Planning Commission weighs streamlining small-cell wireless rules, schedules public hearing

The Normandy Park Planning Commission discussed proposed updates to the city—s wireless siting code, focusing on whether to remove an "alternatives analysis" requirement, how to treat setbacks for poles in the public right of way, and whether to retain a clause on "cumulative effects." Staff said the draft will go to a public hearing on April 16.

The changes under review would let certain new poles be sited in the public right of way adjacent to property lines without the current paperwork showing that carriers tried existing utility poles or public property first. Staff framed the edit as a way to streamline the permit process; a staff member said the alternatives analysis had been removed from the draft so the commission could choose whether to require it or not.

Several commissioners supported encouraging co-location and using existing facilities rather than approving new poles. "If we can encourage co-location and using existing facilities, that would be my preference than a new facility," the chair said. Staff noted co-location requirements remain in the macro facility section and recommended rejecting the edit on page 23 so applicants would still be pushed to consider co-location first.

Commissioner concerns centered on two issues: retaining language about "cumulative effects" and whether interference language was appropriate. One commissioner pressed to keep the cumulative-effects language, saying it helps capture the gestalt of many compliant elements that together create a negative visual or technical outcome. Staff said AT&T had suggested striking the cumulative-effects clause but recommended keeping it in the code.

On interference, staff said both macro and small wireless facility applications include a sworn affidavit from a radio-frequency engineer certifying compliance with Federal Communications Commission rules and other regulations, and staff would hold applicants accountable if they were not compliant. The community development director told the commission that staff had not encountered interference complaints and that federal preemption limits local authority on technical interference issues.

The commission agreed the draft should proceed to a public hearing; the community development director said, "We would still need a public hearing. Under our current schedule, that would take place at the April 16 Planning Commission meeting." Staff will prepare a revised draft and the commission will vote on a recommendation to the city council after the hearing.

During the meeting the commission also voted to add approval of the minutes to the agenda and later approved the Feb. 19 minutes. Commissioner Tom moved to approve the minutes "as written," which was seconded and approved by voice vote. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn.