HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06 Proposed Cell Tower Amendments to the Springfield Development Code AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/15/2013
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
PROPOSED CELL TOWER AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a second reading and adopt the following ordinance: AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 4.3-145—WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS FACILITIES; AND CERTAIN TERMS FOUND IN SECTION
6.1-110—MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS, WHICH
APPLY TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
FACILITIES; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Staff has prepared a package of amendments to SDC Section 4.3-145 which address
Council concerns with the City’s siting and design standards for WTS facilities and
particularly cell towers.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Adopting Ordinance with Staff Report
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
On April 1, 2013 Council conducted a first reading and a public hearing concerning
an ordinance amending SDC Section 4.3-145 and SDC 6.1-110.
Attachment 1 is the Adopting Ordinance containing the proposed amendments to
SDC Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield. The amended section replaces the existing
SDC Section 4.3-145. This proposal also amends SDC Section 6.1-110; relocating
terms specific to WTS facilities to the amended SDC Section 4.3-145E.
The Staff Report (incorporated into the Adopting Ordinance as Exhibit A) examines
the proposed amendments for their consistency with the approval criteria for
Development Code amendments found in SDC Section 5.6-115 and provides a
factual basis for decision making.
Ordinance No.______________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.3‐145—WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FACILITIES; AND CERTAIN TERMS FOUND IN SECTION 6.1‐110—
MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS, WHICH APPLY TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS FACILITIES; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Springfield (Council) adopted Ordinance No. 5849 on March 17th
1997 which added standards and definitions to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to regulate and
to establish a review process for the development of Wireless Telecommunications Systems (WTS)
Facilities.
WHEREAS, SDC Section 4.3‐145 contains the standards and processes to be applied to the development
of WTS facilities; and SDC Section 6.1‐110 contains definitions of specific words and terms that are used
in SDC Section 4.3‐125; and
WHEREAS, SDC Section 4.3‐145 G indicates that the provisions of this section were intended to be
reviewed and updated to ensure “contemporaneity with technological changes made in this industry.”
WHEREAS, the Council met in work session on March 22, 2012 to discuss concerns about the siting of
certain WTS facilities under the existing standards found in SDC 4.3‐145; and
WHEREAS, the Council met in work session on October 22, 2012 to consider measures presented by staff
to address the concerns identified at the March 22, 2012 meeting; and directed staff to develop
amendments to the SDC to implement those measures; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.6 ‐100 of the SDC sets forth procedures for the amendment of this document; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission met in work session on February 5, 2013 to discuss
Council’s concerns about WTS siting standards and the proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145
and SDC Section 6.1‐110 developed by staff to address those concerns; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed
amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 and SDC Section 6.1‐110 on February 19, 2013, and voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the amendments to Council. The Planning Commission
recommendation to the Council is based upon findings set forth in the Staff Report and on the evidence
and testimony in the record; and
WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed amendments to SDC Section
4.3‐145 and SDC Section 6.1‐110 on April 1, 2013;
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2013, the Springfield Common Council conducted a second reading of the
ordinance and is now ready to take action on this application based upon findings in support of adoption
of these SDC amendments as set forth in the aforementioned Staff Report incorporated herein by as
Exhibit A and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony
presented a this public hearing held in the matter of adopting this Ordinance.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 33
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, the Council of the City of Springfield does ordain as
follows:
Section 1. SDC Section 4.3‐145 is amended to read as follows:
Section 4.3‐145 Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facilities
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to:
1. Implement the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996;
2. Provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and review procedures for the
placement, operation, alteration and removal of WTS facilities;
3. Allow new WTS facilities where necessary to provide service coverage and there is a
demonstrated need that cannot be met through existing facilities;
4. Maximize the use of existing WTS facilities in order to minimize the need to construct
additional facilities;
5. Encourage the siting of new WTS facilities in preferred locations;
6. Lessen impacts of new WTS facilities on surrounding residential areas; and
7. Minimize visual impacts of new WTS facilities through careful design, configuration,
screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques.
B. Applicability/Conflicts.
1. Applicability. This Section applies within Springfield’s city limits and its Urban Services
Area. No WTS facility may be constructed, altered (to include co‐locations) or replaced,
unless exempt, without complying with the requirements of this Section. Exempt
facilities are listed in Subsection D below.
2. Conflicts. In cases where:
a. The development standards of this Section conflict with other Sections of this
Code, these standards will prevail.
EXCEPTION: In the Glenwood Riverfront, the WTS standards regarding type and
height of the antenna will apply. All other aspects of the application submittal
and review process specified in this Section will apply.
b. These development standards conflict with Federal and/or State regulations, the
Federal and/or State regulations will prevail.
C. Pre‐existing WTS Facilities.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 33
1. WTS facilities that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be
allowed to continue their use as they presently exist.
2. Routine maintenance will be permitted on lawful pre‐existing WTS facilities as specified
in Subsection 4.3‐145D.1.
3. Lawfully existing WTS facilities may be replaced as specified in Subsection 4.3‐145D.2.
D. Exemptions. The following shall be considered exempt structures or activities under, however,
all other applicable Federal, State and City permits will be required:
1. Emergency or routine repairs or routine maintenance of previously approved WTS
facilities.
2. Replacement of existing previously approved WTS facilities.
a. A WTS facility may be replaced if it:
i. Is in the exact location of the facility being replaced;
ii. Is of a construction type identical in height, size, lighting and painting;
iii. Can accommodate the co‐location of additional antennas or arrays;
iv. Does not increase radio frequency emissions from any source; and
v. Does not intrude or cause further intrusion into a setback area.
b. Those WTS facilities that cannot meet the replacement standard in Subsection
4.3‐145D.2.a. will be treated as new construction, requiring Type I or III review as
specified in Subsection 4.3‐145H.
3. Industrial, scientific and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that
purpose by the Federal Communications Commission.
4. Essential public telecommunications services ‐ military, Federal, State, and local
government telecommunications facilities.
5. Amateur and citizen band radio transmitters and antennas.
6. Military or civilian radar operating within the regulated frequency ranges for the
purpose of defense or aircraft safety.
7. Antennas (including, but not limited to: direct‐to‐home satellite dishes;, TV antennas;
and wireless cable antennas) used by viewers to receive video programming signals
from direct broadcast facilities, broadband radio service providers, and TV broadcast
stations.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 33
8. Low‐powered networked telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to
microcell radio transceivers located on existing utility poles and light standards within
public right‐of‐way.
9. Cell on Wheels (COW), which are permitted as temporary uses in nonresidential Metro
Plan or 2030 Springfield Refinement Plan designations for a period not to exceed 14
days, or during a period of emergency as declared by the City, County, or State.
E. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Section shall have the following meanings:
Approval Authority.
1. Type I Review. Staff has the authority to approve new co‐locations, equipment replacement,
and applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities.
2. Type III Review. The Planning Commission and the City Council are the Approval Authority for
applications to construct high and medium visibility WTS facilities within the city limits.
3. Type III Review. The Hearings Official, by agreement with Lane County, is the Approval
Authority for high and medium visibility WTS facilities located outside the city limits but
within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.
Antenna. Any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices designed for
telephonic, radio, facsimile, data, or television telecommunications through sending and/or
receiving of electromagnetic waves when the system is either external to or attached to the
exterior of a structure. Antennas include, but are not limited to:, devices having active elements
extending in any direction;, and directional beam‐type arrays having elements carried by and
disposed from a generally horizontal boom that may be mounted up and rotated through a
vertical mast or tower interconnecting the boom and antenna support. All of the latter elements
are part of the antenna.
Antenna height. The vertical distance measured from the ground surface at grade to the tip of
the highest point of the antenna on the proposed structure.
Antenna support. Any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod or any other structure that supports
a device used in the transmitting and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves.
Camouflaged. Any WTS facility that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment.
Examples of camouflaged facilities include, but are not limited to: architecturally screened roof‐
mounted antennas; building‐mounted antennas painted to match the existing structure;
antennas integrated into architectural elements; towers made to look like trees; and antenna
support structures designed to look like flag poles or light poles.
Carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to build and/or operate a WTS facility.
Co‐location. The use of a single WTS tower for the placement of multiple antennas or related
telecommunications equipment often involving different carriers.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 33
Equipment building, shelter or cabinet. A cabinet or building used to house associated
equipment used by providers at a WTS facility. Associated equipment includes, but is not limited
to: air conditioning; and emergency generators.
Façade mounted antenna. An antenna architecturally integrated into the façade of a building or
structure.
Facility. A WTS facility.
Faux tree. A WTS tower camouflaged to resemble a tree.
Guyed tower. A WTS tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground
anchors.
High visibility. The following WTS facilities are examples of high visibility facilities:
1. Monopoles, lattice towers and guyed towers.
2. Any WTS facilities that do not meet the definition of stealth, low visibility, or moderate
visibility.
Lattice tower. A guyed or self‐supporting three or four sided, open, steel frame support
structure used to support WTS equipment.
Low visibility. The following are examples of low visibility WTS facilities that shall not exceed the
height limit of the base zone and shall not increase the height of an existing WTS facility:
1. Whip antennas not exceeding 6 feet in length or height, including mounting, and measuring
no more than 3 inches in diameter, located on existing structures including, but not limited
to, water storage tanks, high‐voltage transmission towers, utility towers and poles, sign
standards, and roadway overpasses, with equipment cabinets that are screened from view.
2. Facilities, including equipment cabinets that are screened from view through the use of
architectural treatments, including, but not limited to: cupolas; steeples; and parapets; and
are consistent with existing development on adjacent properties.
3. Additions to existing permitted low‐visibility facilities, if the additions themselves meet the
definition of low visibility and are designed to minimize visibility the WTS facility.
4. Changes to an existing building that are consistent with the building’s architectural style and
the equipment cabinets are not visible.
Maintenance. Emergency or routine repairs or replacement of transmitters, antennas, or other
components of previously approved WTS facilities that do not create a significant change in
visual appearance or visual impact.
Microcells. These devices provide additional coverage and capacity where there are high
numbers of users within urban and suburban macrocells. The antennas for microcells are
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 33
mounted at street level, typically on the external walls of existing structures, lamp‐posts, and
other street furniture. Microcell antennas are usually smaller than macrocell antennas, and
when mounted on existing structures, can often blend into building features. Microcells provide
radio coverage over distances, typically between 100 meters and 1,000 meters, and operate at
power levels substantially below those of macrocells.
Moderate visibility. The following WTS facilities are examples of moderate visibility facilities:
1. Panel‐shaped antennas not exceeding 8 feet in length or height that are flush‐mounted to an
existing building façade or other existing structure on at least one edge, or extend a
maximum of 24 inches from the building façade or other structure at any edge, do not
exceed the height of the building or other structure, and are designed to blend with the
color, texture, and design of the existing building or structure, with equipment cabinets that
are screened from view.
2. WTS facilities that are camouflaged, including, but not limited to: faux trees; flag poles; and
light poles, provided that the equipment building, shelter, or cabinet for the facility is
screened or camouflaged.
Monopole. A WTS facility consisting of a single pole constructed for purposes of supporting one
or more antennas without guy wires or ground anchors.
Panel or directional antenna. An antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio
signal in a particular area.
Residential Zoning District. Any Springfield zoning district where single‐family and or multi‐
family dwelling units are intended to be the dominate land use.
RF. Radio Frequency.
Roof mounted antenna. Any antenna with its support structure placed directly on the roof of
any building or structure.
Screened. Concealed from view with a sight obscuring fence, wall or vegetation.
Service area. The area served by a single WTS facility.
Side‐mounted antennas. Those antennas that are mounted on the side of a tower structure at
any height, and including both the antennas and equipment with protective radome coatings.
This term also includes microwave dish antennas, solid or not, located at 150 feet or lower on a
tower structure, regardless of the dish diameter. The term does not include solid microwave
dish antennas exceeding 6 feet in diameter that are located above 150 feet on a tower
structure.
Small top‐mounted antennas. Any antenna mounted on the top of a tower structure where the
antenna is 20 feet or less in height and 6 inches or less in outside diameter.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 33
Speculation tower. An antenna support structure designed for the purpose of providing location
mounts for WTS facilities, without a binding written commitment or executed lease from a
service provider to utilize or lease space on the tower at the time the application is submitted.
Stealth. WTS facilities including, but not limited to: microcells; antennas; equipment cabinets;
and any other ancillary equipment that cannot be seen from any street or any adjacent
property, improved or unimproved, and that do not result in any apparent architectural changes
or additions to existing buildings. The addition of landscaping, walls, fences, or grading as
screening techniques does not make an otherwise visible WTS facility a stealth facility.
Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as
sent and received.
Tower or WTS tower. Any mast, pole, monopole, guyed tower, lattice tower, free standing
tower, or other structure designed and primarily used to support antennas.
Whip antenna means an antenna that transmits or receives signals in 360 degrees. Whip
antennas are typically cylindrical in shape, less than 3 inches in diameter and no more than 6
feet long, including the mounting.
Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facility. Any facility that transmits and/or receives
electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, antennas, dish antennas, microwave
antennas, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of these signals,
including, but not limited to: telecommunications towers and similar supporting structures;
equipment cabinets or buildings; parking areas; and other accessory development. This
definition also includes any facility that transmits radio or television signals. This definition does
not apply to Amateur Radio Stations as defined by the Federal Communications Commission,
Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules.
F. General Standards. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes limitations on the
siting standards that local governments can place on WTS facilities. Section 704 of the Act
states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in this section to the extent that
they do not violate federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the
standards found in this section constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for
providing coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
1. Design for Co‐location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate
the maximum number of additional users technically practicable.
2. Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Applications shall demonstrate that the
proposed WTS facility is necessary to close a significant gap in service coverage or
capacity for the carrier and is the least intrusive means to close the significant gap.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 33
3. Lack of Coverage and Lack of Capacity. The application shall demonstrate that the gap in
service cannot be closed by upgrading other existing facilities. In doing so, evidence
shall clearly support a conclusion that the gap results from a lack of coverage and not a
lack of capacity to achieve adequate service. If the proposed WTS facility is to improve
capacity, evidence shall further justify why other methods for improving service capacity
are not reasonable, available or effective.
4. Identify the Least Intrusive Alternative for Providing Coverage. The application shall
demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives,
including, but not limited to: less sensitive sites; alternative design systems; alternative
tower designs; the use of repeaters; or multiple facilities. Subsection 5 defines the type
of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district.
5. Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection 4.3‐145 E. defines various types of WTS
facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low
visibility and stealth facilities. Table 4.3‐1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each
of Springfield’s zoning districts.
Table 4.3‐1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Light‐Medium Industrial
Quarry Mining Operations
High visibility
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Community Commercial
Campus Industrial
Booth Kelly Mixed Use
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Low visibility
Moderate visibility
Stealth
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Neighborhood Commercial
General Office
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
Public Land and Open Space
Low visibility
Stealth
6. Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than one high visibility
facility is allowed on any one lot/parcel.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 33
EXCEPTION: The Approval Authority may approve exceeding the maximum number of
high visibility facilities per lot/parcel if one of the following findings is made:
a. Co‐location of additional high visibility facilities is consistent with neighborhood
character,
b. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high visibility
WTS facilities would have the effect of prohibiting service because the proposed
facility would fill a significant gap in coverage and no alternative locations are
available and technologically feasible, or
c. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high visibility
WTS facilities would unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services.
7. Separation between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than 2,000 feet
from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made under
Subsections 4.3‐145F.2., 3. and 4 by the Approval Authority.
8. WTS Facilities Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Property. In order to ensure public
safety, all towers located on or adjacent to any residential zoning district shall be set
back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the
facility, including any antennas or other appurtenances. The setback shall be measured
from that part of the WTS tower that is closest to the neighboring residentially zoned
property.
9. Historic buildings and structures. No WTS facility shall be allowed on any building or
structure, or in any district, that is listed on any Federal, State or local historic register
unless a finding is made by the Approval Authority that the proposed facility will have
no adverse effect on the appearance of the building, structure, or district. No change in
architecture and no high or moderate visibility WTS facilities are permitted on any
building or any site within a historic district. Proposed WTS facilities in the Historic
Overlay District are also subject to the applicable provisions of Section 3.3‐900.
10. Equipment Location. The following location standards shall apply to WTS facilities:
a. No WTS facility shall be located in a front, rear, or side yard building setback in
any base zone and no portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the
property lines.
b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30 feet from
a property line abutting a street.
c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all
property lines.
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 33
11. Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in this Code.
However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall require
Discretionary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the approval
criteria specified in Subsection 4.3‐145 I.
12. Accessory Building Size. All accessory buildings and structures built to contain
equipment accessory to a WTS facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height unless a greater
height is necessary and required by a condition of approval to maximize architectural
integration. Each accessory building or structure located on any residential or Public
Land and Open Space zoned property is limited to 200 square feet, unless approved
through the Discretionary Use process.
13. Visual Impact. All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the
greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and
camouflage. All facilities shall also be designed to be compatible with existing
architectural elements, building materials, and other site characteristics. The applicant
shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to accomplish the coverage
objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be sited in a manner to
cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring
properties, and distant properties.
14. Minimize Visibility. Colors and materials for WTS facilities shall be non‐reflective and
chosen to minimize visibility. Facilities, including support equipment and buildings, shall
be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background,
unless required by any other applicable law.
15. Camouflaged Facilities. All camouflaged WTS facilities shall be designed to visually and
operationally blend into the surrounding area in a manner consistent with existing
development on adjacent properties. The facility shall also be appropriate for the
specific site. In other words, it shall not "stand out" from its surrounding environment.
16. Façade‐Mounted Antenna. Facade‐mounted antennas shall be architecturally integrated
into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible,
antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural
feature so as to be completely screened from view. Facade‐mounted antennas shall not
extend more than 2 feet out from the building face.
17. Roof Mounted Antenna. Roof mounted antennas shall be constructed at the minimum
height possible to serve the operator's service area and shall be set back as far from the
building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from the public
right‐of‐way and adjacent properties.
18. Compliance with Photo Simulations. As a condition of approval and prior to final staff
inspection of the WTS facility, the applicant shall submit evidence, e.g. photos, sufficient
to prove that the facility is in substantial conformance with photo simulations provided
with the initial application. Non‐conformance shall require any necessary modification
to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 33
19. Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the
regulations specified in OAR 340‐035‐0035.
20. Signage. No signs, striping, graphics, or other attention‐getting devices are permitted
on any WTS facility except for warning and safety signage that shall:
a. Have a surface area of no more than 3 square feet;
b. Be affixed to a fence or equipment cabinet; and
c. Be limited to no more than two signs, unless more are required by any other
applicable law.
21. Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the public or
private right‐of‐way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that obstructs
traffic.
22. Parking. No net loss in required on‐site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the
installation of any WTS facility.
23. Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair pedestrian use
of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private land.
24. Lighting. WTS facilities shall not include any beacon lights or strobe lights, unless
required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable authority. If
beacon lights or strobe lights are required, the Approval Authority shall review any
available alternatives and approve the design with the least visual impact. All other site
lighting for security and maintenance purposes shall be shielded and directed
downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5‐100,
unless required by any other applicable law.
25. Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of the
base zone, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, not less than 4 feet high at the
time of planting, and spaced out not more than 15 feet apart, shall be provided in the
landscape setback. Shrubs shall be of a variety that can be expected to grow to form a
continuous hedge at least 5 feet in height within 2 years of planting. Trees and shrubs in
the vicinity of guy wires shall be of a kind that would not exceed 20 feet in height or
would not affect the stability of the guys. In all other cases, the landscaping, screening
and fence standards specified in Section 4.4‐100 shall apply.
26. Prohibited WTS Facilities.
a. Any high or moderate visibility WTS facility in the Historic Overlay District.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 33
b. Any WTS facility in the public right‐of‐way that severely limits access to abutting
property, which limits public access or use of the sidewalk, or which constitutes
a vision clearance violation.
c. Any detached WTS facility taller than 150 feet above finished grade at the base
of the tower.
27. Speculation. No application shall be accepted or approved for a speculation WTS tower,
i.e., from an applicant that simply constructs towers and leases tower space to service
carriers, but is not a service carrier, unless the applicant submits a binding written
commitment or executed lease from a service carrier to utilize or lease space on the
tower.
G. Application Submittal Requirements. All applications for a WTS facility shall provide the
following reports, documents or documentation:
1. Submittal Requirements for Low Visibility and Stealth Facilities (Type I review). All
applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities shall submit the following reports
and documentation:
a. Narrative. The application shall include a written narrative that describes in
detail all of the equipment and components proposed to be part of the WTS
facility, including, but not limited to: towers; antennas and arrays; equipment
cabinets; back‐up generators; air conditioning units; lighting; landscaping, and
fencing.
b. Geographic Service Area. The applicant shall identify the geographic service area
for the proposed WTS facility, including a map showing all of the applicant’s and
any other existing sites in the local service network associated with the gap the
facility is meant to close. The applicant shall describe how this service area fits
into and is necessary for the service provider’s service network.
