing internal boundaries of the
6 parcels. Staff brought the parcel viewer on the King County Website up on the
th
screen for everyone to view. I ST and 40 ST NE will connect through.
David Troyer, who represents that applicant Westport Capital Investments,
addressed the Commission with information. He explained, the applicant’s approach
was to get consistency with the zoning and to change it from R-7 Residential to R-16
Residential. One of the challenges to this development is road connections and
compatibility to the north with the subdivision of Monterey Park. There are three
areas where Monterey Park is expected to have transportation connections into this
site. Mr. Troyer pointed out all three locations on the map to the Commission for
clarity. There ultimate goal was to think ahead and plan ahead on what would be
developed there someday with traffic impact in mind.
Jacob Schneider, member of the public and resident of Monterey Park addressed
Staff and the Commission. He inquired on the status of the traffic impacts due to the
changes and the I Street extension. Senior Traffic Engineer James Webb responded
that the preliminary study in support of the rezone assumed some connection to that
neighborhood, and that it would add some traffic to those streets that would come
ndth
out at 42 but the intent was that the 40 street connection would be the primary
connection to the development. Although minor, some traffic would proceed through
the neighborhood, but that would be addressed through the layout of the new
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
development and how those connections are provided. Given the size of the existing
Monterey Park Development, and the amount of development that would be allowed
to occur on these parcels, there is a need to provide a full public street connection
between the two rather than just an emergency street access that would be gated.
Staff received two comments ahead of the public hearing. Those comments were
provided to the Commissioners in their packets and labeled as exhibits. Staff
discussed the comments that concerned the River Mobile Home Park which is south
of the vacant Auburn School District property concerned about floodplain impacts
and mitigation. The new FEMA maps were updated which change the areas and the
response from Staff was to reiterate to the concerned citizen that City, State, and
Federal Government has strict guidelines in place that would need to be observed
with any future development. Another citizen comment was regarding wetlands and
additional traffic concerns in the area with future development of the site. Staff
confirmed that there were wetlands on-site that had been identified in a wetland
reconnaissance the applicant had done. Staff responded that any development in the
future would be subject to local and state standards relating to wetland and wetland
buffer protections that include protection of wildlife habitat. If there was any
disruption to the wetlands or the buffers, they would appropriately mitigated in
accordance with city standards. Staff also reiterated to the citizen that any future
development of the site would require additional traffic impact studies. The applicant
hired a traffic engineer who worked with the City of Auburn’s Traffic Engineer and
found that there would be traffic impacts and improvements would be required for
future development. What those improvements would be are unknown at this time.
The citizen also questioned the additional housing which is known at Copper Gate
located at the old Valley 6 Drive Ins. Staff responded that one of the proposed
conditions for this development and the multi-family housing was to limit the number
of apartments units to that which were allowed based on the existing R-20 zoning
which is approximately 128 units. Any impacts to schools, parks, utilities, etc., would
be offset by paying impact fees and potential dedication of park land.
The Commission questioned the transition of residential density around the housing
development to the North of the property. What would that normally look like? Staff
responded that one of the proposed staff conditions is that the apartment units can
only be located in the southern half of the site (meaning southern half of all 6
parcels) and the northern half would be the lower density types of residential such as
single family, duplex, fourplex. The goal is to create a transition with the proposed
condition and existing design standards that would provide a sufficient transition
between the existing single-family along with any future development. Staff followed
up on a question that the Planning Commission asked at the last meeting. On the
Adjacent auburn school district property, the district confirmed that what potentially
could be built there is another high school. The timing is not known.
The Planning Commission asked what percent of the development would go to
affordable housing. Mr. Troyer replied that is not classified as low income/affordable
housing.
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
The Commission commented that I Street NE is heavy with traffic now and with a
new high school potentially being built in the future, it could carry additional traffic. Is
there any thoughts of expanding it to accommodate more traffic. Mr. Webb
responded that at this time, there are no plans to expand I Street NE. As the future
development happens, it will be studied in advance of authorization and reviewed
closely. School traffic would not align with the period of the heaviest traffic on the
corridor. 7-9 am is the AM peak time for traffic where the afternoon peak is typically
4-6 p.m. School drop off is typically in the later morning hours and earlier in the
afternoon hours. The Commission asked when they new high school would be built
and Jeff Grose, Auburn School District, responded that there were no plans as of
right now but they watch the growth carefully to help determine the future projects.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at 8:30 PM.
With no other questions from the Commission, the Commission deliberated.
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to recommend Comp
Plan Map Amendment CPM20-0002/REX20-0002 be moved forward to City Council
for approval.
Approved 6-0
B. Zoning Code Amendment for Wireless Communication Facilities.
The purpose of the changes are to modernize the code in response to
changes in federal regulations that affect the permitting of expansion of
existing wireless communication facilities.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on Zoning Code Amendment for Wireless
Communication Facilities at 8:32 p.m.
Commissioner Khanal excused himself from this portion of the meeting due to a
conflict of interest with his employer.
Chair Roland read the following information at the beginning of the Hearing:
In light if the comments received and others that maybe received tonight, staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission close the record for submittal of public
comments but will keep the public hearing open until the planning Commission can
reconvene on November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in order to address modifications to the
ordinance that are a result of public comment that have been received.
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon, presented to the Commission.
The City is systematically initiating changes to various city code sections to
address consistency with changes in federal law requirements and to reflect
changes in wireless communication technology among other changes. Due to the
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
highly technical and litigious nature of the subject, the City hired a legal consultant
specializing in the subjects of wireless communication and right-of-way (ROW)
permitting and franchises and that is familiar with the results of relevant court
decisions. The City Legal Dept., Public Works Dept., and Community
Development Dept. staff has been working with this consultant over the last year
on drafting code changes.
Based on this code drafting, the City is simultaneously proposing to amend code
sections affecting public ROW franchises, and ROW use permits among others
and these changes are not the subject of Planning Commission consideration
since they primarily address the subject of city rights-of-way (ROW). However, the
city is proposing to amend city code section, Title 17 ‘Land Adjustment and
Divisions’ (the subdivision code) and Title 18 ‘Zoning’ which are subject to review
and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
For context for the Planning Commissioners, what follows is a list of the seven city
code titles that are proposed to be changed simultaneously. It is necessary to
change these simultaneously since there are cross references to definitions that
are found in a different portion of the code. These cross references avoid
duplication and aid future internal consistency of terms and facilities that are
common to ROW and non-ROW locations.
A listing of the Code Titles to be changed and a brief summary of the proposed
changes is provided below:
The following is not subject to Planning Commission Review: (copy not provided) -
Title 3, REVENUE AND FINANCE
o Chapter 3.42, Cable Television Utility Tax
o Chapter 3.84, Telephone Business
o Chapter 3.88, Utility Services
The key changes to Title 3, are:
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Repeal of ACC 3.84.110 as annexation notification is addressed
by applicable state law.
Repeal of ACC 3.88.030 as the provision is outdated and
duplicative of requirements in Title 5.
Title 5, BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
o Chapter 5.84, Licensing of Telecommunications Carriers, Operators,
Providers, and Other Utilities
The key changes to Title 5, are:
Remove purpose statement of business licensing as it is
duplicative.
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Title 12, STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
o Chapter 12.24, Construction Permits
o Chapter 12.32, Sidewalk Obstructions
The key changes to Title 12, are:
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Ensure that any construction work performed under this title is
done per the City’s Engineering Design and Construction
Standards.
Title 13, WATER, SEWERS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
o Chapter 13.32A, Underground Wiring
o Chapter 13.36, CATV Systems (Repealed)
o Chapter 13.44, Electrical Franchise (Repealed)
The key changes to Title 13, are:
Align definitions with those of Title 20 for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Ensure that any construction work performed under this title is
done per the City’s Engineering Design and Construction
Standards.
