PC APPROVED Minutes 01-25-18 APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Connell Chambers—City Hall
January 25,2018
I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staffandaudience stood for
the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were
present:
James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley Henry Allen, Engineer
Mike Phillips
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton Mary Moore, Office Assistant
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the January 25, 2018 agenda as presented. The
vote on the motion was.seven in.favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no repoits,
V. ADMINLSTRATIVE REPORT: Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton introduced Office
Assistant Mary Moore. Ms. Horton explained Ms. Moore would be shadowing her in order to be able
to learn the process of taking care of the Planning Commission in the ease of absences in the future..
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: 'There was no public comment_
Vii. COMMI'-SSiON BUSINESS:
i. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for CTA-2017-0014,Proposed updates to the Spokane
Valley Street Standards and the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
Engineer- Henry Allen explained to the Commission the Findings have been dialled based on
recommended changes the Planning Commission had voted on at the public hearing and then
incorporated into the amendment to move forward to the City Council.
Commissioner Johnson moved so approve the Planning Commission Findings of Fact.for CTA-
2017-01004. The vote on the motion was seven 111,1i-war, zero against', and the motion passed.
ii. Public Hearing, CTA-2017-2005,A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SYNC) Title 22, SVMC 19.6O.05O, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless
facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within thepublic rights-of-
way.
Deputy City Attorney Frik Lamb gave a presentation to the Commission regarding the wireless small
cell technology. Mr. Lambexplained he would try to answer some of the questions which he received
from the study session,and there were representatives from some of the carriers in the audience prepared
to give testimony as well as attempt to answer sone of the questions the Commissioners had,
Mr, iamb requested the Commissioners hold their questions until after his presentation in order for
them to he part of the record, He then explained most data traffic is handled by the large monopoles
called macrocells. The farther away from the rnacrace]] a device gets,the weaker the signal gels, Small
cell deployment is moving smaller antennas to power and light poles which are already located in the
right-of--way. These are called microcells.
Some of the Things the Planning Commission should consider when reviewing the proposed regulations
are there arc currently a large number of varied futilities located in the City's rights-of-way. Some of
these are power poles, light poles, power and other structures on the gound, signs, and trees. The
Commission can consider limits on height, aesthetic impacts design standards and/or stealth shrouding,
2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutcs Page 2 of 5
Mr. Lamb explained the proposed amendments:
• Appendix A, adding definitions related specifically to small cell deployments and the new
timeline provisions.
• SVMC 17.80,0.30 adding that small cell permits are a Type I permit and shall be processed as
such, except as otherwise required by federal and stale law.
• SVMC 19.60,050 amending the permitted use matrix to allow small cell deployments in all
zones subject to the supplemental regulations proposed in new chapters SVMC 22.121 and
22.122
• SVIVIC 22.120, generally addressed large pole installations. The large polo deployments were
left in this chapter and any references to small cell services were removed.
• SVMC 22.121 is a new chapter providing for small cell deployments. It provides for master
use permits,which the City has determined wi]] be our franchise agreement, Each provider will
sign a franchise agreement which is approved by the City Council. Small cell deployment
permits for small cell facilities for up to 30 sites at one time and the requirements for each
permit, The provider must have a franchise agreement with the City and the provider they are
proposing to place the small cel] on. This also lays out any design and concealment standards,
For new poles, it must be integrated into the new pole. For existing poles, integration into the
pole as much as possible. It is being proposed the antenna not extend more than 15 feet from
the top of the pole, and limited to three cubic feet. The equipment box on the ground cannot
be larger than 17 cubic feet. Unless unfeasible, the equipment must be buried in the ground or
integrated into the surroundings. Cannot be located on an improved street or sidewalk or in
stormwater facilities. They are not allowed in public parks_
• SVMC 22.122 is a new chapter providing for mandated permit review times as stated in state
or federal regulations. If the City fails to meet the timing requirements then the permit is
deemed approved.
Mr. Lamb said he would fly and answer some of the questions which came from the study session,
Some which might be more technical he would defer to the providers wishing to testify.
• Could there be a required distance limit between new sites? The legal office felt this might
work, but there was some question as to whether this would not be competitively neutral
because it would benefit whomever came into to the area first. Small cell range is limited,
between 500-1,000 feet Forcing an additional spacing requirement could create an impact on
them providing their service.
• Could there be a requirement for co-location on one pole? From a legal standpoint it could be
required,from a practical standpoint the poles are not very big and there is a sweet spot iii range
where the small cell needs to be sited,if the utility provider even allows more than one provider
on a pole,which some will not allow. He said he noted most other cities are not requiring co-
location.
• Could there be a requirement as to how high the antenna has to be located off the ground? The
legal office feels it would be a qualified yes. Unless it began to impact the technology. It has
been suggested that 20 feet would be a good height, most want to be higher than this, and it
keeps it from interfering in traffic and pedestrians,
• Could there be a requirement to bury the ground based facilities? Yes, it would be required.