The service area map for the proposed WTS facility shall include the following:
i. The area of significant gap in the existing coverage area;
ii. The service area to be effected by the proposed WTS facility;
iii. The locations of existing WTS tower facilities where co‐location is
possible within a 5 mile radius of the proposed WTS facility.
e. Co‐location. An engineer’s analysis/report of the recommended site location
area is required for the proposed WTS facility. If an existing structure approved
for co‐location is within the area recommended by the engineer’s report,
reasons for not collocating shall be provided demonstrating at least one of the
following deficiencies:
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 33
i. The structure is not of sufficient height to meet engineering
requirements;
ii. The structure is not of sufficient structural strength to
accommodate the WTS facility, or there is a lack of space on all
suitable existing towers to locate proposed antennas.
iii. Electromagnetic interference for one or both WTS facilities will
result from co‐location; or
iv. The radio frequency coverage objective cannot be adequately
met.
f. Plot Plan. A plot plan showing: the lease area; antenna structure; height above
grade and setback from property lines; equipment shelters and setback from
property lines; access; the connection point with the land line system; and all
landscape areas intended to screen the WTS facility.
h. RF Emissions. An engineer’s statement that the RF emissions at grade, or at
nearest habitable space when attached to an existing structure, complies with
FCC rules for these emissions; the cumulative RF emissions if co‐located. Provide
the RF range in megahertz and the wattage output of the equipment
i. Description of Service. A description of the type of service offered including, but
not limited to: voice; data; and video, and the consumer receiving equipment.
j. Provider Information. Identification of the provider and backhaul provider, if
different.
m. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. Provide the zoning and applicable
comprehensive plan (e.g. Metro Plan, 2030 Springfield Refinement Plan)
designation of the proposed site and the surrounding properties within 500
feet.
n. FCC, FAA or Other Required Licenses and Determinations. Provide a copy of all
pertinent submittals to the FCC, FAA or other State or Federal agencies including
environmental assessments and impact statements, and data, assumptions,
calculations, and measurements relating to RF emissions safety standards.
2. Submittal Requirements for Moderate and High Visibility Facilities (Type III review).
Applications for moderate and high visibility WTS facilities shall require all of the
required materials for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities specified in Subsection 4.3‐
145G.1. In addition to the applicable Site Plan and Discretionary Use application
requirements, WTS applications shall require the applicant to address the following:
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 33
a. Height. Provide an engineer’s diagram showing the height of the WTS facility
and all of its visible components, including the number and types of antennas
that can be accommodated. Carriers shall provide evidence that establishes that
the proposed WTS facilities are designed to the minimum height required from
a technological standpoint to meet the carrier’s coverage objectives. If the WTS
facility tower height will exceed the height restrictions of the applicable base
zone, the narrative shall include a discussion of the physical constraints, e.g.,
topographical features, making the additional height necessary. The narrative
shall include consideration of the possibility for design alternatives, including
the use of multiple sites or microcell technology that would avoid the need for
the additional height for the proposed WTS facility.
b. Construction. Describe the anticipated construction techniques and timeframe
for construction or installation of the WTS facility to include all temporary
staging and the type of vehicles and equipment to be used.
c. Maintenance. Describe the anticipated maintenance and monitoring program
for the antennas, back‐up equipment, and landscaping.
d. Noise/Acoustical Information. Provide the manufacturer’s specifications for all
noise‐generating equipment including, but not limited to air conditioning units
and back‐up generators, and a depiction of the equipment location in relation to
abutting properties.
e. Landscaping and Screening. Discuss how the proposed landscaping and
screening materials will screen the site at maturity.
f. Co‐location. In addition to the co‐location requirements specified in Subsection
4.3‐145G.1.e., the applicant shall submit a statement from an Oregon registered
engineer certifying that the proposed WTS facility and tower, as designed and
built, will accommodate co‐locations, and that the facility complies with the
non‐ionizing electromagnetic radiation emission standards as specified by the
FCC. The applicant shall also submit:
i. A letter stating the applicant’s willingness to allow other carriers to co‐
locate on the proposed facilities wherever technically and economically
feasible and aesthetically desirable;
ii. A copy of the original Site Plan for the approved existing WTS facility
updated to reflect current and proposed conditions on the site; and
iii. A depiction of the existing WTS facility showing the proposed placement
of the co‐located antenna and associated equipment. The depiction
shall note the height, color and physical arrangement of the antenna
and equipment.
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 33
g. Lease. If the site is to be leased, a copy of the proposed or existing lease
agreement authorizing development and operation of the proposed WTS
facility.
h. Legal Access. The applicant shall provide copies of existing or proposed
easements, access permits and/or grants of right‐of‐way necessary to provide
lawful access to and from the site to a City street or a State highway.
i. Lighting and Marking. Any proposed lighting and marking of the WTS facility,
including any required by the FAA.
j. Utilities. Utility and service lines for proposed WTS facilities shall be placed
under ground.
k. Alternative Site Analysis. The applicant shall include an analysis of alternative
sites and technological design options for the WTS facility within and outside of
the City that are capable of meeting the same service objectives as the
proposed site with an equivalent or lesser visual or aesthetic impact. If a new
tower is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate the need for a new tower,
and why alternative locations and design alternatives, or alternative
technologies including, but not limited to microcells and signal repeaters,
cannot be used to meet the identified service objectives.
l. Visual Impact Study and Photo Simulations. The applicant shall provide a visual
impact analysis showing the maximum silhouette, viewshed analysis, color and
finish palette, and screening for all components of the proposed WTS facility.
The analysis shall include photo simulations and other information necessary to
determine visual impact of the facility as seen from multiple directions. The
applicant shall include a map showing where the photos were taken.
3. Independent Consultation Report.
a. Review and approval of WTS facilities depends on highly specialized scientific
and engineering expertise not ordinarily available to Springfield staff or to
residents who may be adversely impacted by the proposed development of
these facilities. Therefore, in order to allow the Approval Authority to make an
informed decision on a proposed WTS facility, the Director may require the
applicant to fund an independent consultation report for all new Moderate and
High visibility facilities. The consultation shall be performed by a qualified
professional with expertise pertinent to the scope of the service requested.
b. The scope of the independent consultation shall focus on the applicant’s
alternatives analysis. The consultant will evaluate conclusions of applicant’s
analysis to determine if there are alternative locations or technologies that were
not considered or which could be employed to reduce the service gap but with
less visual or aesthetic impact. There may be circumstances where this scope
may vary but the overall objective shall be to verify that the applicant’s proposal
is safe and is the least impactful alternative for closing the service gap.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 33
c. The applicant shall be informed of the Director’s decision about the need for an
independent consultation at the time of the Pre‐Submittal Meeting that is
required under Section 5.1‐120 (C). It is anticipated that the independent
consultation will be required when the applicant proposes to locate a Moderate
or High visibility WTS facility in a residential zoning district or within 500 feet of
a residential zoning district. Other instances where a proposed WTS facility may
have a visual or aesthetic impact on sensitive neighborhoods could also prompt
the Director to require an independent consultation.
H. Review Process. The review process is determined by the type of WTS facility or activity that is
proposed. High or moderate visibility WTS facilities, defined in Subsection 4.3‐145E., require
Type III Planning Commission or Hearings Official review. Low visibility or stealth facilities, and
the co‐location of new equipment of existing facilities are allowed under a Type I staff review
with applicable building or electrical permits. Routine equipment repair and maintenance do
not require planning review; however, applicable building and electrical permits are required.
1. Development Issues Meeting. A Development Issues Meeting (DIM) as specified in
Subsection 5.1‐120(A.) is required only for high and moderate visibility WTS facility
applications. Applicable development standards as specified in Subsection 4.3‐145F.
and submittal requirements as specified in Subsection 4.3‐145G., will be discussed at
the DIM.
2. Type I Review Process. The following WTS facilities are allowed with the approval of the
Director with applicable building and electrical permits:
a. Stealth and low visibility WTS facilities, as defined in Subsection 4.3‐145E., in
any zoning district.
b. Façade mounted antennas or low powered networked telecommunications
facilities, e.g., as those employing microcell antennas integrated into the
architecture of an existing building in a manner that no change to the
architecture is apparent and no part of the WTS facility is visible to public view.
c. Antennas or arrays that are hidden from public view through the use of
architectural treatments, e.g., within a cupola, steeple, or parapet which is
consistent with the applicable building height limitation.
d. New antennas or arrays including side‐mounted antennas and small top‐
mounted antennas that are attached to an existing broadcast communication
facility located in any zone. No more than three small top‐mounted antennas
shall be placed on the top of any one facility without a Type III review.
e. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation and
clustering of towers, co‐location of antennas or arrays on existing towers shall
take precedence over the construction of new towers, provided the co‐location
is accomplished in a manner consistent with the following:
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 33
i. An existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height to
accommodate the co‐location of additional antennas or arrays, as long
as the modified or rebuilt tower will not exceed the height limit of the
applicable zoning district. Proposals to increase the height of a tower in
a residential zoning district, or within 500 feet of a residential zoning
district shall be reviewed under a Type III process. The height change
may only occur one time per tower.
ii. An existing tower that is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the
co‐ location of additional antennas or arrays shall be of the same tower
type and reconstructed in the exact same location as the existing tower.
f. WTS facilities proposed within the public right‐of‐way on an existing utility or
light pole in any zoning district, so long as they meet all of the following:
i. The antennas do not project more than 24 inches above the existing
utility pole support structure;
ii. No more than a total of 2 antennas or antenna arrays are located on a
single pole; and
iii. The equipment cabinet is no larger than 6 cubic feet and is concealed
from public view by burying or screening by means other than walls or
fences.
g. Co‐location of antennas or arrays on existing WTS facilities.
h. The Director will use the applicable criteria specified in Subsection 4.3‐145 I. to
evaluate the proposal.
3. Type III Review Process. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official review and
approve a Discretionary Use application and a concurrently processed Site Plan Review
application for the following WTS facilities:
a. High visibility and moderate visibility WTS facilities.
b. All other locations and situations not specified in Subsections 4.3‐145H. 2. and
3.
c. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official will use the applicable criteria
specified in Subsection 4.3‐145 I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9‐120 to evaluate the proposal.
4. Council Notification and Possible Review.
a. A briefing memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to the City Council
upon receipt of an application for a High or Moderate visibility or any other WTS
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 33
facility subject to review by the Planning Commission. By action of the City
Council, an application for a facility proposed within the city limits may be
elevated for direct City Council review. In those instances where an application
is elevated for direct review, the City Council shall be the Approval Authority
and will use the applicable criteria specified in Subsection 4.3‐145 I. in place of
the Discretionary Use criteria in Section 5.9‐120 to evaluate the proposal.
b. By agreement with Lane County, the Hearings Official shall be the Approval
Authority for applications outside of the city limits but inside of the Springfield
Urban Growth Boundary. The Hearings Official will use the applicable criteria
specified in Subsection 4.3‐145 I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9‐120 to evaluate the proposal.
I. Approval Criteria.
1. Low Visibility and Stealth WTS Facility Applications. The Director shall approve the low
visibility and stealth WTS facility applications upon a determination that the applicable
standards specified in Subsection 4.3‐145F. and the submittal requirements specified in
Subsection 4.3‐145G. are met.
2. Moderate and High Visibility WTS Facility Applications. The Approval Authority shall
approve moderate visibility and high visibility WTS facility applications upon a
determination that the applicable standards specified in Subsection 4.3‐145F. and the
submittal requirements specified in Subsection 4.3‐145G. are met. Through the
Discretionary Use review, the Approval Authority shall also determine if there are any
impacts of the proposed WTS facility on adjacent properties and on the public that can
be mitigated through application of other Springfield Development Code standards or
conditions of approval as specified in Subsection 4.3‐145J.
J. Conditions of Approval. For Type III applications, the Approval Authority may impose any
reasonable conditions deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the approval criteria as
allowed by SDC Section 5.9‐125.
K. Maintenance. The property owner and the carrier in charge of the WTS facility and tower shall
maintain all equipment and structures, landscaping, driveways and mitigating measures as
approved. Additionally:
1. All WTS facilities shall maintain compliance with current RF emission standards of the
FCC, the National Electric Safety Code, and all State and local regulations.
2. All equipment cabinets shall display a legible operator’s contact number for reporting
maintenance problems.
L. Inspections.
1. The City shall have the authority to enter onto the property upon which a WTS facility is
located to inspect the facility for the purpose of determining whether it complies with
Attachment 1, Page 18 of 33
the Building Code and all other construction standards provided by the City and Federal
and State law.
2. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice
to the WTS facility owner. In the event the inspection results in a determination that
violation of applicable construction and maintenance standards established by the City
has occurred, remedy of the violation may include cost recovery for all City costs
incurred in confirming and processing the violation.
M. Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. The following requirements apply to the abandonment
and/or discontinuation of use for all WTS facilities:
1. All WTS facilities located on a utility pole shall be promptly removed at the operator’s
expense at any time a utility is scheduled to be placed underground or otherwise
moved.
2. All operators who intend to abandon or discontinue the use of any WTS facility shall
notify the City of their intentions no less than 60 days prior to the final day of use.
3. WTS facilities shall be considered abandoned 90 days following the final day of use or
operation.
4. All abandoned WTS facilities shall be physically removed by the service provider and/or
property owner no more than 90 days following the final day of use or of determination
that the facility has been abandoned, whichever occurs first.
5. The City reserves the right to remove any WTS facilities that are abandoned for more
than 90 days at the expense of the facility owner.
6. Any abandoned site shall be restored to its natural or former condition. Grading and
landscaping in good condition may remain.
N. Review of WTS Facilities Standards. In the event that the Federal or State government adopts
mandatory or advisory standards more stringent than those described in this Section, staff will
prepare a report and recommendation for the City Council with recommendations on any
necessary amendments to the City’s adopted standards.
Section 2. SDC Section 6.1‐110 is amended to remove the following terms.