Update requirements, exemptions and process for
undergrounding of utilities, telecommunications and cable.
Repeal of Chapter 13.36 ACC as the provisions are being moved
to Title 20 and updated to reflect current federal requirements.
Repeal of Chapter 13.44 ACC as the provisions are outdated and
addressed under the provisions of Title 20.
Title 20, FRANCHISES, CABLE FRANCHISES, AND LEASES
o Chapter 20.02, General Provisions
o Chapter 20.04, Utility and Telecommunications Franchises
o Chapter 20.06, Cable Franchise
o Chapter 20.08, Facilities Lease
o Chapter 20.10, Conditions of Public Way Agreements, Franchises and
Facilities Leases (Repealed)
o Chapter 20.12, Open Video Systems (Repealed)
o Chapter 20.14, Small Wireless Facilities
The key changes to Title 20, are:
Align definitions throughout the titles for utilities,
telecommunications and cable.
Update City Code in conformance with current federal and state
requirements for utilities, telecommunications and cable in the
public ways and on city owned facilities and property.
Modernize procedural provisions to reflect actual process.
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
Repeal of Chapter 20.10 ACC as the provisions of this chapter
have been updated and moved to Chapter 20.02 ACC.
Repeal of Chapter 20.12 ACC as this chapter was empty.
The following is subject to Planning Commission Review & Recommendation:
(copy provided, see attachments)
Title 17, LAND ADJUSTMENTS AND DIVISIONS
o Chapter 17.14, IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS – SUBDIVISIONS
o Chapter 17.28, Infrastructure Conduit (Repealed)
The key changes to Title 17, are:
Minor changes to improve clarity and correct references.
Repeal of ACC 17.28 because addressed in ACC 13.32A.
Title 18, ZONING
o Chapter 18.02, General Provisions
o Chapter 18.04, Definitions
o Chapter 18.07, Residential Zones
o Chapter 18.23, Commercial and Industrial Zones
o Chapter 18.31, Supplemental Development Standards
o Chapter 18.35, Special Purpose Zones
The key changes to Title 18, are:
Changes to be consistent with the requirements of federal
legislation that provide the city must approve additions or
modifications to existing wireless communication facilities that do
not exceed a ”substantial increase” and that the city must approve
within a specified timeframe. This requires new terminology,
procedures, and regulations.
Also changes were made to accommodate the new technology of
“small cell wireless communication” facilities when located on non-
ROW property.
Other minor housekeeping or administrative changes were also
made.
The proposed changes are shown by strikeout (deletions) and underline
(additions) in the city code attached to this report.
The following sections summarize the effect of federal regulations and the key
points affecting City code Titles 17 and 18.
Wireless Antenna Facilities
With the evolving technology and increased usage of wireless devices by the
population, wireless antenna facilities have been given special consideration
by federal regulations. Local jurisdictions across the country need to ensure
that their regulations regarding wireless antenna facility siting are consistent
with section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
2012, as set forth in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s)
October 2014 Acceleration of Broadband Deployment Order.
Regulating Wireless Antenna Facilities
Local governments can develop ordinances and policies to provide
opportunities for wireless communication facilities (WCF) consistent with the
statutory rights of wireless communication service providers provided by the
federal regulations while also providing for an orderly development of the city
and protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the city’s residents
and property owners. A primary objective of these ordinances is to preserve
the existing visual and aesthetic character of the jurisdiction and its
neighborhoods, and minimize incompatibility, as well as minimizing the noise
impacts generated by these facilities.
The City has regulated WCFs located on public and private property by zoning
regulations since Ordinance No. 5020 in 1997. Most recently the Planning
Commission reviewed changes to these regulations in April 2019 as a result of
the need to address construction of a unique category of wireless
communication by Puget Sound Emergency Radio Network (PSERN) for an
emergency response communications facility. These changes were adopted
by Ordinance No. 6716 in 2019.
Small Cell Communication Technology
In recent years, the dramatic increase in use of wireless devices has triggered
the need for new subcategory of wireless communication facility referred to as
“small cell” technology to increase signal coverage. (The term: “small wireless
facility” is used in the proposed city code changes.) The signal coverage is
increased by use of smaller antennas (less than 3 cubic feet), not mounted as
high, and more closely-spaced. A typical small cell is between 25-45 feet in
height, attaches to existing utility poles or light/traffic pole within the right-of-
way, and requires an aerial or underground line to access power and fiber in
order to transmit cellular phone and data signals. Small cell facilities may also
be installed on public or private property outside of the right-of-way and thus
are also addressed in zoning code changes.
As a result of the increased demand for this technology, there has been a
substantial increase in applications from providers seeking to place small cell
facilities in municipal rights-of-way. In 2018, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) issued a 2-part Declaratory Ruling with the intent to
streamline the deployment of Fourth Generation (4G) and Fifth Generation
(5G) mobile communication system infrastructure.
Regulating Small Cell Technology
To meet rapidly increasing demand for wireless services and encourage
investment in a national infrastructure for 5G, wireless communication
providers must deploy infrastructure at significantly more locations using new,
small cell facilities. This Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order is part
of a national strategy to promote the timely buildout of this new infrastructure
across the country by eliminating regulatory impediments, unnecessarily add
Page 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
delays and costs to bringing advanced wireless services to the public. The
ruling was effective January 14, 2019.
Title 18, Zoning refers to definition of “small wireless facilities” given in ACC
20.14, but does not contain the definition. To assist the Planning Commission
in having a full understanding, the definition of “small wireless facilities” is
provided here.
ACC 20.14.010, Overview
“For purposes of this chapter, “small wireless facilities” are defined as facilities
that meet the following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height, including their
antennas as defined in 47 CFR 1.1320(d); or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than
other adjacent structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a
height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is
greater; and
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated
antenna equipment (as defined in the definition of antenna in 47 CFR
1.1320(d)), is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure (including the
wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting
associated equipment on the structure) is no more than 28 cubic feet in
volume; and
4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 47, Part 17; and
5. The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR
800.16(x); and
6. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation
in excess of the applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR 1.1307(b);
and
7. The facilities are currently located or are proposed to be located within the
public right-of-way. For facilities currently located or proposed to be located on
private property, please see Chapter 18.31 ACC. For facilities currently located
or proposed to be located on public property or facilities, please see Chapter
20.08 ACC.“
Some key provisions of the federal legislation:
Clarify that federal regulations apply to support structures and to transmission
equipment used in connection with any Commission-licensed or authorized
wireless transmission.
Define "transmission equipment" to encompass antennas and other
equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power
supply cables and backup power equipment.
Define "tower" to include any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of
Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their
associated facilities.
Clarify that the term "base station" includes structures other than towers that
support or house an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that
constitutes part of a "base station" at the time the relevant application is filed
with municipal authorities, even if the structure was not built for the sole or
primary purpose of providing such support, but does not include structures
that do not at that time support or house base station components.
Clarify that a modification "substantially changes" the physical dimensions of
a tower or base station, as measured from the dimensions of the tower or
base station inclusive of any modifications approved prior to the federal
legislation, if it meets a defined set of criteria:
o It increases the height of the tower by more than ten percent or by
more than twenty feet, whichever is greater;
o It involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would
protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more
than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,
whichever is greater;
o For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than
the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology
involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; or, for base stations, it
involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if
there are no preexisting ground cabinets associated with the
structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more
than ten percent larger in height or overall volume than any other
ground cabinets associated with the structure;
o It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site/lease
area, as defined;
o It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support
structure; and
o It does not comply with original approval conditions unrelated to a
“substantial change”.
And thus is determined to be an “eligible facilities request” under the federal
legislation.
Provide that localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on
compliance with generally applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety
codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to
health and safety.
Provide the following guidance for reviewing an application under federal
legislation:
o A local government may only require applicants to provide
documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the
“eligible facilities request” meets the requirements;
o Within 60 days from the date of filing, accounting for tolling, a local
government shall approve an application meeting the “eligible facilities
Page 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
request”;
o The running of the period may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon
notice that an application is incomplete provided in accordance with
the same deadlines, but not by a moratorium; and
o An application meeting the “eligible facilities request”; is deemed
granted if a State or local government fails to act on it within the
requisite time period.
Clarify that federal legislation applies only to State and local governments
acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities
acting in their proprietary capacities.
Provide that parties may bring disputes-including disputes related to
application denials and deemed grants-in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Establish new “presumptively reasonable” permit review timelines (referred to
as shot clocks) applicable to small cell facilities.
Clarify the use of the term “collocation” in relation to small cell facilities.
Publishes fee limitation for the use of city-owned infrastructure (such as light
and signal poles).
Establish guidelines for imposing aesthetic standards that must be:
reasonable, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
infrastructure deployments, objective, and published in advance.
Interpret the term “effectively prohibit”.
FINDINGS:
1. The City regulates land uses through establishment of zoning districts. The City of
Auburn adopted Ordinance No. 4229 on June 1, 1987 repealing the previous Title 18
and enacting a new Title 18 entitled Zoning, which divides the City into zones
wherein the location, height, use of buildings, land, and zoning development
standards are established, regulated, and restricted in accordance with the
comprehensive plan for the City.
2. The City has been regulating wireless communication facilities for several years,
originally in response to the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. The City of
Auburn adopted Ordinance No. 5020 on September 15, 1997, Ordinance No. 6245
on June 1, 2009, and Ordinance Nos. 6433 and 6434 on November 5, 2012, relating
to the definition, siting and zoning of wireless communication facilities in Title 18,
‘Zoning’.
3. The City has periodically updated its regulations for wireless communication
facilities. The City of Auburn has made updates and amendments as necessary
within Title 17 and Title 18 for the regulation of wireless communication facilities
Page 12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
since the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 4296, 4229; 5020, 6245, 6414, 6433, and
6434.
4. The industry and technology of wireless communication facilities continues to evolve
as does the public’s reliance on this form of communication.
5. Due to evolution of the technology and increasing usage, new applicable federal
regulations have been developed. And due to changes in Federal and State
regulations that govern the regulation of such industries and their presence within the
City, it is necessary to update the Auburn City Code in all titles, chapters and
sections that authorize, regulate, affect or otherwise govern the review, construction,
placement and siting of such tele-communications, cable and other utility facilities on
public or on private property.
6. In reviewing the city code sections by city consultants and city staff, the City also
seeks to clarify and update terms, procedural requirements, and approval processes
for permits, for telecommunications, cable and other utility facilities placed on public
and on private property. Changes are proposed to incorporate federal requirements
into the framework and organization of city code.
7. The proposed amendments and changes to the Auburn City Code that are the
subject of this proposal were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce
for state agency review under RCW 36.70A.106 and WAC 365-196-630. Receipt of
the amendments was acknowledged by the Department of Commerce as received
on October 9, 2020. See Exhibit #6.
8. The proposed amendments to the Auburn City Code are subject to State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS), File No. SEP20-0017, was issued October 19, 2020. The issuance of the
SEPA decision begins a 15-day public comment period which expires November 3.
See Exhibit #4.
9. In response to the public comment period observed under SEPA, the city received
one written comment by the time of preparation of this agenda bill/staff report. The
comment was received October 22, 2020 from Kim Allen, Senior Vice President,
Land Use Entitlements & Strategic Planning, Wireless Policy Group, LLC on behalf
of Verizon Wireless. They indicate they commented on Chapter 20.14, ‘Small
Wireless Facilities within the Public Way’, Title 17, ‘Land Adjustments & Divisions’
and Title 18, ‘Zoning’. These comments are Exhibit #7.
10. The City of Auburn Planning Commission reviewed staff’s recommended changes at
a special meeting on October 20, 2020.
11. ACC 18.68.040, ‘Public hearing notice requirements’, requires notice of a public
hearing shall be given by publication, in a newspaper, at least 10 days prior to the
public hearing. A combined Notice of public hearing (ZOA20-0005) and
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), (SEP20-0017), was issued October 19,
2020.
Page 13
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
12. ACC 18.68.030, ‘(Amendments) Public hearing process’, requires that the Planning
Commission conduct a public hearing on proposed code amendments and make a
recommendation. Then, the city council may affirm, modify, or disaffirm any
recommendation of the planning commission with regard to amendments of the text
of this title.
13. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing during a regular
meeting at 7:00 pm on November 4, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. As noted above, the city received one written comment by the time of preparation of this
agenda bill/staff report. The comment was received October 22, 2020 from Kim Allen,
Senior Vice President, Land Use Entitlements & Strategic Planning, Wireless Policy Group,
LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless. These written comments are provided as Exhibit #7.
2. The City really appreciates the time spent by Verizon on review, preparation, and provision
of written comments in time to distribute to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting.
However, this did not afford City staff opportunity to prepare and include responses. The
City staff will proceed to review and evaluate the comments and have follow-up
conversations with the commenter, as warranted.
3. Based on an initial review, staff noted that while the commenter indicates they commented
on Title 17, ‘Land Adjustments & Divisions’, the city did not find comments in this section.
However, this could be due to word processing software that makes it difficult to distinguish
the city’s original strike through and underline changes, and the subsequent changes by
Verizon. The city staff will double check.
4. The following is an attempt to generally categorize/characterize the comments received
based on an initial review:
Nature of comment Reply
Formatting and syntax changes. Staff appreciates calling these out,
however they do not merit review by the
planning commission.
Commenting on pre-existing code The city will evaluate the comments
requirements that are not the and determine if changes are warranted
subject of changes. based on the code intent and the best
interests of the city.
Some comments require further The city will seek clarification with
clarification from Verizon to commenter.
understand requested nature of
change, for example, there appear
to be questions about the
prevalence of microcell facilities.
Some comments suggest changes The City will review the federal
are warranted based on consistency requirements to ensure we are working
with federal law and FCC rulings. with the latest, since the rulings
continue to evolve, and to ensure
Page 14
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2020
consistency with those required.
5. Additional comments from wireless carriers/companies may be provided before or at the
public hearing. City staff appreciates receiving these comments from wireless carrier
companies and their investment of time to share their perspective, as ultimately that will
result in a better, more workable set of regulations for the city.
Kim Allen, from Wireless Policy representing Verizon Wireless addressed the Commission and
explained to them that Verizon is working very hard to stay ahead of the demands for wireless
services now and especially during the pandemic. Ms. Allen explained to the Planning
Commission that she was there to help with any questions and that she was looking forward to
working with City Staff.
Meridee Pabst, representing AT&T, addressed the Commission and explained that she was
here to assist with any questions and to show her support to the City code changes to help stay
updated with federal law. She was looking forward to working and meeting with City Staff as
well.
The Planning Commission inquired if the comments on the redlines from the wireless
companies were different or similar? Staff said although, it is hard to answer that question right
now, there were some commonalities and staff is checking on the comments with our wireless
communication consultant to make sure we are thoroughly understand.
With no other public testimony, Chair Roland asked for a motion.
Vice Chair Lee moved and Commissioner Stephens seconded to close the record and to
continue the Public Hearing to the special meeting at 7:00 pm on November 17, 2020.
Approve 6-0
C.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager, Jeff Dixon had nothing further to report to the Commission
on Community Development News at this time but if the Commission had comments or
questions he and Staff were available to answer questions. The Planning Commission
had no questions or comments at this time regarding Community Development Report.
D.ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
Page 15