However,there could be limitations to this. There could be limited space between the sidewalk
and the right-of-way, they can't be located in the sidewalk. He's heard that based on the
weather in the Pacific Northwest it can cause issues with the equipment in the in the vault.
• Can we require the small cells to transmit to the macrocel Is by fiber? Most of the small cells
will already be communicating by fiber, however this would be trying to regulate the
technology and the City would not be able to do this.
• The frequency levels are governed by FCC guidelines and the providers are required to comply
with those.
• lie had not received any crime statistics on small co[[ sites,
• Taxes on wireless services, the city already has a tax on wireless services, but can't tax on.the
data.
2015-01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Pap 3 of
Mr. Lamb stated there were comments provided which were received just today from three of the
providers, Verizon, T-Mobile and Mohilitic_ The legal office has not had a chance to review these
comments. These were provided to the Commission members at the meeting,
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing of 6:35 p.m.
Joel Arrow, Lync Consulting for 'Verizon 'Wireless;. Mr. Arrow stated the height regulation of
location over the 20 foot height was tine with them. I Towever, he said that they do not recommend
the utrdergrounding of equipment. He said if they could place the radios on the poles,they prefer it.
A vista does not allow them to place the radio on the poles, so it needs to be on the ground, six feet
from the pole. Issues with undergrounding the equipment are:
• Water gets into the vault. lithe radio gets wet, then it.fails. There is too much moisture in the
Pacific Northwest and the vault will get wet
• The vault traps gases which are unsafe for the workers to breathe.
• Construetability. it is a significant foot print for an underground vault, plus the OSI IA
requirements make it larger.
• Service reliability, When water gets into the vault, then the radio fails.
Mr.Arrow would not recommend separation requirements. When he is trying to create a network,he
is trying to his sites 750 to 1,000 feet apart. If you have a 250 foot separation requirement the last
person in wi]] have a difficult time trying to find sites they cm then locate on. He would also not
recommend the co-location requirement Avista will not allow co-location however, if it was a
requirement,then there would be the equipment boxes all located around one pole and the poles would
need to be taller.
Commissioner Johnson asked what produced the gases and what they were. Mr. Arrow did not know
but said he would have to find out.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the radio which is used in the small cell sites. The radio is the
brains of the small cell site,
Commissioner Kelley confirmed his understanding that population and obstructions would determine
the location of small cells sites. Mr, Arrow also say that consumption will drive it as well. The more
usage you have,the more small cells you will need. Co-location would relates to two different carriers
on one pole.
Commissioner Kelley asked how large an underground vault would be. Mr_ Arrow said they would
need to have enough space for a technician to be able to get all the way around the equipment, instead
of having a small telco sized box sitting above ground.
Commissioner Stathos wanted to know if the installation of the small cell sites being installed on
power poles would be interrupting any customer's power. Mr.Arrow said he could not speak to that
issue, She said water would be a problem for above ground equipment, and Mr. Arrow said it is a
water pooling issue on the equipment and the radio just can't be kept dry.
Commissioner Walton confirmed the provider, at least Verizon, would like to keep the control radio
on the same pole at least 15 feet in the air or to integrate it into the base of the pole, If it can't be
placed on the pole,then it must be located within six feet of the pole the antenna is on. Mr. Arrow
said he would prefer to use whatever utility pole is available. If there is no pole,then Verizon would
propose an integrated light pole standard. Commissioner Walton confirmed most of the deployments
occur in neighborhoods. But cities do as well, it depends on where the data demands are.
Commissioner Phillips stated his concern with having another utility to move should a developer need
to improve a piece at'property. Mr. Phillips asked how providers handle communities who have
underground utilities. Mr. Arrow said in those situations they propose a single canister on the top of
a pole, there are many designs which can be used to help in those neighborhoods. Mr. Phillips
commented our community does not get the same, amount of water as they get on the coast. Mr.
Arrow said their radio is very sensitive to water and condensation, and he asks that the Commission
to read the comments submitted by Verizon.
Commissioner Walton asked about realistic health concerns. He said the Verizon email commented
there is less radiation than a baby monitor. Mr. Arrow said these operate within FCC standards.
Commissioner Walton noted for the record that the FCC might not be able to keep up with emerging
2O18-01-2:5 Planning Commission Minutes. Page 4 of 5
technologies. Commissioner Stathos also commented on the radiation and conlirtned the antenna was
what was emitting the microwave.