Acceptable Site
Antenna
Attached WTS Facility
Collocation
Conditionally Suitable Site
Detached WTS Facility
Equipment Shelters
Attachment 1, Page 19 of 33
Lattice Tower
Monopole
Preferred Site
Stealth Design
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
The definition for “Wireless Telecommunication System” in 6.1‐110 is amended to read as
follows:
Wireless Telecommunications Systems (WTS). The sending and receiving of radio frequency
transmissions and the connection and/or relaying of these signals to land lines and other sending and
receiving stations (cell sites), and including cellular radiotelephone, personal communications services,
enhanced/specialized mobile radio, and commercial paging services. Terms and definitions associated
with WTS facilities, and the standards that regulate their siting and design are found in SDC Section 4.3‐
145 E.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the
Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage
by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of acknowledgement as provided in
ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _______ day of _______________2013
by a vote of ____for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ____ day of ___________________ 2013.
____________________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 1, Page 20 of 33
Type IV Amendment to the Springfield Development Code
Staff Report
Project Name: Amendment to the Springfield Development Code replacing SDC 4.3‐145—Wireless
Telecommunication System (WTS) Facilities
Nature of Application: To replace SDC Section 4.3‐145 with a new policy section guiding the
development and maintenance of WTS facilities. The proposed replacement section updates
Springfield’s policies to address issues concerning placement, appearance and the approval process for
cell towers.
Case Number: TYP412‐00001
Project Location: City‐wide legislative action
Date of Initiation: December 28, 2013
Date of DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment: December 28, 2012
Date of Newspaper Notice: February 1, 2013
Date of Mailed Notices: February 7, 2013
I. Executive Summary
Section 4.3‐145 G of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) states that the city’s WTS policies should
be periodically updated to ensure “contemporaneity with technological changes made in this industry.”
In March of 2012, staff met in work session with Council to discuss cell tower siting and related WTS
policies. A number of concerns were expressed by Council that required follow up action.
Staff prepared an assessment of SDC Section 4.3‐145 and recommended an approach to remedying
Council’s concerns. These were presented to Council in an October 22, 2013 work session. At the
October meeting, the Council approved the recommended remedies and asked staff to prepare
amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement the approved remedies.
The proposed amendments to Section 4.3‐145 analyzed in this document respond to the direction given
by Council. The amendments seek to implement the “remedies” discussed at the October 22nd meeting.
In preparing these amendments it was imperative that proposed changes comply with the approval
criteria for Development Code amendments found in SDC Section 5.6‐115. These criteria state that in
“reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings
which demonstrate conformance to the following: A) The Metro Plan; B) Applicable State statutes; and C)
Applicable State‐wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
Attachment 1, Page 21 of 33
This staff report is intended to provide a factual base for decision makers to rely upon in determining
whether the amendments conform to the decision criteria. It is the opinion of staff that the findings
contained in this report provide a substantive basis for decision makers to make a determination that
these amendments conform to the decision criteria found in SDC Section 5.6‐115 for approving
Development Code amendments.
On February 20, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the
amendments to Section 4.3‐145 and voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve the new
WTS policies. No public comment was received at the hearing and no written comments were
received by staff. In addition to the required newspaper notice of the hearing, mailed notice was sent
to all property owners with towers and all service providers who could be identified on existing
towers serving Springfield.
The State statutes and Administrative Rules mentioned in the approval criteria have little to say about
how communities regulate the location and appearance of WTS facilities. The Federal
Telecommunication Act of 1996 (TCA) recognizes the right of local governments to regulate the siting of
WTS facilities to minimize the intrusion of the facilities on local neighborhoods. The TCA placed certain
limits on those local siting standards (listed below). Those limitations have shaped the proposed WTS
amendments.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) – The stated purpose of the TCA is to “promote competition
and reduce regulation in order to secure lower process and higher quality services for American
telecommunication consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies.” In carrying out this purpose, the TCA implements three important (but somewhat
competing) principles:
1) The siting of wireless telecommunications facilities must comply with local zoning and land use
regulations; and
2) Local jurisdictions must not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services but may distinguish applications based upon different visual, aesthetic and safety concerns;
and
3) The local regulations must not result in the actual or effective prohibition in the provision of
personal wireless services.
The staff report also demonstrates that the proposed amendments comply with the provisions of the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 as they apply to the limitations placed on local jurisdictions
with respect to local siting standards.
As mentioned above, Council approved the remedies recommended for addressing its concerns with cell
tower siting and review and directed staff to prepare implementing amendments to Section 4.3‐145.
The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3‐145 implement the approach presented to Council. The
proposed remedies represent a wholesale change in the review process and various additional
standards. The nature of these changes prompted staff to replace Section 4.3‐145 rather than try to
surgically amend individual subsections of the existing code.
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 33
The remainder of this document analyzes the proposed amendment of Section 4.3‐145 of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) with respect to the criteria for approving such amendments found in SDC
Section 5.6‐115.
III. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for amending the Springfield Development Code (SDC) are described in
Sections 5.6‐100 and 5.1‐140 of the SDC.
SDC Section 5.6‐105 indicates that the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council or a
resident of the City can initiate amendments to the SDC. Such amendments of are reviewed under a
“Type IV” procedure (Section 5.6‐110) and require public hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council. Type IV procedures are detailed in Section 5.1‐140 of the SDC. The proposed revision
to SDC Section 4.3‐145 was initiated by the Director.
SDC Section 5.2‐110 (B) requires that legislative land use decisions be advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation, providing information about the legislative action and the time, place and location of
the hearing.
Findings:
Finding #1. The City of Springfield initiated the proposed amendment to Section 4.3‐145. The
amendment is not site‐specific and falls under the definition of a legislative action.
Finding #2. A “DLCD Notice Proposed Amendment” was e‐mailed with mailed copies following to
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December
28, 2012 alerting the agency to the City’s intent to amend SDC Section 4.3‐145. The
notice was mailed more than 35 days in advance of the first evidentiary hearing as
required by ORS 197.610 (1). No comment has been received from the Department
concerning the amendments.
Finding #3. Notice of the public hearing concerning this matter was published on Thursday,
February 1, 2013 in the Register Guard, advertising the hearing before the Springfield
Planning Commission on February 19, 2013 and the Springfield City Council on April 1,
2013. The content of the notice followed the direction given in Section 5.2‐115 of the
SDC for legislative actions.
Finding #4. Mailed notice was sent on February 7, 2013 to property owners where towers are
located and to providers, advertising the hearing before the Springfield Planning
Commission on February 20, 2013 and the Springfield City Council on April 1, 2013. The
content of the notice followed the direction given in Section 5.2‐115 of the SDC for
legislative actions.
Finding #5. ORS 197.047(4) requires the local government to mail a notice to every landowner
whose property would be “rezoned” as a result of an amendment to planning policies
that would limit or prohibit land uses previously allowed in the affected zone.
Attachment 1, Page 23 of 33
Finding #6. The proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code allow WTS facilities in
all zoning districts, as does the current policy. New towers located in some zoning
districts or near (within 500 feet) of residential zoning districts may be required by the
amended policies to employ stealth measures to reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts
of these facilities. Mailed notice to landowners is therefore not required under the
provisions of ORS 197.047(4). Mailed notices to the owners of record for existing cell
tower facilities and representatives of cell tower providers who have submitted building
permit applications for collocation of new WTS facilities or the repair/replacement of
equipment on existing tower facilities were mailed on January 24, 2013.
Finding #7. On February 20, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning
the amendments to Section 4.3‐145 and voted unanimously to recommend that Council
approve the new WTS policies. No public comment was received at the hearing and no
written comments were received by staff. In addition to the required newspaper notice
of the hearing, mailed notice was sent to all property owners with towers and all service
providers who could be identified on existing towers serving Springfield.
Conclusion:
Procedural requirements described in Sections 5.6‐100 and 5.1‐140 of the SDC have been followed.
Notice requirements established by DLCD and the Oregon Revised Statutes for amending the
Development Code have also been followed.
IV. Decision Criteria and Findings
SDC Section 5.6‐115 describes the criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC. It states
that in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must adopt findings which
demonstrate conformance with “1) the Metro Plan; 2) applicable State statutes; and to 3) applicable
State‐wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
Criterion #1 “Conformance with the Metro Plan”
Findings:
Finding #6. The Metro Plan does not address telecommunication facilities or cell towers specifically
as it does other urban infrastructure and services. “Communication facilities” are briefly
mentioned a key urban service. The Metro Plan Glossary defines “Key Urban Facilities
and Services” on page V3. “Communication facilities” are listed among the “Minimum
level” Key Urban Services.
Finding #7. The Metro Plan supports the orderly and efficient extension of key urban services and
facilities. Metro Plan Policy G.1 states: “Extend the minimum level and full range of key
urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the
growth management policies in Chapter II‐C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other
Metro Plan policies.” Pg. III‐G‐4
Finding #8. The Metro Plan places the cost of extending services on the developer. Metro Plan
Policy G.36 states: “Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local
Attachment 1, Page 24 of 33
jurisdiction, of extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy,
where a development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and
other applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern.” Pg. III‐G‐15
Finding #9. The Metro Plan intends that both public and private facilities be designed and located to
in a way that minimizes their impact on neighborhoods. Metro Plan Policy E.4 states:
“Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves
and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their
sense of identity.” PG. III‐E‐3
Finding #10. The Metro Plan requires cities to address environmental design considerations in their
development regulations. These design elements include aesthetics. Regulations
should ensure that development is aesthetically compatible existing and anticipated
neighboring uses, particularly residential uses. Metro Plan Policy E.6 states: “Local
jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that they
address environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime
prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses
(particularly considering high and medium density development locating adjacent to low
density residential).” Pg. III‐E‐3
Finding #11. The Metro Plan intends that planning standards allow for flexibility and creative
solutions to design problems. Metro Plan Policy E.8 states: “Site planning standards
developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that will achieve site
planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems.” Pg. III‐E‐3
Finding #12. The focus of the proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 is on facilitating the
location of needed WTS facilities while minimizing the visual and aesthetic impacts of
these facilities on nearby neighborhoods, particularly residential and certain commercial
zoning districts that are sensitive to these impacts. This focus is described in the
Purpose statement found in Section 4.3‐145 (A), and is implemented through the
General Standards that are listed in Section 4.3‐145 (F).
Conclusion
While wireless telecommunication system facilities (i.e. cell towers) are not specifically mentioned,
communication facilities are is listed among those key urban services recognized by the Metro Plan. The
Metro Plan intends that key services and facilities be extended in an orderly and efficient manner with
the developer bearing the cost.
The design and location of public and private facilities are intended to be sensitive to the impacts they
may have on neighborhoods. Communities are required to include design elements in their
development regulations that will protect neighborhoods from the impacts of urban facilities which
include communications facilities. These regulations should allow the developer a measure of flexibility
in addressing the impacts their facilities may have.
The proposed new Section 4.3‐145 provides for the extension of WTS facilities as needed to allow
wireless service coverage throughout the city. In accordance with Federal law, needed wireless facilities
Attachment 1, Page 25 of 33
are not precluded from any zoning district. Design measures are required to minimize the visual and
aesthetic impact of these facilities on residential and commercial areas in Springfield. The new
standards offer protection without being overly prescriptive.
Stealth measures are required to locate high impact facilities like towers in sensitive neighborhoods.
The definition of “stealth” does not require a specific design approach, but instead allow the developer
to propose a design that mitigates anticipated impacts. The effectiveness of the design in mitigating
impacts is the measure what is evaluated.
Based on the findings shown above, staff concludes the proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145
are consistent with the applicable portions of the Metro Plan.
Criterion #2 “Conformance with Applicable State Statutes”
Findings
Finding #13. Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 759—Telecommunications Utility Regulation is the
primary body of state law regulating telecommunications. The chapter is focused on
the regulation of utility providers. No elements of this chapter limit local governments
from implementing zoning and construction standards for the siting of WTS facilities.
Finding #14. ORS 759.015—Legislative findings on universal telecommunications service, states that
“it is the goal of the State of Oregon to secure and maintain high‐quality universal
telecommunications service at just and reasonable rates for all classes of customers and
to encourage innovation within the industry by a balanced program of regulation and
competition. The Public Utility Commission shall administer the statutes with respect to
telecommunications rates and services in accordance with this policy. [Formerly
757.810]”
The proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 do not interfere with the provision of high‐quality
telecommunications or with the state regulation of telecommunication providers by the Public Utility
Commission.
Finding #15. ORS 759.016—Legislative findings on broadband services, states:
(1) That it is the goal of this state to promote access to broadband services for all
Oregonians in order to improve the economy in Oregon, improve the quality of life in
Oregon communities and reduce the economic gap between Oregon communities that
have access to broadband digital applications and services and those that do not, for
both present and future generations; and
(2) That the goal set forth in subsection (1) of this section may be achieved by:
(a) Expanding broadband and other telecommunications services;
(b) Creating incentives to establish and expand broadband and other
telecommunications services;
(c) Undertaking telecommunications planning at the local, regional and state
Attachment 1, Page 26 of 33
levels that includes participants from both the public and the private sectors;
(d) Removing barriers to the full deployment of broadband digital applications
and services and providing incentives for the removal of those barriers; and
(e) Removing barriers to public‐private partnerships in areas where the private
sector cannot justify investments. [2003 c.775 §1]
Note: 759.016 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or
made a part of ORS chapter 759 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface
to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Finding #16. The proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 do not conflict with the goals stated
in ORS 759.015 and 759.016. The amendments seek to make wireless services available
to all areas of Springfield while minimizing the impact of WTS facilities on residential
neighborhoods and certain commercial areas that are sensitive to the visual impacts of
such facilities. The siting standards found in Section 4.3‐145 F do not conflict with the
state telecommunications goals.
Finding #17. Criterion #2 is concerned with the conformance of the proposed amendments with
state laws. It should be noted that while state law does not limit local governments
from establishing siting standards, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
establishes some limitations on siting standards. The Act does not “limit or affect the
authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions
regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service
facilities” except for the following limitations:
` (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof‐‐ `(I) shall
not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
`(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services.
`(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for
authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a
reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or
instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
`(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a
request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
`(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such
facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 33
`(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph
may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court
of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited
basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may
petition the Commission for relief.”1
Finding #18. SDC Section 4.3‐145 (A), the proposed amendments were written to conform to the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 and to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of
standards and review procedures for the placement, operation, alteration and removal
of WTS facilities.
Finding #19. SDC Section 4.3‐145 (F) states “The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes
limitations on the siting standards that local government can place on WTS facilities.
Section 704 of the Act states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in this section to the
extent that they do not violate federal limitations on local siting standards. Where
application of the standards found in this section constitutes a violation, the least
intrusive alternative for providing coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the
standards.”
Conclusion
The Oregon Revised Statutes (Chapter 759) regulates telecommunications utilities. No elements of ORS
759 restrict the regulation of the location or construction of WTS facilities by local governments. The
amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of OAR Chapter 579.
Based on the findings included above, the proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 do not conflict
with any applicable state statutes. It is the conclusion of staff that the proposed amendments comply
with this criterion.
In addition to applicable state statutes, the proposed amendments defer to the regulatory limitations
place on local jurisdictions with respect to siting standards found in the Federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
1 Sec. 704. Facilities Siting; Radio Frequency Emission Standards. (A) National Wireless Telecommunications Siting
Policy‐ Section 332(C) (47 U.S.C. 332(C)).
Attachment 1, Page 28 of 33
Criterion #3 “Applicable State‐wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules”
Compliance with Oregon Administrative Rules
Findings
Finding #18. OAR 860 Division 60 contains those administrative rules that govern
telecommunications as regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission. This division
implements ORS 579. A search of this chapter reveals no rules that apply to the siting
of WTS facilities. The proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 do not conflict with
these administrative rules.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement. Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of
the planning process."
Finding #19. The proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 were the subject of legislative public
hearings advertised in the Register Guard on Thursday, February 1, 2013. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to consider the amendments in a public hearing on February
19, 2013. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on April 1, 2013.
Finding #20. Although not required by this legislative action, on February 7, 2013, mailed notice was
sent to property owners with cell towers on their land and to service providers who
have located on Springfield towers.
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and
that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
Finding #21. The Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use planning in Springfield. Various
adopted refinement plans and specific area plans provide more detailed direction for
planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan.
Finding #22. The SDC implements the policies and direction of the Metro Plan. The proposed
amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 will modify the siting standards and review process
for Wireless Telecommunication System facilities. There is no specific mention of WTS
facilities in the Metro Plan. While the Metro Plan does not specifically address siting
standards for WTS facilities, Communications Facilities are listed as a key urban facility
and service. Findings #1‐#7 of this report (pg. 5) show that the proposed amendments
to SDC 4.3‐145 are consistent with the Metro Plan and its policies.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm zoning.
Finding #23. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These amendments do
Attachment 1, Page 29 of 33
not apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on
commercial and industrial development without full urban services, generally do not
apply outside the city limits. All land in the City’s urban transition area carries City
zoning. An exception to this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was
acknowledged.
Goal 4 – Forest Land. This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them and adopt
policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
Finding #24. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. These amendments do not
apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial
and industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside
the city limits. All land in the City’s urban transition area carries City zoning. An
exception to this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was
acknowledged.
Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Goal 5 covers more than a
dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands. It establishes a process for
each resource to be inventoried and evaluated.
Finding #25. The amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any identified natural
resources. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to
comply with Goal 5 are affected by these amendments.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires local comprehensive plans and
implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
Finding #26. The amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any identified air, water or
land resource issues. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents
adopted to comply with Goal 6 are affected by these amendments.
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with development in places
subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate
safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there.
Finding #27. All sites within Springfield that are subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of
sources. The proposed amendment does not remove or exempt compliance with other
Code standards that may apply to development.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for
recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them.
Attachment 1, Page 30 of 33
Finding #28. Willamalane Park and Recreation District is the entity responsible for park planning,
development and maintenance in the urban transition area as well as the city limits.
The proposed amendments to do not alter policies encouraging the provision of
recreational facilities or the incorporation of community open space in development
design.
Goal 9 – Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy. It
asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands, and
plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #29. The amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any economic
development issues. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents
adopted to comply with Goal 9 are affected by these amendments.
Goal 10 – Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing
types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing.
Finding #30. The amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any housing issues. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 10
are affected by these amendments.
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection.
Finding #31. OAR‐660‐011‐0005 (5) defines “Public Facilities” to include “water, sewer, and
transportation facilities, but does not include buildings, structures or equipment
incidental to the direct operation of those facilities.” Wireless telecommunication
facilities are not listed among those public facilities that must be included in local public
facilities plans. This goal does not apply to the proposed amendments.
Goal 12 – Transportation. The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system."
Finding #32. OAR 660‐012‐0060 requires evaluation of a comprehensive plan or land use regulation
amendment to determine if an amendment to the Springfield Development Code
significantly affects a transportation facility.
Finding #33. The proposed amendments do not: change the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility; change standards implementing a functional
classification system; allow types of levels of use which would result in levels of travel or
access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation
facility; or reduce the level of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level
identified in the Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan).
Attachment 1, Page 31 of 33
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation. Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles."
Finding #34. The amendments to SDC Section 4.3‐145 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to energy conservation. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 13
are affected by these amendments.
Goal 14 – Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then
plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
Finding #35. The amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not repeal, replace or void existing Metro
Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to Springfield’s inventory of
buildable lands. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to
comply with Goal 14 are affected by these amendments.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering the 300 miles of
greenway that protects the Willamette River.
Finding #36. The proposed amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145 does not change the obligation to
comply with the City’s existing standards for development with respect to the
Willamette River Greenway. The Greenway provisions allow development of permitted
uses in the underlying zone, provided that all other Greenway requirements are
satisfied. The City’s adopted, acknowledged Greenway ordinance will not be changed.
Finding #37. Existing WTS standards allow for the placement of WTS facilities within the Willamette
Greenway Boundary but require measures to minimize the visual impact of such
facilities. The proposed SDC Section 4.3‐145 (F), Table 4.3‐1 allows for the installation
of “Low visibility” and “Stealth” facilities. WTS facilities will continue to be subject to
the standards found in the Willamette Greenway Development Overlay District.
Applications for new tower facilities require public hearing and discretionary review by
the Planning Commission.
Goals 16 through 19 – Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the City’s
jurisdiction. These goals do not apply in Springfield.
Conclusion
The proposed amendment to SDC Section 4.3‐145, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals. It is the conclusion of staff
that the proposed amendments comply with this criterion.
V. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
Based on its findings with respect to the criteria defined in SDC Section 5.6‐115 for approving
amendments to the Springfield Development Code, staff finds the proposed amendments to SDC
Attachment 1, Page 32 of 33
Attachment 1, Page 33 of 33
Section 4.3‐145 to be consistent with these criteria and recommend approval of the proposed
amendments.