Commissioner Johnson asked if line of site would be an issue. Mr. Arrow was unable to answer the
question_
Steven Bumke, Mobilitie,Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke works for Mobilitie and stated they are one
of the largest infrastructure providers in the country, working in all 50 states. Currently they are
working with Sprint as a provider. Mr. Burke stated he felt it would be important to have a sub-
agreement for providers like him who services clients. Mohllitie has joint use agreements with Avis La
and CenturyLink. Mr.Burke provided the Commission with pictures of his equipment on an Avista
pole. He said his canister has everything needed to run the equipment in it. I Ie said he looks for
secondary poles which are needing replacement. He would replace the pole, put the canister on top
of the pole which is seven feet tall. Mr. Burke said the antenna is within FCC guidelines and the
signal emits outward, not downward_ He said there is a dedicated power line to the canister and it
does not disrupt power to the consumer_ Monopoles could handle phone calls and texting, but now
everyone is on social media, watching TV and the consumer is demanding to transport this data over
the network. The small cells main purpose is to'transport data. Mobilitie has built over 25 sites on
Avista power poles in Spokane, and are going to install them on street lights soon. He is working
with the city of Spokane to install them on city owned street lights, in a decorative street light.
Mobilitie would like to see Spokane Valley become a connected city_ He would recommend the
approved to the municipal cod; this is the way things are evolving and the community will be better
served_ He would like to suggest cutting the review time from 60 to 30 days.
Commissioner Johnson asked what the optimum spacing would be. He said he doesn't have an
optimum spacing but they look where people are having the most amount of trouble getting their data
service. lie currently looking at sites along Pines Road, right now they are a quarter of a mile from
each other.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked what the next form of technology would he going, Mr. Burke stated
the more the consumers want the technology,want more data,then they will drive it. There will be
places where they will be needed for coverage. Mr. An-ow commented he attended a conference in
Korea, where the data usage is much higher than it is in the US and not only is consumer data
increasing but machine to machine communication. Phones talking to cars, to fitness trackers, to
refrigerators, controlling the lights and furnaces, driverless cars. All of these things are going to be
data driven.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked who's responsibility it is to repair damaged equipment and how soon
would it get fixed. Mr.Arrow commented his equipment has an alarm and it would get repaired right
away. if it is damaged then appropriate governing tctors would come into effect.
Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment being used was not proprietary. Each provider uses
whatever works for them. She prefers the look of the Mobilitie system and wonders why the other
providers can't use the same equipment.
Commissioner Walton confirmed people who have older phones wilt still be able to use them. Mr.
Burke commented `flip' phones are for calls and text messaging. If you want to be able to use the
new technology, it will require a smartphone.
Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed that the providers will be supplying structural analysis to show
the poles which they will be installing equipment on will be able to handle it Commissioner Johnson
asked if this review was part of the permitting process. Mr. Lamb stated the City did not have any
pole standards currently, but a requirement of a certification could be built into the process. Mr.
Arrow stated they submit a structural analysis for every pole they install if it is a mall cell site or a
large monopole. Mr. Lamb stated that utility providers are heavily regulated by the Utilities Trade
Commission. Mr. Burke said CenturyLink requires a pole loading analysis before they approve the
installation of the new equipment.
Mr. Lamb wanted to remind the Commission under Federal law, we cannot regulate based on
transmission type. We can ask for separation based on aesthetic concerns but not on health concerns.
The regulations need to consider some of the providers who are not able to mount all of their
equipment on the pole. We cannot regulate the technology, so we cannot regulate that one provider
use the same kind of technology another provider is using. Tie said we have tried to craft.regulations
2018-01-25 Planning Commission Minutcs Pago 5 of 5
which allow for flexibility. The spacing requirement is different for each provider as was suggested
tonight, and the 250 feet is just a suggestion, in the proposed regulations. If they are already using
existing power poles it needs to be considered that maybe a distance between the equipment and not
the poles themselves, Commissioner Stathos asked if it was feasible to ask to have the ground
facilities to be co-located. Mr. Lamb said he would have to look into that and discussit with the
providers.
Commissioner Walton asked who was responsible for relocation of equipment in the right-of-way if
it needs to be moved or the right-of-way is vacated. Mr. Lamb said he would have to look into the
answer.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the City would have to maintain a line of sight. Mr.Arrow said the
technology was a diffused microwave and it was not specifically a line of sight. Mr.lamb would try
and find more information.
Commissioner Walton confirmed if a cell site caused damaged to city property, the franchise
agreement covers how the provider will be held responsible,
Commissioner Phillips asked if the provider could he held responsible to move their equipment if it
needs to moved- Mr- Lamb said he would have to look into this. Mr. Burke commented in his
experience,they would need 60-90 day's notice in order to find another solution.
Cor rmrrr`svioner.Trrhra,tor2 moved to continue the public hearing to February 8, 2018. The vote on the
motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed
iii. Training-Public Records Act, Open Public.Meetings Act:
Mr. Lamb conducted the City's annual training for Planning Commissioners and staff regarding the
Public Records Act and the Open Public Meetings Act.
iv. Study Session—Discussion of Open Space requirements
The Commission decided to postpone this study session to the next meeting
VIII. GOOD 0r PRE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 835 p,m. The vote on
the motion war unanimous in favor, the motion passed.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary