Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 02 22 AIS for Verizon Wireless Monopine Cellular TowerAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 2/22/2017 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 20 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: MODERATE VISIBILITY CELLULAR TOWER APPLICATION—CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS LLC ON BEHALF OF VERIZON WIRELESS, CASES TYP317-00001 AND TYP217-00001 ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and deliberations, and approve, approve with amendments, or deny a proposal by Verizon Wireless to construct a 125-foot tall monopine cellular tower on an existing utility property at 3200 Vitus Lane. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications for a new wireless telecommunication tower facility on an existing water reservoir site on Vitus Butte. The subject site is addressed as 3200 Vitus Lane (Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 801). The proposed cellular tower is a faux tree or “monopine” design with top-mounted antenna array, which is classified as a “Moderate Visibility” wireless telecommunication facility requiring Planning Commission approval. Section 4.3-145.F of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) provides Discretionary Use standards for approving the cellular tower placement. The public hearing for this application is scheduled for Wednesday February 22, 2017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report and Recommendation for Discretionary Use 2. Staff Report and Recommended Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review 3. Verizon Wireless Application and Exhibits 4. PC Final Order - Discretionary Use Request TYP317-00001 5. PC Final Order - Site Plan Review Application TYP217-00001 DISCUSSION: The proposed monopine tower facility is located on the western edge of an existing public utility installation at the top of Vitus Butte (also locally referred to as “Moe Mountain”). The subject property is owned by Rainbow Water District and contains an existing 4-million gallon water reservoir tank. The subject site is zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map. Properties in the immediate vicinity are zoned Low Density Residential (LDR). Moderate Visibility cellular tower facilities are allowable in the Public Land and Open Space district subject to Discretionary Use approval. Staff has prepared a staff report and recommendation based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 4.3-145.F and SDC Section 5.9-120 (Attachment 1). The findings presented by staff provide a substantive basis for conditionally approving a moderate visibility wireless telecommunication system facility at the subject property. Staff has also prepared a staff report with recommended conditions of approval for the Site Plan Review application, which is based on the review criteria found in SDC Section 5.17-125 (Attachment 2). The public hearing for the proposal is scheduled for February 22, 2017. As a result of public notification for this development proposal staff has responded to several telephone calls inquiring about the application and requesting clarification of the project details. No written comments have been received. Staff recommends approval of the Discretionary Use and Site Plan Applications subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff reports and, to this end, draft motions have been provided herein for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use Request (Verizon Wireless) Meeting Date: February 22, 2017 Case Number: TYP317-00001 Applicant: Peter Mauro, Centerline Solutions LLC on behalf of Verizon Wireless Site: 3200 Vitus Lane (Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 801 and Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5100) Request The application was submitted on January 5, 2017 and the public hearing on the matter of the Discretionary Use request is scheduled for February 22, 2017. The City conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request on January 31, 2017. Site Information/Background The utility lot that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located at 3200 Vitus Lane in the River Heights neighborhood. The site is at the top of Vitus Butte (also locally known as “Moe Mountain”) and it contains an existing 50-foot high, 4-million gallon water reservoir tank owned and operated by Rainbow Water District. The physical location of the proposed monopine cellular tower is near the western edge of the property at the crest of the hillside. The applicant is proposing to construct a 125-foot high faux tree or “monopine” cellular tower with equipment cabinets, fenced enclosure and backup power generator about 71 feet from the western boundary and 129 feet from the northern boundary of the subject property. Monopine cellular towers are classified as “moderate visibility” wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facilities in accordance with Section 4.3-145.E of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities such as imitation trees are allowable in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District subject to Discretionary Use approval in accordance with SDC Section 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1. The property is zoned PLO in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated for Parks and Open Space in accordance with the adopted Metro Plan diagram (Figure 1). The subject site abuts residential properties along the northern and southern boundaries, and it abuts a linear property owned by Willamalane along the western boundary. The Willamalane property is subject to a proposed Zoning Map amendment submitted under separate cover (Case TYP317-00002) that would change the zoning from LDR to PLO. The property has a developed “panhandle” frontage and access driveway onto Vitus Lane along the eastern boundary. Utility connections will be extended from connection points along the Vitus Lane frontage of the property and the applicant has submitted a concurrent Site Plan Review application under separate cover (Case TYP217-00001) for the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility and compound. A more detailed review of the site access and utility configuration is provided in the accompanying Site Plan Review report (Attachment 2). Notification and Written Comments Notification of the February 22, 2017 public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on January 19, 2017. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on February 15, 2017. Attachment 1, Page 1 of 20 Photo 1 – Site Air Photo Photo 2 – Oblique Aerial View Looking North Public notification was also sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on January 19, 2017 for the companion Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case TYP217-00001). Staff responded to several telephone calls inquiring about the proposal but no written comments were received. Oregon National Guard Armory Proposed Tower Proposed Tower Location SITE Oregon National Guard Armory Attachment 1, Page 2 of 20 Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract Zoning Map Legend Light Medium Industrial (LMI) Low Density Residential (LDR) Heavy Industrial (HI) Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Criteria of Approval Section 5.9-100 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Discretionary Use requests. The Criteria of Discretionary Use approval are: SDC 5.9-120 CRITERIA A. The proposed use conforms with applicable: 1. Provisions of the Metro Plan; 2. Refinement plans; 3. Plan District standards; 4. Conceptual Development Plans or 5. Specific Development Standards in this Code; Oregon National Guard Armory Proposed Tower Location SITE Attachment 1, Page 3 of 20 B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: 1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); 2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation; 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and 4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the: 1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions. D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3- 145. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Finding: Wireless telecommunications systems facilities are exempt from Criteria A-C in accordance with Section 5.9-120.D.1 of the Springfield Development Code. Therefore, only Criterion D is listed herein. Attachment 1, Page 4 of 20 Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval Criterion: Discretionary Use criteria of approval: D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. Procedural Finding: The approval criteria for wireless telecommunications system facilities are listed in SDC 4.3-145.F – General Standards. The proposed monopine tower is classified as a “moderate visibility” facility in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E. The applicable standards for wireless telecommunications systems facilities are as follows: 1) Design for co-location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate the maximum number of additional users technically practicable. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed facility will be designed to accommodate two additional antenna arrays, three arrays in total including Verizon, and all associated equipment and mounting hardware. Verizon is willing to allow colocators on the facility as required by Code; please see Exhibit 8 for a letter from Verizon stating as such.” Finding 1: The applicant has designed the wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facility to accommodate additional users, thereby allowing for co-location at the subject site. The applicant’s submittal (Attachment 3 to the AIS) shows the location of at least two additional antenna arrays that could be mounted below the Verizon Wireless antenna array. The facility also will be designed to allow for mounting of additional dish antennas, if necessary. Tower loading for the currently proposed and potential future antenna arrays will be reviewed through the building permitting process for the facility. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposal is for a Wireless Telecommunications [System] Facility as defined in the Springfield Development Code. Compliance with §4.3-145 is discussed below. The proposed WTS is consistent with the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The proposed WTS will not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses, and will not cause interference with any electronic equipment, such as telephones, televisions, or radios. Noninterference is ensured by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation of radio transmissions. The Telecommunications Act provides wireless carriers with important procedural due process protections, including the requirement that ‘the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services’. 47U.S.C.§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). This application includes substantial evidence demonstrating that there is a significant gap in coverage for customers in this part of Springfield and that the proposed facility is designed to Attachment 1, Page 5 of 20 provide coverage for this area. Verizon identified a need for a new wireless communication facility in the northern part of Springfield in close proximity to the subject property. The proposed WTS is necessary to address a significant gap in coverage in this area of Springfield. Verizon’s objective for this site is to improve these wireless services, fill in coverage gaps in certain areas that do not have strong enough signal strength to hold a call or access our network, and offload a nearby existing tower providing some coverage in this area that is over-capacity. As part of the process of upgrading and expanding its physical system network, Verizon is improving its existing wireless communications network in the City of Springfield. The need for a new wireless communication facility is determined by market demand, capacity requirements for a specific geographic area, and the need to provide continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. Once the need for additional capacity or coverage in a particular area has been established, Verizon identifies a target area or ‘search ring’ where the new facility can be located to address these needs. The facility must be located within these search ring parameters to provide the required service and address the gap in coverage. The required site location and antenna height is determined by an engineering study of the area and specific tower parameters. This study evaluates radio signal propagation over the desired coverage area based on topography, geographic features, and possible signal attenuation due to seasonal changes in vegetation.” Finding 2: The applicant’s submittal (Attachment 3) shows the existing gap in coverage, along with the location of the existing Verizon Wireless facilities. According to the applicant’s submittal the coverage and capacity gaps can be addressed by the proposed monopine tower. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “In determining where to site the proposed WTS, Verizon first considered if it could be located on an existing tower. Verizon Wireless confirmed that there are no existing towers available for colocation within the search ring area for this facility. Verizon considered existing Crown Castle and SBA towers located off of Olympic Street, but it confirmed these towers were rejected because: (1) they are too far south of the search ring to properly reach the intended coverage area; and (2) they are too close to two existing towers that Verizon is already located on. Therefore, these two facilities were dismissed. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed facility is included in Exhibit 3. The only two viable candidates are the Crown and SBA towers which were rejected for the reasons mentioned above. All other existing towers are further away. Unfortunately, none of the towers in the surrounding area can be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. This information, along with the materials in Exhibit 2 provided by the Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, demonstrate that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage. This proposed development would allow Verizon to continue to provide the needed service to this portion of Springfield, as shown in Exhibit 2, including roads and highways, as well as surrounding neighborhoods and business areas. It is crucial for Verizon to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve Attachment 1, Page 6 of 20 customers in compliance with its FCC license regulations. The proposal is for a Camouflaged tower, which is a Moderate Visibility site; it is not possible to get a lower visibility site on the property, as flush-mounted antennas on the water tank are also defined as Moderate Visibility. Additionally, this area is primarily zoned low-density residential, with a pocket of PLO, which is where this tower is proposed. This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arm, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and will have a sight-obscuring fence.” Finding 3: The applicant’s submittal indicates that there is an existing coverage gap in the area to be served by the proposed monopine tower. The proposed facility addresses the coverage gap according to the applicant’s submittal and supporting information. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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 F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district. Applicant’s Submittal: “This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. As there is no opportunity to collocate on an existing facility to meet the coverage objective, Verizon searched for the least obtrusive location within the primarily residential portion of the City. A pocket of PLO zoned property was found in this area of low-density residential facilities; additionally, the subject parcel is heavily forested and provides a good screen for the facility. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and a sight-obscuring fence. Verizon confirmed that it cannot locate the facility on or inside of the water tank because it is not tall enough and due to operational issues. No other tall structures or buildings were identified or available to design a low impact facility to meet the coverage objective.” Finding 4: The applicant’s submittal and supporting information demonstrates that the location and design of the proposed monopine tower is necessary to address the coverage and capacity gap in this area of Springfield. The location and design of the proposed monopine tower is intended to blend with the landscape in order to be as unobtrusive as possible. Conclusion: This standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 20 5) Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “By definition, the proposed facility is considered a Moderate Visibility facility and is allowed in the PLO zone through Type III Discretionary Use, as per Table 4.3-1.” Finding 5: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, wireless transmissions system facilities that are camouflaged as faux trees or “monopine”-style are considered “moderate visibility”. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3-1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the PLO district. Finding 6: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H, moderate visibility wireless transmissions system facilities require Type III Planning Commission review. The applicant has submitted concurrent Discretionary Use (Case TYP317-00001) and Site Plan Review (Case TYP217- 00001) applications for Planning Commission review. Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145l.H.4.a, on February 21, 2017, this application was referred to the Springfield City Council for consideration of transferring the review and approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Staff will present the result of the City Council review at the public hearing meeting on February 22, 2017. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 6) Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility facility is allowed on any 1 lot/parcel. Applicant’s Submittal: “There are no existing towers or facilities located on the Rainbow [Water District] property. Additionally, this proposal is for a moderate visibility facility.” Finding 7: The applicant is proposing a moderate visibility wireless transmissions system facility on the subject property, and there are no high visibility facilities on the property or adjoining sites. Therefore, this subsection is not applicable. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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 F.2, 3 and 4 by the Approval Authority. Applicant’s Submittal: “The nearest tower identified through antennasearch.com is located approximately 3,500 feet to the south on the other side of Highway 126, on Olympic Street near 40th Street. Please see Exhibit 3.” Finding 8: The applicant’s submittal confirms that the nearest wireless telecommunications system tower operated by Verizon Wireless or any other carrier is more than 2,000 feet from the subject site. As noted in the applicant’s project narrative, the nearest existing WTS facility within the City of Springfield is a high visibility tower about 3,500 feet away on the south side of Olympic Street near the Highway 126 and 42nd Street interchange. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 20 Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed tower is setback over 125-feet from the residential property lines to the north and east. To the south and west, the property is owned by Willamalane Park and Recreation [District] and is currently zoned residential. Pursuant to the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which is being filed in conjunction with this application, the applicant is proposing to convert this property to PLO; please see Section I above. Upon approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, this setback requirement is met.” Finding 9: The subject property is zoned Public Land and Open Space, and therefore the proposed facility is not within a residential zoning district. The proposed tower is 125 feet high and the location is approximately 129 feet from the northern property line, which ensures that it is set back more than the height of the tower from the common boundary with existing residential properties. Therefore, the location of the tower meets the required setback from residential properties along the northern boundary of Tax Lot 801. Finding 10: As stated in the project narrative, the applicant has submitted a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment application for the adjoining natural area parcel owned by Willamalane (Case TYP317-00002). The purpose and intent of the rezoning application is twofold: the proposed PLO zoning for the property is consistent with its classification as a linear natural area park in the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan; and changing the zoning of the adjoining property to PLO would reduce the setback requirements between the proposed tower and the western property boundary. The proposed tower is set back about 71 feet from the common boundary with the Willamalane property to the west. Under the current LDR zoning, the proposed 125-foot high tower would need to be set back at least 125 feet from all perimeter property lines, which is not achievable on the site due to its size and configuration. RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Discretionary Use initiated by Planning Action TYP317-00001, the adjoining Willamalane property identified as Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5000 shall be rezoned from LDR to PLO as initiated by Planning Action TYP317- 00002. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this standard has been met. 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 area also subject to the applicable provisions of Section 3.3-900. Attachment 1, Page 9 of 20 Applicant’s Submittal: “Based on the National Park Service Register of Historic Places, City of Springfield inventory, and Lane County mapping, there does not appear to be any historic resources or districts in the vicinity of this proposal.” Finding 11: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is not located on a historic building, or within the designated Historic Overlay District as depicted in SDC 3.3-910. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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; Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS will not be located in a front, rear or side yard. All setbacks are met. No portion of the antenna array extends beyond the property lines.” Finding 12: As previously stated herein, in accordance with SDC 3.2-715 and 4.3-145.F.8 the proposed tower must be set back at least the height of the tower from the nearest residentially-zoned property. For all other structures, the minimum front yard setback is 15 feet and the minimum setback from residential property lines is 20 feet. There are no other specific setback provisions that apply to the subject development. Finding 13: The proposed monopine tower, equipment cabinets, fenced enclosure, back-up power generator, and related appurtenances are not located within a required building setback area and the top-mounted antenna array does not project into a setback area or across a property line. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30 feet from a property line abutting a street; Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS is located over 30 feet from Vitus Lane. The property does not abut any other streets.” Finding 14: In accordance with SDC 3.2-715, the minimum front yard building setback is 15 feet. The subject property has frontage on Vitus Lane along the eastern boundary. The existing structure on the property (a 4-million gallon steel water tank) is set back approximately 160 feet from the edge of right-of-way for Vitus Lane, and the proposed tower is set back approximately 420 feet from the edge of right-of-way for Vitus Lane. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 10 of 20 c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all property lines. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed tower does not have any guy wires. This requirement is not applicable.” Finding 15: According to the applicant’s project narrative and site plans, the proposed monopine tower is designed as a freestanding structure and does not require guy wire support. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This sub-element of the standard has been met. 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 I. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed height of the monopine tower is 125’. The PLO zone has no base height limit.” Finding 16: The subject property is contiguous with residentially zoned properties along the northern, western and southern boundaries. As previously stated and conditioned herein, the adjoining property to the west (a Willamalane-owned natural area parcel) is proposed for rezoning from LDR to PLO, which would eliminate a tower placement restriction within 125 feet of the western boundary. Elsewhere within the site, the maximum building height within the PLO-zoned parcel is the height allowable within the LDR District for a distance of 50 feet; after this point there is no specific height limitation. However, in accordance with SDC 4.3- 145.F.26.c, the maximum height of a detached WTS facility is 150 feet. The applicant is proposing a 125-foot high tower that is set back more than 125 feet from the nearest residential property – upon rezoning of the adjoining Willamalane parcel – which meets this standard. As previously stated and conditioned herein, the Willamalane-owned property will need to be rezoned from LDR to PLO prior to approval of the subject Discretionary Use request as initiated by Planning Action TYP317-00001. Conclusion: As conditioned herein in Recommended Condition 1, this standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “There is no building or structure proposed at this site. The proposed equipment cabinets and fence do not exceed the 12’ height limit nor does the equipment pad exceed the 200 square foot limitation, as it is 186 square feet (9’4” x 20’).” Finding 17: As depicted in the applicant’s submittal, the proposed equipment cabinets will be approximately 8 feet in height. The cabinets are not considered an occupied building space, but will likely require building permits for construction. Attachment 1, Page 11 of 20 Finding 18: In accordance with SDC 4.7-105, accessory structures are to be constructed in conjunction with or after construction of a primary structure. Currently, the existing 50-foot high water reservoir tank is considered the primary structure on the property. Therefore, an accessory structure is allowable on the property. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “The Applicant designed the proposed WTS to minimize visual impacts to the greatest extent possible and cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring properties, and distant properties. The proposed tower is a monopine which is designed to look like a tree. The site has numerous tall trees which will provide natural camouflage and blend it into the surrounding trees.” Finding 19: As stated in the applicant’s narrative, the ground-mounted equipment is proposed within an area screened by a slatted chain link fence around the perimeter, and screening landscaping along the northern, western and southern edges. The applicant is proposing to retain the mature tree cover immediately west of the fenced enclosure and to plant drought-tolerant native vegetation outside the fenceline. Finding 20: The applicant has submitted sketches and photo simulations of the proposed monopine tower from nearby vantage points (see Attachment 3). The applicant’s narrative states that the existing fir trees surrounding the site will provide buffering and visual screening from nearby residential areas. Finding 21: Staff observes that monopine towers have a variety of branching patterns that can mimic different types of coniferous trees commonly found in a geographic area. A more densely-branched design with at least three branches per foot is recommended for this site to blend with the existing, densely-branched fir trees surrounding the proposed tower location. RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 2. The monopine facility shall be at least a three branch per foot design to mimic existing, mature fir trees on and adjacent to the development site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 14) Minimize Visibility. Colors and materials for WTS facilities shall be nonreflective 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. Attachment 1, Page 12 of 20 Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed tower is the minimum height necessary to satisfy the coverage objective. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with a sight-obscuring fence with green slats to blend into the existing property. All improvements will be installed within a leased premise. A landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound on the north, west and south sides; to the east, the water tank will screen the equipment from Vitus Lane.” Finding 22: The existing 50-foot high water tank will screen most of the tower facility and the ground-mounted equipment enclosure from Vitus Lane and nearby properties to the east. The applicant is proposing to use green slats in the chain link fence for visual screening and the proposed monopine design will blend in with the primary background, which is mature coniferous forest. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “By definition, the proposed faux tree design is considered camouflaged. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and a sight- obscuring fence.” Finding 23: The proposed monopine tower is defined as a camouflaged facility and it is designed and intended to integrate with the existing mature tree cover on and adjacent to the development site (Attachment 3). Because of the dense existing tree cover in the area, the monopine facility should be inconspicuous and unobtrusive as required by the provisions of SDC 4.3-145.F.15. Finding 24: As previously stated and conditioned herein (Recommended Condition 2), a more densely-branched design of monopine is recommended for this project to mimic existing trees on and adjacent to the site. Conclusion: As conditioned herein in Recommended Condition 2, this standard has been met. 16) Façade-Mounted Antenna. Façade-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. Façade-mounted antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable, as this proposal does not include façade-mounted antennas.” Attachment 1, Page 13 of 20 Finding 25: The proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and is not mounted on a building façade. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “Not applicable, as this proposal does not include roof-mounted antennas.” Finding 26: The proposed monopine tower is a freestanding structure and is not mounted on a rooftop. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “The applicant is aware of this requirement.” Finding 27: The applicant’s photo simulations and project narrative appear to indicate that the proposed wireless transmissions system facility will be as shown on the pictures and will blend with the surrounding mature tree cover on and adjacent to the site. Staff previously recommended Condition #2 for a three branch per foot design that mimic existing densely- branched tree species found on the site. The applicant’s photo simulations may need to be updated as necessary to depict the three branch per foot design. RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP217-00001), the applicant shall submit photo simulations of the monopine tower that accurately depicts the three branch per foot design to be used for the project. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this standard has been met. 19) Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed WTS will create minimal noise and will comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Noise specifications have been provided for the diesel generator as part of Exhibit 10.” Attachment 1, Page 14 of 20 Finding 28: The applicant has provided an acoustic analysis for the project demonstrating that the diesel generator – when in use – will emit an average of 59.2 dBA as measured from a distance of 7 meters (about 23 feet) away. However, the applicant has not indicated the timing, frequency or duration of generator use expected for the site; backup power generators are typically cycled on a periodic basis to maintain functionality and prevent fuel stagnation. Staff recommends a generator test cycle that coincides with daytime activity elsewhere within the neighborhood and doesn’t cause an adverse impact to nearby residents: for example, mid-morning or mid-afternoon on a weekday. Finding 29: The proposed equipment cabinets are freestanding and may be equipped with cooling units that would generate some noise. The proposed tower location is immediately adjacent to a wooded natural area that does not have concentrated sources of background noise so the proposed development will introduce a new source of noise into the area. However, staff does not anticipate that the proposed equipment cabinets will produce noises levels that regularly approach or exceed existing ambient noise levels. Additionally, the proposed project site is surrounded by screening vegetation and fencing, and is set back more than 125 feet from the nearest residential property line (currently vacant). RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP217-00001), the applicant shall provide a schedule detailing the timing, duration, and frequency for cycling of the backup generator. The routine cycling of the generator shall be conducted during daytime hours on weekdays to minimize the impact to nearby residents and the adjacent natural environment park. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this standard has been met. 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 2 signs, unless more are required by any other applicable law. Applicant’s Submittal: “All propose signage is required by the FCC or to provide adequate site identification. Signage will be affixed to the fence gate and equipment, as required. Please see Sheet A-2 of the plan set (Exhibit 1) for signage detail.” Finding 30: The applicant’s site plan includes information on required safety signage (Sheet A-2). The proposed signage meets the requirements of SDC 4.3-145.F.20.a-c for size, placement and quantity. Conclusion: This standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 15 of 20 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “Maintenance and service vehicles will not park in the right-of-way or otherwise impair the right-of-way; access is over an existing curb cut and there is sufficient space to park at the front of the access drive without causing a blockage.” Finding 31: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is directly accessible via the existing, gated site driveway off Vitus Lane. The applicant’s proposed site plan provides for access and temporary vehicle parking that is internal to the site and set back from the public right-of-way. As proposed, the site design will not cause traffic to be obstructed. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 22) Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the installation of any WTS facility. Applicant’s Submittal: “This is an unmanned facility. No existing parking will be removed as part of this proposal.” Finding 32: The proposed tower and fenced equipment enclosure is located at the western edge of the property, which itself has perimeter fencing and contains a 50-foot high steel water reservoir tank. The applicant is proposing to use the existing driveway approach from Vitus Lane for access to the fenced equipment compound. Vehicles accessing the WTS compound would park on a gravel pad adjacent to the equipment enclosure and tower, and no parking spaces would be displaced. Therefore, the proposed wireless transmissions system facility does not appreciably affect the availability of parking on the site. Additionally, the proposed WTS facility and access driveway falls outside an area identified for potential water system expansion (ie. additional reservoir tank) on the site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “Maintenance and service vehicles will not park in the right-of-way or otherwise impair the right-of-way or pedestrian access. Equipment is located in the back of the property, well away from the road and sidewalk.” Finding 33: The proposed wireless transmissions system facility is located internal to the utility site. Although the site access driveway incorporates a public sidewalk crossing, the public sidewalk has not been extended along the adjoining property frontages because they are currently undeveloped. Once completed, the public sidewalk will not be impeded by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on future pedestrian or bicycle movements. Conclusion: This standard has been met. Attachment 1, Page 16 of 20 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “Verizon does not anticipate any lighting will be required by the FAA for this facility; if lighting is required, this requirement will be complied with. Task lighting will be located within the fence compound for the cabinets. This lighting will be shielded and pointed downward; additionally, it will be equipped with a timer for auto turnoff.” Finding 34: The applicant’s submittal indicates that no beacon or strobe lights are planned or anticipated for the monopine tower. The equipment cabinets are not within an enclosed building or structure, so lighting used by on-site maintenance personnel would be limited to directionally-focused floodlights that are shielded, downcast, and equipped with auto-shutoff timers. Placement height will be at or near the 8-foot level above grade. Based on the applicant’s project narrative and manufacturer’s cut sheets provided for the proposed light fixtures, the site lighting will comply with SDC 4.5-110. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 25) Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of the base zone, at least 1 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 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “This facility does not exceed the height limit of the underlying zoning district. However, a landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound on the north, west, and south sides; to the east, the water tank will screen the equipment from Vitus Lane. The landscape plan has been prepared by a landscape architect to meet these requirements. Please see Sheet L-1.0 of the attached plan set.” Finding 35: The applicant is proposing to install drought-tolerant evergreen trees and shrubs along the northern and western edges of the fenced enclosure where it abuts existing native vegetation along the hillside. Staff agrees with the applicant’s observation that the existing water reservoir tank completely obscures the fenced enclosure as viewed from Vitus Lane. Therefore, the proposed screening vegetation meets the landscaping requirement for the site. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 26) Prohibited WTS Facilities. a. Any high or moderate visibility WTS facility in the Historic Overlay District. Attachment 1, Page 17 of 20 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “The proposed facility is not included in the above list of prohibited facilities.” Finding 36: As stated and depicted in the applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials, the proposed monopine tower is an allowable facility in the Public Land and Open Space zoning district. The proposed development is not within the Historic Overlay District or the public right-of-way. The top of the tower structure is 125 feet above finished grade. As such, the proposed monopine tower is not classified as a prohibited wireless transmissions system facility. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 27) Speculation. No application shall be accepted or approved for a speculation WTS tower, ie. 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. Applicant’s Submittal: “This facility has been design[ed] and proposed by Verizon to enhance the Verizon network; this section is not applicable.” Finding 37: The applicant’s project narrative and submittal materials indicate that the wireless carrier (Verizon Wireless) is proposing the monopine tower as a necessary component of their network facilities in Springfield, both in terms of maintaining and improving coverage and improving capacity. Therefore, this standard does not apply. Conclusion: This standard has been met. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245. Finding 38: The proposed development is not a multi-family residential facility. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. Finding 39: The proposed development does not include a fence requiring Discretionary Use approval. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Attachment 1, Page 18 of 20 Finding 40: The proposed development is not a public school. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the application and supporting information submitted by the applicant for the Discretionary Use request. Based on the above-listed criteria, and with the recommended conditions contained herein, staff finds that the proposal meets criterion D.1 of SDC 5.9-120. Staff recommends conditional support for the request because the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval. Additionally, approval of the Discretionary Use would facilitate conditional approval of the accompanying Site Plan Review application for a wireless telecommunications system submitted under separate cover (Case TYP217-00001). Conditions of Approval SDC Section 5.9-125 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Discretionary Use request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the code section is cited below: 5.9-125 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Discretionary Use approval to be granted. Staff has reviewed the Discretionary Use request and supporting information provided by the applicant, and recommends four conditions of approval as summarized here: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Discretionary Use initiated by Planning Action TYP317-00001, the adjoining Willamalane property identified as Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5000 shall be rezoned from LDR to PLO as initiated by Planning Action TYP317-00002. 2. The monopine facility shall be at least a three branch per foot design to mimic existing, mature fir trees on and adjacent to the development site. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP217-00001), the applicant shall submit photo simulations of the monopine tower that accurately depicts the three branch per foot design to be used for the project. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan (Case TYP217-00001), the applicant shall provide a schedule detailing the timing, duration, and frequency for cycling of the backup generator. The routine cycling of the generator shall be conducted during daytime hours on weekdays to minimize the impact to nearby residents and the adjacent natural environment park. The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility has been reviewed and recommended conditions of approval are described in the Site Plan Review application for this development submitted under separate cover (Case TYP217-00001) and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may choose to apply additional conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Discretionary Use criteria. Attachment 1, Page 19 of 20 Additional Approvals The subject Discretionary Use request is the necessary first step for the applicant to proceed with development plans for the site. The companion Site Plan Review application (Case TYP217-00001) is intended to address the specific Development Code and detailed site planning requirements for the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility. Attachment 1, Page 20 of 20 Type II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, staff report & RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Project Name: Verizon Wireless Vitus Butte Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Construct a 125-foot high monopine wireless transmissions system facility on an existing utility site Case Number: TYP217-00001 Project Location: 3200 Vitus Lane (Map 17-02-30-00, TL 801 and Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5100) Zoning: Public Land & Open Space (PLO) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Parks & Open Space (Metro Plan) Overlay Districts: Hillside Development Overlay District (HD) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: 7/8/2016 Application Submitted Date: 1/5/2017 Date of Planning Commission Decision: 2/22/2017 Appeal Deadline Date: 3/9/2017 Associated Applications: PRE16-00001 (Development Issues Meeting); PRE16-00037 (Pre-Submittal); TYP317- 00001 (Discretionary Use); TYP317-00002 (Zoning Map Amendment for adjacent property) APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Kelly Lea Verizon Wireless 5430 NE 122nd Avenue Portland OR 97230 Applicant’s Representative: Peter Mauro Centerline Solutions 6623 NE 78th Court, Suite #B-1 Portland OR 97218 Property Owner: Jamie Porter Rainbow Water District 1550 42nd Street Springfield OR 97478 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034 Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036 Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 541-726-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293 Building Official Building David Bowlsby 541-736-1029 Proposed Tower Location Oregon National Guard Armory Attachment 2, Page 1 of 14 Page 2 of 14 Site Information: The subject development site is a utility parcel on top of Vitus Butte (also locally referred to as “Moe Mountain”) in the River Heights neighborhood. The property is addressed as 3200 Vitus Lane (Map 17-02- 30-00, Tax Lot 801) and it has panhandle frontage on Vitus Lane along the eastern boundary. The property contains an existing 50-foot high, 4-million gallon water reservoir tank that is owned and operated by Rainbow Water District. Access to the property is via an existing curb cut and gravel driveway off Vitus Lane. The proposed wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facility is a 125-foot tall monopine tower to be located near the western edge of the property. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E and SDC Table 4.3-1, wireless telecommunications system facilities with camouflage designs such as faux trees or “monopines” are classified as moderate visibility facilities. Moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) district subject to Discretionary Use approval. The applicant submitted a concurrent Discretionary Use Request for a 125-foot tall monopine wireless telecommunications system facility under separate cover (Case TYP317-00001). The Springfield Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on the Discretionary Use request at the regular meeting on February 22, 2017. The site is zoned PLO in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated Parks and Open Space in accordance with the adopted Metro Plan diagram. All other properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area are currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR). The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for Zoning Map Amendment under separate cover for the adjoining property that is owned by Willamalane (Case TYP317- 00002). Rezoning of the Willamalane property from LDR to PLO is a pre-requisite for the proposed site plan to be approvable as the monopine tower is located within the minimum setback area from residentially zoned properties. More discussion of the tower height and setbacks is found in Section C.2 of this report. The site is not within the mapped Time of Travel Zones (TOTZs) for Springfield’s drinking water wellheads and, therefore, is not subject to specific requirements of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200. However, provisions for water quality protection during site construction and operation have been inserted as conditions of this decision in order to protect local surface waters and groundwater resources. DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. (See Page 13 for a summary of the recommended conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. The subject application was submitted and deemed complete on January 5, 2017. Therefore, this application was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on the 48th day of the 120 days mandated by the State. Pursuant to SDC 4.3-145.H.4.a, on February 21, 2017, the accompanying Discretionary Use application (Case TYP317-00001) was referred to the Springfield City Council for consideration of transferring the review and approval authority from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Staff will provide the City Council’s determination at the February 22, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing on this matter. Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application Attachment 2, Page 2 of 14 Page 3 of 14 (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision). Procedural Finding: On January 31, 2017, the City’s Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (9 Sheets – Infinigy, Sheets T-1, A-1, A-1.1 and A-2 – A-4; and Smartlink LLC, Sheets SV-1, SV-2 and L1.0), Springfield Development Code analysis, RF Justification Letter and Propagation Maps, and other supporting information. City staff’s review comments have been reduced to findings and recommended conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125. Finding: The Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on the proposed site plan application and the accompanying Discretionary Use request on February 22, 2017. Based on the testimony submitted into the record, the Planning Commission can vote to approve, deny, or amend the findings and recommended conditions of approval as stated in this staff report. Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on January 19, 2017. Staff responded to several telephone calls and a front counter inquiry requesting additional information on the proposal. Most callers expressed neutral to slightly positive opinions of the proposed tower facility once the proposal was explained in detail. No written comments were received. CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, “the Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria A through E of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application.” A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 1: The site is zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated Parks and Open Space in accordance with the adopted Gateway Metro Plan diagram. The zoning and comprehensive plan designation for the site are consistent and the applicant is not proposing to change the zoning for the site. There are no refinement plans, plan district maps or conceptual development plans applicable to this site. Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1, Moderate Visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in the PLO District subject to Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review procedures. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14 Page 4 of 14 unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Development & Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. Finding 3: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of a 125-foot tall monopine wireless transmissions system facility within a fenced enclosure, along with ground-mounted equipment cabinets, backup power generator, and ancillary structures on an existing utility parcel. Finding 4: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the site improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. Finding 5: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan on January 31, 2017. City staff’s review comments have been incorporated in findings and recommended conditions contained herein. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Water and Electricity Improvements Finding 6: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. Finding 7: The proposed development is a non-combustible wireless telecommunications system tower with ground-mounted utility cabinets and related structures that are not designed or intended for occupation. There is no potable water service proposed to the tower enclosure and none is required. Water services exist at the public street frontage on Vitus Lane for provision of fire protection to the site (see Section C.1 below). Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, wherever possible utility lines are to be placed underground. The applicant is proposing to extend new underground telecommunication lines from an existing vault near the northeast corner of the property. A new underground electrical line is proposed to be extended from an existing overhead line and power pole near the middle of the site. The applicant is depicting a new 5-foot wide private utility easement along the northern edge of the existing water tank and access driveway to accommodate the proposed utility connections. Finding 9: SUB Electric typically requires provision for access to the fenced compound to allow for meter reading or to pull the meter in the event of an emergency. Access to the compound also will be required by emergency personnel in the event of a fire or hazardous materials spill. The applicant is proposing to install a Knox Box keyed entry system for the gate, which meets this requirement. Recommended Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the 5-foot wide private utility easement as generally depicted on the site plan shall be executed and recorded at Lane County Deeds & Records and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the City. Conclusion: The existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities Sanitary Sewer Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14 Page 5 of 14 Finding 10: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 11: The proposed wireless telecommunications system facility is designed and intended as a non-occupied lease space within an existing, fenced utility compound. There is no water service or floor drains planned for the development site, and the applicant is not requesting a connection to the public sanitary sewer system. Therefore, sanitary sewer service is not required. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 12: SDC 4.3-110.B requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Development & Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. Finding 13: SDC 4.3-110.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. Finding 14: SDC 4.3-110.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 15: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 16: The applicant is not proposing to construct an appreciable amount of new impervious surface with this application. Impervious surfaces would be limited to the platform-mounted equipment cabinets, generator enclosure, and tower structure on an existing pervious surface. The limited amount of new impervious surface and provision for perimeter landscaping does not warrant the construction of stormwater management facilities. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quality) Finding 17: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 18: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City’s MS4 plan to address six “Minimum Control Measures”. Minimum Control Measure 5, “Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment”, applies to the proposed development. Finding 19: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding 20: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City’s EDSPM, and the Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14 Page 6 of 14 Finding 21: As required in SDC 4.3-110.E, “a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Development & Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual”. Finding 22: Section 3.02 of the City’s EDSPM states the Development & Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of the City’s EDSPM and the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual. Finding 23: Sections 3.02.5 and 3.02.6 of the City’s EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods and 100% of the area shall be pre-treated. Finding 24: As stated above, the applicant is not proposing an appreciable amount of new impervious surface on the site. Therefore, no stormwater treatment measures will be required as part of this development proposal. Finding 25: The applicant is proposing to install a diesel-fired backup generator with substantial liquid fuel storage capacity on the site. The proposed location is on the edge of a wooded hillside and immediately upslope from a sensitive riparian and wetland area along the base of the slope. A hazardous material spill – such as diesel fuel – could contaminate the adjacent wooded hillside and possibly the riparian and wetland resources below the project site. The applicant will need to provide adequate secondary containment measures for hazardous materials on the site, or provide for an alternative generator fuel (such as natural gas) that would vent to the atmosphere. Additional discussion of the proposed diesel generator is found in Section C.1 below. Recommended Condition of Approval: 2. The Final Site Plan shall provide adequate secondary containment measures for the diesel fuel storage tank such that it does not pose a hazard to adjacent natural areas and wetland resources. Alternatively, the Final Site Plan shall provide for an alternative fuel for the backup generator, such as natural gas, that would vent to the atmosphere in the event of a spill. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 26: The subject site is inside the western edge of an existing utility lot that has frontage on Vitus Lane along the eastern boundary. Along the site frontage, Vitus Lane is developed as a paved local street with curb and gutter, piped stormwater management facilities, curbside sidewalks (as adjacent residential properties develop), and street lighting. The applicant is not proposing to improve the frontage beyond the existing condition, and no public street improvements are required for the proposed development. Finding 27: The traffic generated by the proposed development (after construction and installation of the facility) would be limited to occasional visitation by maintenance personnel. The traffic volumes would not be appreciably different than the current traffic generated by the water utility installation already on the site. Finding 28: It is expected that the existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14 Page 7 of 14 Finding 29: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: 1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140) Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities (4.3-145) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-700 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District Public Land and Open Space District Schedule of Uses (3.2-710) Public Land and Open Space District Development Standards (3.2-420) Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100) On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Not Applicable C.1 Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access Finding 30: All fire apparatus access routes are to be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2014 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1. The applicant is proposing to use an existing gravel driveway that connects with Vitus Lane. Finding 31: Access to the proposed project area is afforded from River Heights Drive and Vitus Lane. The nearest responding fire station (Station #3) is located at 1225 28th Street. Finding 32: The applicant is proposing to install a fenced and gated enclosure near the western edge of the subject property, which itself has perimeter fencing and gated access. To ensure fire and emergency access can be provided to the subject site, the applicant has proposed a Knox box keyed system for the enclosure gate. Water Supply Finding 33: The proposed cellular tower and ground-mounted equipment cabinets are considered utility installations for the purpose of determining fire protection requirements. The proposed diesel-fired backup generator significantly increases the fire risk on the site. A public fire hydrant is located on the north side of the T-intersection of River Heights Drive and Vitus Lane. However, this hydrant is not located within 600 feet of the proposed monopine tower, equipment cabinets, diesel-fired generator, and fenced compound as measured along an approved access route. To meet fire protection requirements, a new public fire hydrant will need to be installed along the property frontage on Vitus Lane to provide coverage for the subject site. The hydrant will need to be in place, tested, and approved by SUB Water Division (owner of the pump station) in coordination with Rainbow Water District (owner of the subject site and water tank) prior to the start of construction. Finding 34: The applicant will need to apply for a hazardous materials operational permit for flammable and combustible materials at the time of building permit submittal due to the diesel powered backup generator proposed for the site. The applicant can contact Gerry “Rusty” Becker at Eugene-Springfield Fire at 541-682- Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 8357 or gbecker@springfield-or.gov for that option. The permit will need to be in place prior to final building inspection if the diesel-fired generator is to be installed on the site. Finding 35: Alternatively, the applicant could install a natural gas-fired generator to eliminate the fire hydrant and hazardous materials operational permit requirements due to a change in the type of fuel and associated fire risk. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a suitable public fire hydrant located along the Vitus Lane frontage of the subject site. Alternatively, the Final Site Plan shall provide for a natural gas-fired backup generator on the site. 4. Prior to final building inspection and commencement of operations on the site, the applicant shall obtain a hazardous materials operational permit for the diesel-fired backup generator to be placed on the site. Alternatively, the backup generator fuel shall be changed to natural gas to eliminate the requirement for a hazardous materials operational permit. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 – 4.3-140) Finding 36: SDC 4.3-140.A requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-of-way and internal to private properties shall be 7 feet, unless the Development & Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance access. The subject site has a 7-foot wide PUE along the public street frontage on Vitus Lane, which meets this requirement. Finding 37: As stated and conditioned previously in this report, a 5-foot wide private utility easement is required to accommodate the underground electrical and telecommunication lines serving the proposed monopine tower (Recommended Condition 1). Finding 38: The applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide private access easement across the Rainbow Water District property (Tax Lots 801 and 5100) to provide legal and physical access to the fenced enclosure area. Recommended Condition of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a 20-foot wide private access easement across Tax Lots 801 and 5100 as generally depicted on the site plan for the use and benefit of the Verizon Wireless lease area, and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the City. Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of corresponding access and utility easements. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Wireless Transmissions System Facilities (4.3-145) Finding 39: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.E, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities in Springfield. Moderate visibility facilities include camouflaged towers that are designed as imitation evergreen trees. In accordance with SDC Table 4.3- 1, moderate visibility facilities are allowable in the Public Land and Open Space district subject to Discretionary Use approval. Therefore, the proposed development requires approval of a Discretionary Use permit initiated by Case TYP317-00001, a Zoning Map Amendment for the adjacent Willamalane-owned Attachment 2, Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 property initiated by Case TYP317-00002, and approval of a Tentative Site Plan initiated by the subject application, Case TYP217-00001. Finding 40: Specific details of the proposed wireless telecommunications system facility are reviewed and addressed in the staff report for the Discretionary Use permit submitted under separate cover (Case TYP317- 00001) and incorporated herein by reference. Finding 41: The City classifies wireless telecommunications system providers as local utilities that are subject to utility licensing in accordance with Section 4.602 of the Springfield Municipal Code. Failure to maintain licensure or to abide by the City’s utility licensing provisions could result in municipal enforcement procedures described in Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP317-00001. 7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the adjacent Willamalane-owned property (Tax Lot 5000) shall be rezoned from LDR to PLO as initiated by Case TYP317-00002. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-700, Public Land and Open Space Zoning District Public Land and Open Space District Schedule of Uses (3.2-710) Finding 42: In accordance with SDC 3.2-710, wireless telecommunications system facilities are allowable in the PLO District subject to the special provisions of SDC 4.3-145. SDC Table 4.3-1 states that moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities such as faux trees (“monopine” towers) are allowable in the PLO District subject to Discretionary Use permitting. Finding 43: Footnote 1 of SDC Table 4.3-1 specifies that moderate visibility WTS facilities in the PLO District are only allowable inside the incorporated City limits. The subject site is inside the Springfield city limits. Finding 44: The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for Discretionary Use approval for the subject development under separate cover (Case TYP317-00001), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Discretionary Use request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing meeting on February 22, 2017. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public Land and Open Space District Standards (3.2-715) Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.2-715, there is no minimum parcel size for properties in the PLO District. Finding 46: In accordance with SDC 3.2-715, the minimum building setbacks for structures is 15 feet from a public street and 20 feet from a residential property line. The minimum parking and driveway setback is 5 feet. Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.8, a WTS facility (ie. monopine tower) must be set back at least the height of the tower from the nearest residential property line. Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14 Finding 48: The proposed monopine tower is set back about 129 feet from the nearest residential property line to the north. The tower is set back about 71 feet from the western property line that abuts a parcel owned by Willamalane. At the time of the application submittal, the abutting property to the west is zoned LDR and would be subject to a minimum 125 foot setback for the proposed tower facility. To address the setback issue, and to accomplish an intended rezoning that is consistent with the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has submitted a Zoning Map Amendment under separate cover (Case TYP317-00002) which is incorporated herein by reference. Upon rezoning of the abutting Willamalane property to PLO the proposed tower and ancillary facilities meet all required setbacks. Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 3.2-715, there is no maximum building height for structures within the PLO District provided the development site is more than 50 feet from a residential district property line. Finding 50: The proposed monopine tower is 125 feet high and is located about 129 feet from the nearest residential property line, which meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-715. Finding 51: In accordance with SDC 3.2-715, the maximum lot coverage for structures within the PLO District is 65% of the development area, with provision for at least 25% of the site to be landscaped. Finding 52: The proposed development site is approximately 79,700 ft2, of which about 11,780 ft2 is rooftop impervious surface for the water tank and pump house building. The applicant is proposing to construct less than 500 ft2 of additional impervious surface in the form of equipment cabinets, generator enclosure, and tower with base. The existing and proposed development on the site (~15% coverage) falls well below the maximum allowable by SDC 3.2-715. Finding 53: The property contains a steeply sloping, wooded hillside along the southern, western and northern perimeter, which meet the landscaping standard of at least 25% of the site. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.3-145.F.13, 4.3-145.F.25 & 4.4-100) Finding 54: In accordance with SDC 4.4-100, all required setbacks are to be landscaped. Acceptable forms of landscaping include trees, shrubs, turf grass and ground cover plants. The site is an existing utility parcel with panhandle frontage on Vitus Lane. The frontage on Vitus Lane is fringed by turf grass and there is insufficient room for a street tree on the property. Formal landscaping of the property street frontage will be attained once the adjacent residential properties are developed. Finding 55: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.25, additional screening vegetation is required for wireless telecommunications system facilities that exceed the height limitations of the base zone. The applicant’s proposed 125-foot tall monopole tower does not exceed the height limitations of the district. However, the applicant is proposing to install slatted chain link fencing around the equipment and tower enclosure, and to plant drought-tolerant evergreen trees and shrubs along the western and northern edges of the enclosure. The proposed structural and vegetative screening meets the requirements of SDC 4.3-145.F.25. Staff observes that the existing 50-foot high water tank completely screens the rear of the property so vegetative screening of the eastern edge of the equipment enclosure is not required. Finding 56: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.13, the visibility of wireless transmissions system facilities is to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable by camouflage, screening and landscaping. The applicant’s proposed site plan retains existing mature trees as screening vegetation along the western and northern edges of the site. Finding 57: The existing and proposed vegetative screening meets the requirements of the City’s Development Code. Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14 Page 11 of 14 Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Finding 58: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.2.b, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within 50 feet of a residential district or a protected natural area is 12 feet. The site is farther than 50 feet away from the nearest residential district and the Willamalane-owned “Moe Mountain Linear Park”, which is considered a protected natural area. However, according to the submitted site plan, the applicant is proposing to install work lights within the fenced monopole tower compound that are mounted at or around the 8-foot level above finished grade. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100) Finding 59: In accordance with SDC Tables 4.6-2 and 4.6-3, there is no vehicle or bicycle parking requirement for unoccupied utility facilities. It is anticipated that Verizon Wireless personnel will occasionally visit the site for routine maintenance, and short-term parking is available within the gravel pad outside the fenced compound. There will be no impacts to the subject property, adjacent residential properties, or public streets. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 60: The site is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area. Therefore, the Metro Plan is the prevailing comprehensive plan applicable to the site. As previously stated herein, the subject site is zoned PLO and is designated Parks and Open Space on the Metro Plan diagram. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F.5 and Table 4.3-1, Moderate Visibility wireless telecommunications facilities are allowable in the PLO district subject to Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review procedures. Finding 61: The subject site is immediately adjacent to a steeply sloping hillside along the southern and southwestern edge of Vitus Butte. Portions of the hillside that have slopes greater than 15 percent fall within the Hillside Development Overlay District (HD). The applicant is not proposing to construct improvements within the sloping areas, or to conduct excavation or grading that would affect the existing slopes. Therefore, the provisions of the HD Overlay District are not applicable to this proposed development. Finding 62: As a “Best Practices” recommendation for this site, care must be taken during site construction and operation to prevent contamination from chemicals that may spill or leak onto the ground surface, including fuel and automotive fluids (such as lubricants and antifreeze, etc.). Fluid-containing equipment, including vehicles parked on the site, shall be monitored for leaks and spills. Any chemical spills or leaks must be cleaned up immediately and cleanup materials disposed off-site in accordance with Lane County and State DEQ requirements. As previously stated and conditioned herein (Conditions 2 and 4), the proposed diesel-fired backup generator will require additional spill protection measures and hazardous material operation permits to ensure safety of the facility. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14 Page 12 of 14 D. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding 63: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance areas where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety. Finding 64: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, site driveways shall be designed to allow for safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City’s EDSPM, and the Springfield Development & Public Works Department’s Standard Construction Specifications. Ingress-egress points must be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion, and minimize curb cuts on public streets. Finding 65: The applicant is proposing to use an existing driveway approach onto Vitus Lane to serve the development site. In accordance with SDC 4.2-120 and Table 4.2-2, driveways that abut a curb and gutter street are to be paved at least 18 feet into the site to prevent tracking of material out onto the public street. The subject site has a paved driveway approach and sidewalk crossing that is entirely within the public right-of- way. The remainder of the driveway is gravel. A paved surface will be required for at least the first 18 feet of driveway into the subject site to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2-120. Recommended Condition of Approval: 8. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a suitable paved driveway surface that extends from the existing concrete sidewalk to a point at least 18 feet inside the subject property in accordance with SDC 4.2- 120. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding 66: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted and there are natural features on this site that warrant protection. These features include the steeply sloping, wooded hillsides along the southern, western and northern perimeter of the subject site. Finding 67: The applicant’s site plan (Sheet A-2) indicates that trees will be removed from the property in order to facilitate site development, although the location and quantity of trees is not provided. In accordance with SDC 5.19-110.A, a tree felling permit is required for removal of more than 5 trees greater than 5-inches in diameter over any 12-month period. Based on the applicant’s submittal, this requirement is applicable and a Tree Felling Permit will be required prior to removal of any trees from the site. Finding 68: Stormwater runoff from the subject site flows to the McKenzie River system. This river is listed with the State of Oregon as a “water quality limited” stream for numerous chemical and physical constituents, including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of stormwater quality. The Attachment 2, Page 12 of 14 Page 13 of 14 proposed site development will not create an appreciable amount of new impervious surface requiring constructed stormwater management facilities for runoff quantity or quality control. Finding 69: As previously noted and conditioned herein, groundwater and surface water protection must be observed during construction and operation on the site. Conclusion: The proposed development provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115. The proposal satisfies this criterion. CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A-E of SDC 5.17-125. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions contained herein and as summarized below. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the 5-foot wide private utility easement as generally depicted on the site plan shall be executed and recorded at Lane County Deeds & Records and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the City. 2. The Final Site Plan shall provide adequate secondary containment measures for the diesel fuel storage tank such that it does not pose a hazard to adjacent natural areas and wetland resources. Alternatively, the Final Site Plan shall provide for an alternative fuel for the backup generator, such as natural gas, that would vent to the atmosphere in the event of a spill. 3. The Final Site Plan shall provide for installation of a suitable public fire hydrant located along the Vitus Lane frontage of the subject site. Alternatively, the Final Site Plan shall provide for a natural gas-fired backup generator on the site. 4. Prior to final building inspection and commencement of operations on the site, the applicant shall obtain a hazardous materials operational permit for the diesel-fired backup generator to be placed on the site. Alternatively, the backup generator fuel shall be changed to natural gas to eliminate the requirement for a hazardous materials operational permit. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a 20-foot wide private access easement across Tax Lots 801 and 5100 as generally depicted on the site plan for the use and benefit of the Verizon Wireless lease area, and the applicant shall provide evidence thereof to the City. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain Discretionary Use approval for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility as initiated by Case TYP317-00001. 7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the adjacent Willamalane-owned property (Tax Lot 5000) shall be rezoned from LDR to PLO as initiated by Case TYP317-00002. 8. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a suitable paved driveway surface that extends from the existing concrete sidewalk to a point at least 18 feet inside the subject property in accordance with SDC 4.2-120. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? Upon approval of the Tentative Site Plan by the Springfield Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Final Site Plan, the Final Site Plan application form and fees, and any additional required plans, documents or information as required by the Planning Commission decision to the Current Development Division within 90 days of the date of the Planning Commission decision (ie. by May 23, 2017). The Final Site Plan application form and fee information is available on the City’s website here: http://www.springfield-or.gov/DPW/Permits.htm#LandUsePermits. In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 – 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall Attachment 2, Page 13 of 14 Page 14 of 14 comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed and approved. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant may submit permit applications to other City departments for review prior to final site plan approval in accordance with SDC 5.17-135 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance with the final site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised. CONFLICTING PLANS CAUSE DELAYS. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is accompanied by, and is subordinate to, the Type III Discretionary Use Request initiated by Case TYP317-00001 and is therefore considered a Type III decision of the Planning Commission. As such, this decision may be appealed to the Springfield City Council. The appeal may be filed with the Development & Public Works Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted with a fee of $2,420.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the City Council approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on March 9, 2017. QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Current Development Division of the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird@springfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this process. PREPARED BY Andy Limbird Andy Limbird Senior Planner Attachment 2, Page 14 of 14 Attachment 3, Page 1 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 3 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 4 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 5 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 7 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 8 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 9 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 10 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 11 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 12 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 13 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 14 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 15 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 16 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 17 of 123 ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( ( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( R R R R R R R RR R R R R R R R R )) ) (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( R 30 29 31 32 302.35'S 89°27'00" E S77°32'15"E 65.36' 448.55' 139.53' 410.28'262.92'298.30'N 89°58'05" E 470.85' 470.83'N 0°11'21" E550'748.66'L=164.28'62.95' LC=260.42'R=840'550'N 0°11'21" EN 0°11'21" E622.44'(PLAT)PCL. 1 PCL. 2 OLYMPIC STREET 2000 1929 NE CORP COMEGYSDLC 80 N 89°58'05" ESW CORW COMEGYSDLC 59 PCL. 1 PCL. 2 PCL. 3 S86°3'44"E S81°41'45"E S77°17'34"E S75°33'56"E 388.16'231.05' 320.58' 176.24'419.82'336.32'N1°34'0"E76'659.75'S86°1'55"E100.06'237.54'463.42' 150.34' S81°24'36"E R=60' 320' 320'298.3'298.3'N1°34'0"EN1°47'30"E494.31'R=35 4 . 2 7 ' 375.2 7 ' S88°26'0"E 2 3 5678 FORMERLY SPRRFORMERLY SPRR270.23' INT. ELL. COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59 NNE COR.D.L.C. 80 SE COR.D.L.C. 59 NNW COR.L COMEGYSD.L.C. 81 INT. ELL. COR.P. COMEGYSD.L.C. 80 LOT 2 14.35LOT 5 4.0NE COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59 N0°9'35"E 326.19'N89°50'25"W 472.16' S89°50'27"E 804.89' 144. 0 0 ' N51 ° 3 7 ' 4 5 " W 12 5 . 7 2 ' EAST 465.29' N 2 9 ° 4 5 ' 4 5 " W 1 4 8 . 8 4 ' N 2 6 ° 0 0 'W 8.69' N 3 4 ° 5 1 ' 0 6 " W 3 4 8 . 4 8 'N26°31'55"E 436.19'N52° 4 1 ' 3 5 " W 397. 1 4 ' D.L.C. LINE SECTION LINE 10'N 1°58'31" E372.32'N 34°1'54" ER=365.0'LC=387.45' N 66°5'16" E 579.59' N 44°30'46" ER=369.02'LC=360.02'122.17'37.59'SW COR.F. SCOTTDLC 82 ROAD BY D E E D 1 880/ 93 6 0 0 1 6 S.36980 COUNTY ROAD NO. 278 42nd TREETMcKENZIERIVER152.00'298.30'(152.00')N 01°36'54" ES 01°36'54" WS 88°26' WN 01°36'54" E298.30'150.00'189.90' 150.00'189.90' S 88°26' W 400'156.87'179.28' 230.78' 217.77'201.43'25'75'152.91'79' 148.4' 10'159'159'203.3'437.93'207.88' 73.66'376.46'S 1°34'0" WS 2°53'0" W121.51' 140.82'334.73'S 1°34'0" WS 1°34'0" W259.09'N 1°19'0" EN1°36'54"E298.30'40 . 0 6 ' 278.61' 278.36'274.52'' 274.52'298.3'298.3'294.3'51'160'460'275'190'145'110'115'125'125'110'90'70'EUGENE - S P R I N G F I E L D I - 105 HIGH W A Y SOUTH 503.36'140' 392.8 2 ' N 57° 2 8 ' 1 1 " W S 87°14'52" E 300.09'143.18'82'7'7' 30'178.4' 226.65' N88°26'0"W N88°26'0"W150' N88°26'0"W 2106 2100 2201 1700 1500 1400 S73°33'48"WS16 ° 23 ' 52 "E189.25 ' 308.00' 64.44' 5 8 . 5 4 'N1 8 ° 2 4 '2 "W 1 0 4 . 8 3 ' N60°3 6 ' 2 0 " W 69.05' S3 0 ° 5 1 ' 3 2 " E 12 6 . 3 5 '456.24'N59°26'33" E 146.53'N57°53'20"E251.99'N47°57'59"ES49 ° 2 1 ' 1 9 " E 1100 SLOU G H2013.4'SOUTHN 80° 01' 00" E 1343.8' 50' 50'N58°48'59"W132.22'N87°46'56"W R=402.24'227.67' N75°15'27"E N88°15'6"E125' S81°15'36"E98.62' R=402.24' S 74°13'6" E 355.41' S81°15'36"ER=362.24' 88.81' S 88°18'6" E 731.71'S 1°35'24" W 550.66'N 74°46'11" W 1324.14' N 83°12'24" W N 83°12'24" W 309.86'174.4'472.25'NORTHS 1°35'24" W511.46'S 89°39'0" E418.92' N 88°37'30" E19.3' N 88°37'30" E180.36' WEST185.23'N 0°20'0" E470.17'NORTHWEST 433.28'S 88°24'36" E396.61'GAPS 4°35'24" WS 4°35'24" W644.13'N 1°19'0" E1378.8'SOUTH145'125' 125' TRACT 5 EAST 778.8' 388.49'19.17' 190.1' 19 7 ' 74 . 4 ' 45 ' 299. 6 '120.34'168.45'204.0' 351.7' TRACT 3120.24'351.7'N 89°50'25"W S 89°50'25" E S 51 ° 5 9 ' 3 0 " ES 10°50 '45 " E81.67 '122.33 '304.37'S 52°23'20" W4 N 87°44'0" W 1089.4' N80°30'41"E310.31' N 62°5 7 ' 3 0 " W 308.53 ' S 43°54'5" WR=136.42'46.46'S 39°5'30" W91.8 4 '131.28'101.3 '98.89'30'20' 190. 4 8 ' 135. 1 2 '439.86'N07°56'09"W LOT 68.2 S 38°30'0" W453.8'311.27' 36 25 30 31 24 19 3025 19 20 30 29 TRACT 6 TRACT 1 TRACT 2 S.40060R=926.47'-299.15'S51°02'47"WS 83°53'32" E 373.94'S 65°59 ' 3 2 " E 195.92' 104. 9 6 ' 100.52' 124.16' CENTENNI A L 84.58 ' 1/4 COR LOT 3 5.21 S.31894 SE COR.E SCOTT SR.D.L.C. 82 LOT 4 16.6 LOT 1 30.25 700 800 1996-P08501996-P0862SOUTHERN PACIFICINDUSTRIAL PARK NO 2WESTROPE INDUSTRIALSITESPOINT IS CALLED 2611.6'FROM SW COR FELIX SCOTTDLC No 51 PER CS.5039ALSOCALLED 15 LINKS = 9.9' EAST OFWEST LINE DLC No 82 EAST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 52WEST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 82N1°36'54"E208.1'100 . 0 0 ' FORMERLY SPRR UNION PACIFIC RR 99-P1312S 89°27' E 415.56' 79.56'220.46' 220.45'203.12'104.38'PCL 1 PCL 2 PCL 3 S89°57'13"W 319.97' 300'2016-S0°33'W 307.5'P2685304.38'S 00°33' WNORTH 288.45'S0°33'W200.82'145'I.P. S.43645 2103 47.85 AC 4.22 AC 7.32 AC 15.72 AC 2.68 AC 7.18 AC 66.38 AC 4.16 AC 1.46 AC 5.94 AC 1.67 AC 0.96 AC 1.31 AC 1.2 AC 1.33 AC1.09 AC 1.3 AC 1.04 AC1.03 AC 0.09 AC 1.87 AC 1.24 AC 1.12 AC 0.48 AC 4.3 AC 2.67 AC 0.99 AC 0.59 AC 0.14 A C 0.96 AC 4.41 AC 1.62 AC 1.56 AC 2.1 AC 4.06 AC 6.83 AC 15.54 AC 0.61 AC 0.28 AC 0.3 AC 1.98 AC 0.41 AC 0.97 AC 2.11 AC 4.71 AC 5.22 AC 4.99 AC 1.68 AC 1.03 AC 0.61 AC 5.38 AC 15.47 AC 0.06 AC 0.38 AC 0.17 AC 0.5 AC 1.26 AC 2.08 AC 1.88 AC1.88 AC 2.19 AC2.61 AC 2.68 AC2.6 AC3.07 AC 0.02 AC 1.68 AC 1.02 AC 1.08 AC 1 AC 1800 2002 1933 19311930 1902 1901 1942 19351936 1941 2001 1943 1934 1903 1926 1911 19371940 1928 19211923 1932 1938 1927 19251924 403 401 1900 1939 1915 1919 210 4 2102 402 2200 600 500 100 200 802 601 1907 400 25 0 0 1917 900901 903 904 1916 1918 1922 1912 1914 1913 1910 801 101 902 1909 1920 603 501 602 604 2400 2105 2107 2106 2108 019-01 019-01019-09 019-00 SEE MAP17022900 SEE MAP17023034 SEE MAP17021900 SEE MAP17023043 SEE MAP17023021 SEE MAP17021934 SEE MAP17023012 SEE MAP17023044 SEE MAP17032511 SEE MAP17032541 SEE MAP17023122 SEE MAP17021933 SEE MAP17021943 SEE MAP17032544 SEE MAP17023023 SEE MAP17032514 SEE MAP17023121 SEE MAP17022000 SEE MAP17032444 SEE MAP17023111 SEE MAP17023222 SEE MAP17033611 SEE MAP17023112 SEE MAP17032542 SEE MAP17023200 SEE MAP17032512 SEE MAP17023100 FOR ASSESSMENT ANDTAXATION ONLY SECTION 30 T.17S. R.2W. W.M.Lane County1" = 400' CANCELLED29011100110111021200130014001401150016011606170019041905190819292000210021012106220123003002007008002103 17023000 17023000 LCATJXG - 2016-09-08 12:27 REVISIONS06/29/2010 - LCAT155 - CONVERT MAP TO GIS07/06/2010 - LCAT167 - CANCEL TL 700/800 INTO RIVER HEIGHTS12/06/2011 - LCAT142 - ADDED CANC 700, 800 TO MAP06/16/2016 - LCAT142 - CANC. TL 2103 TO 2016-P268509/08/2016 - LCAT155 - COR VAC CO RD 221; AC COR 2200 Attachment 3, Page 18 of 123 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD PROPOSAL FOR NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITE PLAN REVIEW DISCRETIONARY USE VERIZON WIRELESS RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT 3200 VITUS LANE 17-02-30-00 00801 JANUARY 4, 2017 Attachment 3, Page 19 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Contents 1. Project Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Summary of Proposed Wireless Communications Facility ...................................................................... 5 3. Discretionary Use: Springfield Development Code Analysis ................................................................... 7 4. Site Plan Review: Springfield Development Code Analysis .................................................................. 22 EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................................. 24 1. Plan Set, including Site Plan and Tower Design ........................................................................... 24 2. RF Justification Letter and Propagation Maps ............................................................................... 24 3. Results from AntennaSearch.com .................................................................................................. 24 4. RF Safety and NIER Report .......................................................................................................... 24 5. FCC Licenses ................................................................................................................................. 24 6. FAA Filing Form ........................................................................................................................... 24 7. ODA Assessment letter .................................................................................................................. 24 8. Letter from Verizon regarding Colocation..................................................................................... 24 9. Letter from Structural Engineer regarding Colocation and Design for Multiple Carriers ............. 24 10. Generator Specifications, including Noise Information................................................................. 24 11. Facility Lease ................................................................................................................................. 24 12. Photosimulations ............................................................................................................................ 24 13. Deed and Title Report .................................................................................................................... 24 14. Pre-application report from meeting held on July 8, 2016 ............................................................ 24 15. Lighting Specification .................................................................................................................... 24 16. Geotechnical Report....................................................................................................................... 24 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Attachment 3, Page 20 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 1. Project Summary Project Description The applicant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) proposes to construct a new wireless communication facility at 3200 Vitus Lane within the City of Springfield. The facility will consist of a 125-foot tall monopine-style tower designed to hold 3 arrays of antennas and associated equipment, as well as additional dish antennas. All tower mounted equipment will be screened by the faux tree branches. At the base of the tower a fenced compound will contain associated equipment cabinets and an emergency generator. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with an 8-foot fence with sight-obscuring green slats. All improvements will be installed within the leased premise. A landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound on the north, west, and south sides; to the east, the water tank will screen the equipment from Vitus Lane. Access will be over the existing curb cut and access drive off of Vitus Lane. Pursuant to ORS 227.175(2), Verizon is submitting the Type III Site Plan Review application and Type III Discretionary Use application concurrently and as part of a consolidated application with the Zoning Map Amendment application which proposes to change the zoning of the adjacent parcel (Tax Lot 5000) from Low Density Residential (“LDR”) to Public Land and Open Space (“PLO”). Site Address 3200 Vitus Lane Springfield, OR 97477 Map and Tax Lot 17-02-30-00 00801 Applicant Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, d/b/a Verizon Wireless Agent Peter Mauro Centerline Solutions LLC 6623 NE 78th Ct. #B-1 Portland, OR 97218 Tel: 971-270-1930 ext. 5026 pmauro@centerlinesolutions.com Property Owners Rainbow Water District Attn: Jaime Porter 1550 N. 42nd Street Springfield, OR 97477 Attachment 3, Page 21 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Current Use Water Reservoir Current Zoning Public Land/Open Space (PLO) Designation Adjacent Zoning North: Low Density Residential East: Low Density Residential South: Low Density Residential West: Low Density Residential Attachment 3, Page 22 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 2. Summary of Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Verizon is requesting approval of a Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review to install a Wireless Communications Facility (WTS) on land owned by the Rainbow Water District. This parcel has an address of 3200 Vitus Lane (17-02-30-00 00801), with a 50-foot water tank located on it. Pursuant to ORS 227.175(2), Verizon is submitting the Type III Site Plan Review application and Type III Discretionary Use application concurrently and as part of a consolidated application with the Zoning Map Amendment application which proposes to change the zoning of the adjacent parcel (Tax Lot 5000) from LDR to PLO. This parcel, owned by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, is located to the west and south of the Rainbow parcel. It currently has a multi-use recreation trail traversing the property. Therefore, the zoning map amendment, Type III Site Plan Review application and Type III Discretionary Use application should be processed concurrently as part of a consolidated application procedure. Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Verizon is upgrading and expanding its physical system network throughout Oregon, with the Eugene- Springfield market a target for investment. Upon completion of this update, Verizon will operate a state of the art digital network of wireless communication sites throughout Oregon, and in connection with other nationwide Verizon market areas. Centerline Solutions LLC is responsible for the development and redevelopment of many of the Verizon sites and is the agent responsible for this application. Verizon is proposing to construct a WTS consisting of a 125' monopine-style tower and associated equipment within a 32’ 6” x 25’ fenced and landscaped compound. The property is currently owned by Rainbow Water District and contains a water tank. The proposed facility will provide an upgrade to wireless communication capabilities by providing a faster and more reliable signal. Great care and expense has been taken by the Applicant to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and minimize the impacts of this facility on the City and surrounding neighborhood. Specific code criteria are discussed in sections III.B and III.C below The proposed 125-foot tower has been designed as a faux pine tree and will be designed to hold 3 antenna arrays, mounting arms, and associated tower-mounted equipment; these towers are also commonly over- designed to allow additional dish antennas, if needed. The monopine tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The facility is sited within a stand of trees with dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility. At the base of the tower, all equipment will be located within a 32’ 6” x 25’ compound. Equipment cabinets will be placed on a skid pad and consist of baseband units, backhaul interconnect, power bay, and battery racks. A diesel-powered emergency generator will be located within the compound to provide backup power in case of emergency. The compound will be screened through a combination of landscaping and fencing. Landscaping will be drought tolerant species and has been designed to comply with the Springfield City Code. The proposed fence will be an 8-foot chain link fence fitted with green sight-obscuring slats. Impacts on City services will be minimal. The facility will require telephone and electric service, which will run from Vitus Lane to the compound area through an underground trench along the north portion of the property. The facility is unmanned and does not require any water and will not generate any waste or sewer. A site technician will visit the site approximately once per month for routine maintenance and Attachment 3, Page 23 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW monitoring of the facility during normal business hours, generating 2 vehicular trips per month. Access to the compound is over an existing curb cut and access road, leading from Vitus Lane to the fenced area in the rear. Operations of the facility will not impact the road or pedestrian sidewalk in the vicinity of the property. Construction of the facility will take approximately 6 to 8 weeks. All construction will take place during normal business hours with all equipment, machinery, and materials staged on the subject property. The proposed WTS will not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses, such as telephones, televisions, or radios, including emergency channels. In fact, the enhanced wireless network will be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods by: • Providing wireless access to E-911 for residential, commercial, and vehicular users in cases of accident or other incidents. Cell Towers have been classified as Critical Infrastructure Facilities of the United States by the Department of Homeland Security. • More reliable wireless network for first responders, including paramedics, firefighters, and law enforcement agencies that use this technology; • Overall enhancement of the communications systems of residents and business around the project coverage area who are becoming more likely to no longer have landline phone connections; • Access to high-speed wireless data for email and Internet access; and • Enhanced network will provide better access and reliability to support wireless services and connected devices, sometimes referred to as the Internet of Things. Attachment 3, Page 24 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 3. Discretionary Use: Springfield Development Code Analysis 5.9120 A Discretionary Use may be approved only if the Planning Commission or Hearings Official finds that the proposal conforms with the Site Plan Review approval criteria specified in Section 5.17-125, where applicable, and the following approval criteria: D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A.—C., above but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. Response: The proposal is for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility as defined in the Springfield Development Code. Compliance with §4.3-145 is discussed below. 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. Response: The proposal is for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility as defined in the Springfield Development Code. Compliance with §4.3-145 is discussed below. The proposed WTS is consistent with the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The proposed WTS will not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses, and will not cause interference with any electronic equipment, such as telephones, televisions, or radios. Noninterference is ensured by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation of radio transmissions. The Telecommunications Act provides wireless carriers with important procedural due process protections, including the requirement that "the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll). This application includes substantial evidence demonstrating that there is a significant gap in coverage for customers in this part of Springfield and that the proposed facility is designed to provide coverage for this area. Verizon identified a need for a new wireless communication facility in the northern part of Springfield in close proximity to the subject property. The proposed WTS is necessary to address a significant gap in coverage in this area of Springfield. Verizon’s objective for this site is to improve these wireless services, fill in coverage gaps in certain areas that do not have strong enough signal strength to hold a call or access our network, and offload a nearby existing tower providing some coverage in this area that is over- capacity. As part of the process of upgrading and expanding its physical system network, Verizon is improving its existing wireless communications network in the City of Springfield. The need for a new wireless communication facility is determined by market demand, capacity requirements for a specific geographic Attachment 3, Page 25 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW area, and the need to provide continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. Once the need for additional capacity or coverage in a particular area has been established, Verizon Wireless identifies a target area or "search ring" where the new facility can be located to address these needs. The facility must be located within these search ring parameters to provide the required service and address the gap in coverage. The required site location and antenna height is determined by an engineering study of the area and specific tower parameters. This study evaluates radio signal propagation over the desired coverage area based on topography, geographic features, and possible signal attenuation due to seasonal changes in vegetation. In determining where to site the proposed WTS, Verizon first considered if it could be located on an existing tower. Verizon confirmed that there are no existing towers available for collocation within the search ring area for this facility. Verizon considered existing Crown Castle and SBA towers located off of Olympic Street, but it confirmed these towers were rejected because: (1) they are too far south of the search ring to properly reach the intended coverage area; and (2) they are too close to two existing towers that Verizon is already located on. Therefore, these two facilities were dismissed. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed facility is included in Exhibit 3. The only two viable candidates are the Crown and SBA towers which were rejected for the reasons mentioned above. All other existing towers are further away. Unfortunately, none of the towers in the surrounding area can be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. This information, along with the materials in Exhibit 2 provided by the Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, demonstrate that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage. This proposed development would allow Verizon to continue to provide the needed service to this portion of Springfield, as shown in Exhibit 2, including roads and highways, as well as surrounding neighborhoods and business areas. It is crucial for Verizon to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve customers in compliance with its FCC license regulations. The proposal is for a Camouflaged tower, which is a Moderate Visibility site; it is not possible to get a lower visibility site on the property, as flush-mounted antennas on the water tank are also defined as Moderate Visibility. Additionally, this area is primarily zoned low-density residential, with a pocket of PLO, which is where this tower is proposed. This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and will have a sight-obscuring fence. B. Applicability/Conflicts. Response: The proposal is for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility as defined in the Springfield Development Code. Compliance with §4.3-145 is discussed below. C. Pre-Existing WTS Facilities. Attachment 3, Page 26 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: This is not a pre-existing facility. D. Exemptions. Response: This facility is not exempt under this section of the Code. E. Definitions. Response: The proposal is for a faux tree which is, by definition, a “Camouflaged” facility. As a camouflaged facility, it is therefore classified as a “Moderate Visibility” site and requires a Type III Conditional Use approval. 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. Response: The proposed facility will be designed to accommodate two additional antenna arrays, three arrays in total including Verizon, and all associated equipment and mounting hardware. Verizon is willing to allow colocators on the facility as required by Code; please see Exhibit 8 for a letter from Verizon stating as such. 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. 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. Response: The proposal is for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility as defined in the Springfield Development Code. Compliance with §4.3-145 is discussed below. The proposed WTS is consistent with the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The proposed WTS will not interfere with surrounding properties or their uses, and will not cause interference with any electronic equipment, such as telephones, televisions, or radios. Noninterference is ensured by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation of radio transmissions. The Telecommunications Act provides wireless carriers with important procedural due process protections, including the requirement that "the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll). Attachment 3, Page 27 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW This application includes substantial evidence demonstrating that there is a significant gap in coverage for customers in this part of Springfield and that the proposed facility is designed to provide coverage for this area. Verizon identified a need for a new wireless communication facility in the northern part of Springfield in close proximity to the subject property. The proposed WTS is necessary to address a significant gap in coverage in this area of Springfield. Verizon’s objective for this site is to improve these wireless services, fill in coverage gaps in certain areas that do not have strong enough signal strength to hold a call or access our network, and offload a nearby existing tower providing some coverage in this area that is over- capacity. As part of the process of upgrading and expanding its physical system network, Verizon is improving its existing wireless communications network in the City of Springfield. The need for a new wireless communication facility is determined by market demand, capacity requirements for a specific geographic area, and the need to provide continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. Once the need for additional capacity or coverage in a particular area has been established, Verizon identifies a target area or "search ring" where the new facility can be located to address these needs. The facility must be located within these search ring parameters to provide the required service and address the gap in coverage. The required site location and antenna height is determined by an engineering study of the area and specific tower parameters. This study evaluates radio signal propagation over the desired coverage area based on topography, geographic features, and possible signal attenuation due to seasonal changes in vegetation. In determining where to site the proposed WTS, Verizon first considered if it could be located on an existing tower. Verizon Wireless confirmed that there are no existing towers available for collocation within the search ring area for this facility. Verizon considered existing Crown Castle and SBA towers located off of Olympic Street, but it confirmed these towers were rejected because: (1) they are too far south of the search ring to properly reach the intended coverage area; and (2) they are too close to two existing towers that Verizon is already located on. Therefore, these two facilities were dismissed. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed facility is included in Exhibit 3. The only two viable candidates are the Crown and SBA towers which were rejected for the reasons mentioned above. All other existing towers are further away Unfortunately, none of the towers in the surrounding area can be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. This information, along with the materials in Exhibit 2 provided by the Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, demonstrate that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage. This proposed development would allow Verizon to continue to provide the needed service to this portion of Springfield, as shown in Exhibit 2, including roads and highways, as well as surrounding neighborhoods and business areas. It is crucial for Verizon to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve customers in compliance with its FCC license regulations. The proposal is for a Camouflaged tower, which is a Moderate Visibility site; it is not possible to get a lower visibility site on the property, as flush-mounted antennas on the water tank are also defined as Moderate Visibility. Additionally, this area is primarily zoned low-density residential, with a pocket of PLO, which is where this tower is proposed. This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. Attachment 3, Page 28 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and will have a sight-obscuring fence. 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 F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district. Response: This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. As there is no opportunity to colocate on an existing facility to meet the coverage objective, Verizon searched for the least obtrusive location within the primarily residential portion of the City. A pocket of PLO zoned property was found in this area of low-density residential facilities; additionally, the subject parcel is heavily forested and provide a good screen for the facility. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and a sight-obscuring fence. Verizon confirmed that it cannot locate the facility on or inside of the water tank because it is not tall enough and due to operational issues. No other tall structures or buildings were identified or available to design a low impact facility to meet the coverage objective. 5. Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection 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. Response: By definition, the proposed facility is considered a Moderate Visibility facility and is allowed in the PLO zone through Type III Discretionary Use, as per Table 4.3-1. 6. Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility facility is allowed on any 1 lot/parcel. Response: There are no existing towers or facilities located on the Rainbow property. Additionally, this proposal is for a moderate visibility facility. 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 F.2., 3. and 4. by the Approval Authority. Attachment 3, Page 29 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: The nearest tower identified through antennasearch.com is located approximately 3,500 feet to the south on the other side of Highway 126, on Olympic Street near 40th Street. Please see Exhibit 3. 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. Response: The proposed tower is setback over 125-feet from the residential property lines to the north and east. To the south and west, the property is owned by the Willamalane Parks and Recreation Department and is currently zoned residential. Pursuant to the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, which is being filed in conjunction with this application, the applicant is proposing to convert this property to PLO; please see Section I above. Upon approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, this setback requirement is met. 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. Response: Based on the National Park Service Register of Historic Places, City of Springfield inventory, and Lane County mapping, there does not appear to be any historic resources or districts in the vicinity of this proposal. 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; Response: The proposed WTS will not be located in a front, rear or side yard. All setbacks are met. No portion of the antenna array extends 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; Response: The proposed WTS is located over 30 feet from Vitus Lane. The property does not abut any other streets. c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all property lines. Response: The proposed tower does not have any guy wires. This requirement is not applicable. 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 I. Attachment 3, Page 30 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: The proposed height of the monopine tower is 125’. The PLO zone has no base height limit. 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. Response: There is no building or structure proposed at this site. The proposed equipment cabinets and fence do not exceed the 12’ height limit nor does the equipment pad exceed the 200 square foot limitation, as it is 186 square feet (9’4” x 20’). 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 view- shed 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. Response: The Applicant designed the proposed WTS to minimize visual impacts to the greatest extent possible and to cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring properties, and distant properties. The proposed tower is a monopine which is designed to look like a tree. The site has numerous tall trees which will provide natural camouflage and blend it into the surrounding trees. The proposed tower is the minimum height necessary to satisfy the coverage objective. Ground equipment will be installed inside a fenced compound area with a sight-obscuring fence with green slats to blend into the existing property. All improvements will be installed within a leased premise. A landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound on the north, west, and south sides; to the east, the water tank will screen the equipment from Vitus Lane 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. Response: By definition, the proposed faux tree design is considered camouflaged. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and a sight- obscuring fence. 16. Façade-Mounted Antenna. Façade-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. Façade-mounted antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face. Attachment 3, Page 31 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: Not applicable, as this proposal does not include façade-mounted antennas. 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. Response: Not applicable, as this proposal does not include roof-mounted antennas 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. Nonconformance shall require any necessary modification to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant. Response: The applicant is aware of this requirement. 19. Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Response: The proposed WTS will create minimal noise and will comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Noise specifications have been provided for the diesel generator as part of Exhibit 10. 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 2 signs, unless more are required by any other applicable law. Response: All proposed signage is required by the FCC or to provide adequate site identification. Signage will be affixed to the fence gate and equipment, as required. Please see Sheet A-2 of the plan set (Exhibit 1) for signage detail. 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. Response: Maintenance and service vehicles will not park in the right-of-way or otherwise impair the right-of-way; access is over an existing curb cut and there is sufficient space to park at the front of the access drive without causing a blockage. 22. Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the installation of any WTS facility. Response: This is an unmanned facility. No existing parking will be removed as part of this proposal. 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. Response: Maintenance and service vehicles will not park in the right-of-way or otherwise impair the right-of-way or pedestrian access. Equipment is located in the back of the property, well away from the road and sidewalk. Attachment 3, Page 32 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 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. Response: Verizon does not anticipate any lighting will be required by the FAA for this facility; if lighting is required, this requirement will be complied with. Task lighting will be located within the fence compound for the cabinets. This lighting will be shielded and pointed downward; additionally, it will be equipped with a timer for auto turnoff. 25. Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of the base zone, at least 1 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. Response: This facility does not exceed the height limit of the underlying zoning district. However, a landscape buffer will screen the fenced compound on the north, west, and south sides; to the east, the water tank will screen the equipment from Vitus Lane. The landscape plan has been prepared by a landscape architect to meet these requirements. Please see Sheet L-1.0 of the attached plan set. 26. Prohibited WTS Facilities. a. Any high or moderate visibility WTS facility in the Historic Overlay District. 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. Response: The proposed facility is not included in the above list of prohibited facilities. 27. Speculation. Response: This facility has been design and proposed by Verizon to enhance the Verizon network; this section is not applicable. G. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 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. Response: Verizon is proposing to construct a WTS consisting of a 125' monopine-style tower and associated equipment on the Rainbow Water District property. The proposed facility will provide an upgrade to wireless communication capabilities by providing a faster and more reliable network. Great Attachment 3, Page 33 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW care and expense has been taken by Verizon to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and minimize the impacts of this facility on the City and surrounding neighborhood. At the base of the tower, all equipment will be located within a 32’ 6” x 25’ compound. A diesel powered emergency generator will be located within the compound to provide backup power in case of emergency. The compound will be screened through a combination of landscaping and an 8-foot tall fence with green sight-obscuring slats. 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. Response: Please see the RF justification letter provided by Ertaz Islam in Exhibit 2, which includes a propagation model showing the coverage provided by the subject tower and its relationship in the Verizon network. This facility is primarily intended to enhance coverage to the neighborhoods to the north of Highway 126. c. 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: 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. Response: Please see Exhibit 3, which are the results of antennasearch.com, showing all towers around the proposed facility. Additionally, please see the RF justification letter provided by Ertaz Islam in Exhibit 2; due to their location in relation to the search area and physical limitations, these facilities will not meet the coverage objective. d. 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. Response: Please see Sheet A-1 and A-1. in Exhibit 1. e. 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. Attachment 3, Page 34 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: Please see the NIER (Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation) Report in Exhibit 4. f. Description of Service. A description of the type of service offered including, but not limited to: voice, data, video and the consumer receiving equipment. Response: Please see the coverage maps located within the RF justification letter provided by Ertaz Islam in Exhibit 2. This facility will provide wireless voice and data services across all Verizon Wireless licensed frequency blocks. g. Provider Information. Identification of the provider and backhaul provider, if different. Response: This facility is being proposed and built for the use of Verizon Wireless, an FCC licensed wireless communications provider. Fiber optics cable will be brought to the facility to provide connection to Verizon datacenters and switching stations. This cable will be brought in from the Vitus Lane via underground conduit. The routing of the conduit is shown on Sheets A-1 and A-1.1 on the attached plan set. h. 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. Response: The subject property is zoned Public Land and Open Space. The surrounding properties are zoned Low Density Residential. However, concurrent with this proposal, an application has been submitted for a Zoning Map Amendment to convert the abutting property to the west and south from Low Density Residential to Public Land and Open Space. i. 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. Response: Please see Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 for FAA and ODA documents, as well as the FCC Licenses for Verizon Wireless to operate in the Springfield market. 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 G.1. In addition to the applicable Site Plan and Discretionary Use application requirements, WTS applications shall require the applicant to address the following: 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. Attachment 3, Page 35 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Response: Verizon is proposing to construct a WTS consisting of a 125' monopine-style tower and associated equipment on the Rainbow Water District property. The proposed facility will provide an upgrade to wireless communication capabilities by providing a faster and more reliable signal. Great care and expense has been taken by Verizon to design the facility to meet or exceed all applicable Code Criteria, and minimize the impacts of this facility on the City and surrounding neighborhood. At the base of the tower, all equipment will be located within a 32’ 6” x 25’ compound. A diesel powered emergency generator will be located within the compound to provide backup power in case of emergency. The compound will be screened through a combination of landscaping and a 8-foot tall fence with green sight-obscuring slats. The height of the facility is based on parameters provided by Verizon engineers and is based on ground elevation, surrounding topography, distance to existing facilities, and coverage objective. Please see Exhibit 2 for the RF letter provided for additional information. 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. Response: Construction will take approximately 6 to 8 weeks, with all staging and construction materials located on the subject property. Some heavy equipment including trucks, a crane, and a concrete truck, will be needed. c. Maintenance. Describe the anticipated maintenance and monitoring program for the antennas, back-up equipment, and landscaping. Response: A site technician will visit the site approximately once per month during normal business hours for routine maintenance and monitoring of the facility, generating 2 vehicular trips per month. Access to the compound is over an existing curb cut and access road, leading from Vitus Lane to the fenced area in the rear. Landscaping is comprised of drought resistant species. The facility has two sources of back-up power. A battery cabinet will provide power for short outages, while a diesel generator is proposed for times when power is out for long durations. 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. Response: The proposed WTS will create minimal noise and will comply with the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035. Noise specifications have been provided for the diesel generator as part of Exhibit 10. e. Landscaping and Screening. Discuss how the proposed landscaping and screening materials will screen the site at maturity. Response: Plantings are native and were selected to be drought resistant and to comply with the requirements of the Development Code. Proposed trees will reach heights of over 100 feet at full maturity. Additionally, site technician will visit the site approximately once per month during normal business hours to monitor and service the facility. Attachment 3, Page 36 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW f. Co-Location. In addition to the co-location requirements specified in Subsection G.1.c., 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: Response: Please see Exhibits 8 and 9 addressing the design of the tower to accommodate colocators and Verizon’s willingness to allow colocators. Also, please see Exhibit 4 regarding RF emissions compliance of the proposed facility. 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; Response: Please see Exhibit 8 regarding the applicant’s willingness to allow colocators on the proposed tower. 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 Response: Not applicable, as there is no existing wireless facility on the property. A site plan showing the tower and compound is included as sheet A-1, A-1.1, and A-2 in the enclosed plan set. 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. Response: Sheets A-3 and A-4 of the submitted plan set depict the tower elevation, including the potential location of additional antenna arrays by other carriers. Photo simulations have also been provided. 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. Response: Please see Exhibit 11 for a draft copy of the lease between Verizon and Rainbow Water District. Proprietary and confidential information has been redacted. 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. Response: Please see Exhibit 11 for a draft copy of the lease between Verizon and Rainbow Water District, including the granting of an access easement to access to the facility. i. Lighting and Marking. Any proposed lighting and marking of the WTS facility, including any required by the FAA. Response: Verizon does not anticipate any lighting will be required by the FAA for this facility; if lighting is required, this requirement will be complied with. Attachment 3, Page 37 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Task lighting will be located within the fence compound for the cabinets. This lighting will be shielded and pointed downward; additionally, it will be equipped with a timer for auto turnoff. j. Utilities. Utility and service lines for proposed WTS facilities shall be placed underground. Response: Fiber optics cable and power will be brought to the facility. These cables will be brought in from the Vitus Lane via underground conduit. The routing of the conduit is shown on Sheet A-1 and A- 1.0 on the submitted plan set. 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. Response: In determining where to site the proposed WTS, Verizon first considered if it could be located on an existing tower. Verizon confirmed that there are no existing towers available for collocation within the search ring area for this facility. Verizon considered existing Crown Castle and SBA towers located off of Olympic Street, but it confirmed these towers were rejected because: (1) they are too far south of the search ring to properly reach the intended coverage area; and (2) they are too close to two existing towers that Verizon is already located on. Therefore, these two facilities were dismissed. A map and list showing all of the existing and approved telecommunication facilities within four miles of the proposed facility is included in Exhibit 3. The only two viable candidates are the Crown and SBA towers which were rejected for the reasons mentioned above. All other existing towers are further away Unfortunately, none of the towers in the surrounding area can be modified to fulfill the significant gap in coverage as they are too far away to meet the coverage objective. This information, along with the materials in Exhibit 2 provided by the Verizon Wireless RF Engineer, demonstrate that none of these facilities will provide the required service to fulfill the applicant’s gap in coverage. l. Visual Impact Study and Photo Simulations. The applicant shall provide a visual impact analysis showing the maximum silhouette, view-shed 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. Response: Please see Exhibit 12 for photosimulations of the proposed monopine tower. The proposal is for a Camouflaged tower, which is a Moderate Visibility site; it is not possible to get a lower visibility site on the property, as flush-mounted antennas on the water tank are also defined as Moderate Visibility. Additionally, this area is primarily zoned low-density residential, with a pocket of PLO, which is where this tower is proposed. This location allows the best coverage of the surrounding residential areas, while minimizing impacts on these properties. The facility is sited within a stand of dense foliage, which will provide a significant screen for the tower, greatly minimizing the visual impacts of the facility on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the proposed facility has been designed as a monopine-style tower that will blend with the Attachment 3, Page 38 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW existing trees on the property. The tower will have faux branches made of radio-frequency friendly materials to mimic commonly found trees in the region. All antennas, mounting arms, and ancillary equipment will be screened within the faux branches. The base equipment will have a landscaping screen and will have a sight-obscuring fence. 3. Independent Consultation Report. Response: The applicant will comply as required. 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 E., require Type III Planning Commission or Hearings Official review. 1. Development Issues Meeting. A Development Issues Meeting (DIM) as specified in Subsection 5.1-120A. is required only for high and moderate visibility WTS facility applications. Applicable development standards as specified in Subsection F. and submittal requirements as specified in Subsection G., will be discussed at the DIM. 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. Response: The proposed facility is a monopine-style tower on a PLO zoned property. This project requires a Type III Discretionary Use approval with Site Plan Review. A Development Issues Meeting was held on July 8, 2016. Please see Exhibit 14 to see the report from this meeting. I. Approval Criteria. 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 F. and the submittal requirements specified in Subsection G. 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 J. Response: The proposed WTS is a Moderate Visibility tower and meets all the requirements in Subsection F and G and the application should be approved. 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 Section 5.9-125. Response: Verizon respectfully requests that it be provided an opportunity to review any suggested conditions prior to being finalized in order to ensure compliance is possible. Attachment 3, Page 39 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 4. Site Plan Review: Springfield Development Code Analysis Pursuant to Section 5.17-105 of the Springfield Development Code, Site Plan Review is required for the proposed development. A Pre-Application Meeting and Development Issues Meeting was held on July 8, 2016 with City Staff and representatives from Centerline Solutions. The following items were identified in that meeting: A. Planning  Plans stamped by a Licensed Professional: Plan sheets have been stamped by a Licensed Professional in the appropriate discipline.  Deed and Title Report: Please see Exhibit 13 for the Deed and Title Report.  Irrigation: The landscaping has been designed to meet the requirements of the Springfield Development Code. Species are drought tolerant, as active irrigation is not proposed. Plants are to be maintained by a landscape contractor for the first year to ensure that the plants survive.  Lighting: There is no proposed lighting on the tower, nor is any anticipated to be required by the FAA or ODA. Task lighting will be located on the equipment to assist technicians when servicing equipment. This task lighting will be shielded and directed downwards, as well as equipped with a timer to turn off. B. Public Works Engineering  Plans stamped by a Licensed Professional: Plan sheets have been stamped by a Licensed Professional in the appropriate discipline, depending on the nature of the drawing.  Site Plan: The site plans and plan set have been updated to include the requested information.  Full Survey: a full and complete survey has been completed as per the required scope and included in the plan set as Sheet SV-2.  Soil Types: The soil types have been added to the plan set. A geotechnical report has also been included as Exhibit 16.  Cut and Fill: Due to the existence of bedrock at a relatively shallow level on the property, the tower is likely to utilize a spread foundation. This type of foundation will require significantly less excavation that the previous assumption, which would require significant drilling and removal of materials. Additionally, the change in design allows Verizon to significantly reduce the size of the proposed retaining wall and the amount of fill needed to compete this space. Please see sheets A-3 and A-4 for additional design details. Based on this revised design, no cut or and fill is required, as noted on Sheet A-2. C. Fire  Location of fire hydrants and similar public facilities: The closest fire hydrant has been added to the Sheet A-1 of the enclosed plan set.  Hazardous Materials Permit: It is understood that Verizon will need to apply for and be approved for a Hazardous Materials permit for the operation of the diesel generator prior to issuance of the final building permit. D. Additional Materials Attachment 3, Page 40 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW  Geotechnical Report: A geotechnical report has been provided as Exhibit 16.  Tree Felling Permit: Verizon is aware that the City may require a Tree Felling Permit as a Condition of Approval.  Federal or State Permits: Verizon is unaware of any additional State or Federal permits required for this application. If any additional permits are determined to be required, the applicant will make the City aware.  Land and Drainage Alteration Permit: Verizon is aware that the City may require a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit as a Condition of Approval. Please note that due to results from Geotech report, there is no need for a full retaining wall, greatly minimizing the amount of fill required for the project.  Discretionary Use or Variance: A Type III Discretionary Use review is required for a Moderate Visibility facility on PLO Land. The applicable criteria for this review have been addressed in Section III.B above. Verizon also submitted an application for a Zoning Map Amendment to convert the abutting property to the south and west from a Low Density Residential zone to Public Land and Open Space zone designation concurrently with these applications. The approval of the proposed Public Land and Open Space zone pursuant to the Zoning Map Amendment will avoid the need for a variance. Attachment 3, Page 41 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Conclusion Verizon respectfully requests approval of the Type III Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a camouflaged wireless communications tower facility on property owned by Rainbow Water District, as well as approval the Zoning Map Amendment to convert the Willamalane property to a Public Lands and Open Space zone district. Based on the above analysis, the proposals meet with the approval criteria and the goals of the City of Springfield. The wireless facility has been sited and designed to minimize its impacts while providing state of the art communications services to the surrounding community. Attachment 3, Page 42 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW EXHIBITS 1. Plan Set, including Site Plan and Tower Design 2. RF Justification Letter and Propagation Maps 3. Results from AntennaSearch.com 4. RF Safety and NIER Report 5. FCC Licenses 6. FAA Filing Form 7. ODA Assessment letter 8. Letter from Verizon regarding Colocation 9. Letter from Structural Engineer regarding Colocation and Design for Multiple Carriers 10. Generator Specifications, including Noise Information 11. Facility Lease 12. Photosimulations 13. Deed and Title Report 14. Pre-application report from meeting held on July 8, 2016 PRE16-00037 PRE16-00001 15. Lighting Specification 16. Geotechnical Report Attachment 3, Page 43 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 1 _______________ Plan Set, including Site Plan and Tower Design Attachment 3, Page 44 of 123 F ROM ZERO IOT NF I IN GY 18'4#..*'+)*6 žÄ PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 45 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 46 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 47 of 123 PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 48 of 123 XXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTE/TE/TE/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T XX XT T T T T TTT TTTTTTE/T FROM ZE RO IOT NFI IN GY PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 49 of 123 XXXXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/TE/T E/T E/T E/T E/T XXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXE/T E/T E/TE/T E/T E/T FROM ZE RO IOT NFI IN GY PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 50 of 123 FROM ZE RO IOT NFI IN GY PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 51 of 123 FROM ZE RO IOT NFI IN GY PRELIMINARY FOR ZONING. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3, Page 52 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 53 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 2 _______________ RF Justification Letter and Propagation Maps Attachment 3, Page 54 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 55 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 56 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 57 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 3 _______________ Results from AntennaSearch.com Attachment 3, Page 58 of 123 1/4/2017 AntennaSearch ­ Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. http://www.antennasearch.com/sitestart.asp?sourcepagename=reportviewer2&prevsessionidnum=1062256992&prevordernum=1&previtemnum=1&sectionna…1/2 Tower Structures ­ (Vitus Ln, Springfield, OR 97477) Tower(Registered) * High structures (typically over 200 ft in height) Tower(Not­Registered) * Medium structures (100 to 200 ft in height) Future Tower * Future site for registered tower  Alert! 32 Towers (7 Registered,25 Not Registered) found within 4.00 miles of Vitus Ln, Springfield, OR 97477.  Info! The NEAREST Tower is .33 miles away and is owned by Western Pcs Corp.   Ok! No Applications for Future Towers detected as of 01/04/17. Tower Type ID Num Site Owner Height Dist Registered (1)Sba Monarch Towers I, Llc 110 feet .75 miles (2)Stc Five Llc 155 feet 1.20 miles(3)T­mobile West Tower Llc 157 feet 3.21 miles(4)Day Management Corporation 145 feet 3.28 miles(5)Kezi, Inc.256 feet 3.31 miles(6)Kmtr Television, Llc 496 feet 3.36 miles (7)Support Christian Broadcasting Inc Dba =Kore 1050 Am 230 feet 3.61 miles NotRegistered (1)Western Pcs Corp 130 feet .33 miles Map data ©2017 GoogleReport a map error Attachment 3, Page 59 of 123 1/4/2017 AntennaSearch ­ Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. http://www.antennasearch.com/sitestart.asp?sourcepagename=reportviewer2&prevsessionidnum=1062256992&prevordernum=1&previtemnum=1&sectionna…2/2 (2)Cingular Wireless ­ Lgensler 126 feet 1.13 miles (3)Crown Castle 130 feet 1.86 miles (4)Cellco Partnership 153 feet 2.04 miles (5)Master Towers Llc 150 feet 2.05 miles (6)Verizon Wireless (vaw) Llc 107 feet 2.21 miles (7)Cricket Communications 90 feet 2.31 miles (8)J & K Broadcasters 263 feet 2.38 miles (9)At&t Wireless Services Of Or Inc 145 feet 3.09 miles (10)Blank 64 feet 3.13 miles (11)American Tower Corporation 160 feet 3.14 miles (12)Western Pcs Corp 200 feet 3.17 miles (13)Verizon Wireless (vaw) Llc 135 feet 3.22 miles (14)Onecomm 162 feet 3.27 miles (15)Blank 478 feet 3.36 miles (16)Blank 448 feet 3.36 miles (17)Kezi Inc 200 feet 3.37 miles (18)Blank 173 feet 3.40 miles (19)Western Pcs Corp 150 feet 3.40 miles (20)Crown Castle West Area 132 feet 3.51 miles (21)Skyway Towers, Llc 159 feet 3.51 miles (22)Blank 110 feet 3.52 miles (23)Ridgeline Broadcast Services, Llc 230 feet 3.73 miles (24)Western Pcs Corp 150 feet 3.80 miles (25)Mc Caw Communications Of The Midsouth In 45 feet 3.88 miles Future (No Towers Detected)   © 2004­2009 by General Data Resources, Inc. Family Sized Chicken Pot Pie MADE FROM scratch crust.SAVOR FAMILY SIZED POT PIES   Attachment 3, Page 60 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 4 _______________ RF Safety and NIER Report Attachment 3, Page 61 of 123 RF Safety and NIER Analysis Report 6/9/2016 Site: EUG Harvest Prepared for: Verizon Attachment 3, Page 62 of 123 Page 2 of 16 Table of Contents Certification ........................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6Site Details .......................................................................................................................... 6Predictive Analysis Details ................................................................................................. 9 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................. 11 Appendix A: FCC Compliance and RF Safety Policies ................................................... 12 Appendix B: Overview of RoofView Functions and Assumptions ............................... 14References ......................................................................................................................... 16 Limited Warranty .............................................................................................................. 16 Attachment 3, Page 63 of 123 Page 3 of 16 Certification This report, prepared by Centerline Solutions, LLC for Verizon, is intended to document compliance and evaluate power density levels as outlined in the report. The computations, analysis, and resulting report and conclusions were based on applicable FCC guidelines and regulations for maximum permissible exposure to humans consistent with FCC OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01. Additionally, Centerline Solutions, LLC certifies that the assumptions are valid and that the data used within Centerline Solutions' control are accurate, including information collected as part of Centerline Solutions’ field surveys. Centerline Solutions, LLC does not however certify the accuracy or correctness of any data provided to Centerline Solutions, LLC for this analysis and report by Verizon or other third parties working on behalf of Verizon. I certify that the attached RF exposure analysis and report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and all calculations, assumptions and conclusions are based on generally acceptable engineering practices: _________________________________ Patrick A. Kearns, P.E. Exp. 06/30/1706/09/2016 Attachment 3, Page 64 of 123 Page 4 of 16 Executive Summary This report provides the results of an RF power density analysis performed for Verizon’s site, EUG Harvest. Current Site Configuration: This is a new site build (NSB) for Verizon. Proposed Site Configuration: Installation and operation of Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology in the 700 MHz, PCS band (1900 MHz), and AWS band (2100 MHz). The configuration will be three sectors with 4 antennas (2 Tx/Rx and 2 futures) on each sector. Scope of Work: The proposed site plan will result in the installation of radio hardware and antennas at this site. Installations on the Monopine: Installation of (6) panel antennas Installation of (9) RRHs with A2 diversity units mounted behind the antenna Installation of (5) OVPs (over voltage protectors) mounted near the antennas Installations in the fenced compound: Installation of a complete telecommunications facility including electrical distribution equipment and equipment cabinets Installation of (1) GPS antenna mounted to an ice bridge post Installation of (5) OVPs mounted at grade adjacent to the equipment on the ground Site Description: Tower Type and Height- Monopine tower, elevation of 125’ AGL at top of lightning rod Equipment Location- Adjacent to the monopole, inside a proposed fenced compound. Other Antennas- Two (2) microwave dish antennas. Access- Equipment and the tower will be restricted by a locked fenced compound. Study Reference Location- This study examines the power density environment at the ground level from all sources of RF radiation, except as noted otherwise in the Introduction section below. Existing Signage- There are no existing RF signs at the site. Attachment 3, Page 65 of 123 Page 5 of 16 Analysis: The analysis of the RF power density at this site indicates that ground level exposures will not exceed the FCC’s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit for General Population/Uncontrolled environments. The peak ground level exposure is calculated to be less than or equal to 1.7% of the FCC General Population MPE limit. Conclusion and Recommendations: The results of the analysis indicate that the power density levels at the ground level will not exceed the FCC’s General Population MPE limit with the proposed site plan. This site will be operating in general compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65 following the implementation of the proposed site configuration outlined in this report. No mitigation is required. Attachment 3, Page 66 of 123 Page 6 of 16 Introduction The purpose of this analysis and report is to evaluate the cumulative power density levels of all antennas located on the tower to identify any areas of concern that require mitigation. This report also assesses the site’s compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65; “Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Fields”. The power density simulation performed for this site utilized RoofView® analysis software. All active antennas were assigned an operating frequency and transmit power and were deemed to be operating at 100% of their rated output power. The microwave dish antennas located on the tower were not included in the analysis, as their beam- widths are very narrow, and very little of their radiated energy is propagated to the ground below the tower. Site Details Address: 3200 Vitus Lane Springfield, OR 97477 Site type: Monopine Height: ~ 125 ft. AGL top of lightning rod ~ 104 ft. AGL top of antennas The following Figures (taken from the construction drawings) show plan and elevation views of the proposed facility. Attachment 3, Page 67 of 123 Page 7 of 16 Figure 1 – Compound Plan Attachment 3, Page 68 of 123 Page 8 of 16 Figure 2 – Elevation View Attachment 3, Page 69 of 123 Page 9 of 16 Antenna Inventory: The following table contains the technical data used to simulate the power density that may be encountered with all active antennas simultaneously operating at full rated power. Table 1 – Antenna Details Predictive Analysis Details For purposes of this analysis, RoofView® was configured to provide an output based on the appropriate MPE limit(s) published in the FCC’s guidelines. The antenna information was loaded into RoofView®, an MPE predictive analysis tool by Richard Tell and Associates, Inc. The analysis was run for the ground level. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the calculated RF emissions at the ground level. The solid green shading indicates that power density levels are expected to be less than 5% of the applicable maximum permissible exposure (MPE) level in these areas. Other colors are defined in the legend. (MHz) Trans Trans Other Calc (ft)(ft) dBd BWdth ID Name Freq Power Count Loss Pow er Mfg Model Z (Ground) Type Aper Gain Pt Dir VZA1A L700 730.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.95 66;0 VZA1B L2100 2150.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 16.25 63;0 VZA2A L1900 1950.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 15.85 65;0 VZA3A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;0 VZA4A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;0 VZB1A L700 730.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.95 66;140 VZB1B L2100 2150.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 16.25 63;140 VZB2A L1900 1950.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 15.85 65;140 VZB3A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;140 VZB4A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;140 VZC1A L700 730.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.95 66;240 VZC1B L2100 2150.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 16.25 63;240 VZC2A L1900 1950.00000 60.0 2 0.5 107.0 CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 15.85 65;240 VZC3A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;240 VZC4A Future CommScope SBNHH-1D65C 96.0 Hexport 8.1 13.25 64;240 Attachment 3, Page 70 of 123 Page 10 of 16 Green < 5% General Population Limit Blue < 20% General Population Limit Yellow < 100% General Population Limit Red >= 100% General Population Limit Figure 3 - % MPE General Population Ground Level Grid Size 10’ x 10’ Statistical Summary %MPE SQ. FT %SQ. FT. 44100 100.00 %of total ROOF Area 0 -5 44100 100.00 %of Selected Area 6 - 20 0 0.00 %of Selected Area 21 - 100 0 0.00 %of Selected Area > 100 0 0.00 %of Selected Area Roof Area 44100 sq. ft. Max %MPE 1.7 % Min %MPE 0.0 % Using Near/Far Spatial Avg Model With FCC 1997 Public Standard Attachment 3, Page 71 of 123 Page 11 of 16 Conclusions and Recommendations The results of the analysis indicate that the power density levels at the ground level will not exceed the FCC’s General Population MPE limit with the proposed site plan. This site will be operating in general compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65 following the implementation of the proposed site configuration outlined in this report. No mitigation is required. Note: Modifications to the site; and/or increases in channel counts or power levels exceeding those listed in this report will require additional evaluation to determine compliance. Attachment 3, Page 72 of 123 Page 12 of 16 Appendix A: FCC Compliance and RF Safety Policies In August of 1997, the FCC published OET Bulletin 65 Edition 97-01 to regulate methods for evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields incorporate two categories of limits; namely “Controlled” (a.k.a. Occupational) and “Uncontrolled” (a.k.a. General Public). The guidelines offer suggested methods for evaluating fixed RF transmitters to insure that the controlled and uncontrolled limits deemed safe by the FC for human exposure are not exceeded. OET Bulletin 65 recommended guidelines are intended to allow an applicant to “make a reasonably quick determination as to whether a proposed facility is in compliance with the limits.” In addition, the guidelines offer alternate supplementary considerations and procedures such as field measurements and more detailed analysis that should be used for multiple emitter situations. These guidelines define RF as emissions in the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The FCC define Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits within this frequency range based on limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The specific MPE limits defined by the FCC are as follows: Frequency Range [MHz] Electric Field Strength (E) [V/m] Magnetic Field Strength (H) [A/m] Power Density (S) [mW/Cm^2] Averaging Time |E|^2, |H|^2 or S [minutes] 0.3 - 3.0 614 1.63 100* 6 3.0 - 30 1842/f 4.89/f 900/f^2* 6 30 - 300 61.4 0.163 1 6 300 - 1,500 - - f/300 6 1,500 - 100,000 - - 5 6 Frequency Range [MHz] Electric Field Strength (E) [V/m] Magnetic Field Strength (H) [A/m] Power Density (S) [mW/Cm^2] Averaging Time |E|^2, |H|^2 or S [minutes] 0.3 - 3.0 614 1.63 100* 30 3.0 - 30 842/f 2.19/f 180/f^2* 30 30 - 300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300 - 1,500 - - f/1500 30 1,500 - 100,000 - - 1 30 f = frequency *Plane-wave equivalent power density Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure The FCC states that “Occupational/Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure.” Attachment 3, Page 73 of 123 Page 13 of 16 For General Population/Uncontrolled limits, the FCC states that “General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not fully be aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.” For purposes of this analysis, all limits are evaluated against the Power Density limits. Typical guidelines for determining whether Occupational/Controlled limits can be applied include insuring the environment (such as a rooftop) as limited/controlled access via locked doors or physical barrier that are preferably controlled by a landlord that is aware of the situation and can inform anyone going through the locked door of the existence of the RF emissions. Such notification/awareness is typically accomplished by means of signage on the door, or other access to the area of concern, as well as signage on or near the antennas. Examples of such signs include the following: Standards for when to use each of the above signs for occupational situations are as follows: All MPE references are to the FCC Occupational limits. No sign required: <20% of Occupational MPE Blue Sign, Notice: 20% to <100% of MPE Yellow Sign, Caution: 100% to <1000% of MPE Red Sign, Warning: >1000% of MPE Attachment 3, Page 74 of 123 Page 14 of 16 Appendix B: Overview of RoofView Functions and Assumptions RoofView is a tool developed and supported by Richard Tell Associates, Inc. to be used for analysis of RF field levels at telecommunications sites produced by antennas of the type commonly used in cellular, paging, SMR, PCS and two-way radio communications services. Although its name suggests that the tool is only for use in evaluating emissions for roof top applications, it can also be used to evaluate ground level effects of tower facilities. RoofView allows the user to apply near field, far field, or a combination of near and far field computational methods as desired by the user. For this analysis, near field computations are used for areas within the near field, and far field computations are used beyond the near field. Specific break points are dynamic based on the aperture of the antenna being analyzed. The near field methodology is based on a cylindrical model that assumes the power into an antenna is distributed as a cylinder around the aperture of the antenna. Research by Richard Tell Associates, Inc. found that using such a model, along with corrections for height and antenna pattern, is very accurate, if not slightly conservative in estimating RF exposure. FCC Bulletin 65 recognizes the use of the cylindrical model for near field calculations. The following picture and corresponding equation summarizes the computations used by RoofView® on a bin-by-bin basis when the near field method is used: Each bin’s results are then also adjusted by spatially averaging the portion of a 6 foot tall human that intercepts the aperture over 6 feet. Once the antenna is completely above (or below) the height that corresponds to a 6 foot tall human, the cylindrical results are Attachment 3, Page 75 of 123 Page 15 of 16 reduced to 10% of their results and then dissipated inversely in proportion to the square of the distance. Once bins being analyzed fall outside of the near field (as determined by a method and variable that is user-selectable; see below for method and variable used in this analysis), a far-field spatial average is calculated. Spatially averaged power density in the far-field is calculated by reducing the spatially averaged power density inversely, by the square of the distance from the antenna(s). There are several input variables to RoofView® that can impact the results produced when evaluating specific cell sites. Those variables are summarized accordingly: Required Inputs for RoofView v4.15 Analysis Thresholds (Relative to Controlled Limits) >= 0% Green < 5% >= 5% Blue < 20% >= 20% Yellow < 100% >= 100% Red Standard FCC 1997 Occupational (default) FCC 1997 General Population (as applicable) Model Near/Far Spatial Average Uptime 100% (vary as applicable) Near/Far Field Transition Method X ApHt Near/Far Field Transition At Ht Factor 1.5 Attachment 3, Page 76 of 123 Page 16 of 16 References FCC (1997). “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”; Federal Communications Commission; Office of Engineering and Technology, OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August. Richard Tell Associates, Inc. (2003). RoofView User Guide Version 4.15, Richard Tell Associates, Inc. February 10, 2003. Limited Warranty Centerline Solutions, LLC warrants that this analysis was performed in good faith using the methodologies and assumptions covered in this report and that data used for the analysis and report were obtained by Centerline Solutions, LLC employees or representatives via site surveys or research of Verizon’s available information. In the event that specific third party details were not available, best efforts were made to use assumptions that are based on industry experience of various carriers’ standards without violating any confidential information obtained under non-disclosure terms. Centerline Solutions, LLC also warrants that this analysis was performed in accordance with industry acceptable standards and methods. There are no other warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, relating to this agreement or to the services rendered by Centerline Solutions hereunder. In no event shall Centerline Solutions be held liable to Verizon, or to any third party, for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages, including but not limited to loss of profits, loss of data, loss of good will, and increased expenses. In no event shall Centerline Solutions be liable to Verizon for damages, whether based in contract, tort, negligence, strict liability, or otherwise, exceeding the amount payable hereunder for the services giving rise to such liability. Attachment 3, Page 77 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 5 _______________ FCC Licenses Attachment 3, Page 78 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C) License ­ WQJQ694 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3060321&printable 1/2 ULS License 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C) License ­ WQJQ694 ­ Cellco Partnership    This license has pending applications: 0007603292, 0007600283, 0007437777, 0007437777, 0007550793, 0007368105 Call Sign WQJQ694  Radio Service WU ­ 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C) Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market REA006  ­ West Channel Block C     Submarket 0 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 000746.00000000­ 000757.00000000  000776.00000000­ 000787.00000000    Dates Grant 11/26/2008 Expiration 06/13/2019  Effective 12/12/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/13/2013  2nd 06/13/2019   Notification Dates 1st 06/20/2013  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003290673  Type General Partnership   Licensee Cellco Partnership 5055 North Point Pkwy NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(678)259­1319  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Contact Verizon Wireless Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(678)259­1319  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. Attachment 3, Page 79 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C) License ­ WQJQ694 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3060321&printable 2/2   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 80 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQGB311 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2863022&printable 1/2 ULS License AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQGB311 ­ Cellco Partnership Call Sign WQGB311  Radio Service AW ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market CMA135  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR  Channel Block A     Submarket 0 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 001710.00000000­ 001720.00000000  002110.00000000­ 002120.00000000    Dates Grant 11/29/2006 Expiration 11/29/2021  Effective 11/01/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st  2nd   Notification Dates 1st  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003290673  Type General Partnership   Licensee Cellco Partnership 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:licensingcompliance@verizonwireless.com      Contact Cellco Partnership Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. Attachment 3, Page 81 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQGB311 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2863022&printable 2/2   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 82 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQQA220 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3413195&printable 1/2 ULS License AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQQA220 ­ Cellco Partnership Call Sign WQQA220  Radio Service AW ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market BEA166  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR­ CA  Channel Block B     Submarket 4 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 001720.00000000­ 001730.00000000  002120.00000000­ 002130.00000000    Dates Grant 08/23/2012 Expiration 11/29/2021  Effective 11/01/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st  2nd   Notification Dates 1st  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003290673  Type General Partnership   Licensee Cellco Partnership 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:licensingcompliance@verizonwireless.com      Contact Cellco Partnership Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits. Attachment 3, Page 83 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS (1710­1755 MHz and 2110­2155 MHz) License ­ WQQA220 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3413195&printable 2/2   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 84 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS­3 (1695­1710 MHz, 1755­1780 MHz, and 2155­2180 MHz) License ­ WQVP235 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3688467&printable 1/2 ULS License AWS­3 (1695­1710 MHz, 1755­1780 MHz, and 2155­2180 MHz) License ­ WQVP235 ­ Cellco Partnership Call Sign WQVP235  Radio Service AT ­ AWS­3 (1695­1710 MHz, 1755­1780 MHz, and 2155­2180 MHz) Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market BEA166  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR­ CA  Channel Block J     Submarket 0 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 001770.00000000­ 001780.00000000  002170.00000000­ 002180.00000000    Dates Grant 04/08/2015 Expiration 04/08/2027  Effective 11/01/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st 04/08/2021  2nd 04/08/2027   Notification Dates 1st  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003290673  Type General Partnership   Licensee Cellco Partnership 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:licensingcompliance@verizonwireless.com      Contact Verizon Wireless Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions. Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.Attachment 3, Page 85 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ AWS­3 (1695­1710 MHz, 1755­1780 MHz, and 2155­2180 MHz) License ­ WQVP235 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3688467&printable 2/2   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 86 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ Cellular License ­ KNKA465 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=12384&printable 1/2 ULS License Cellular License ­ KNKA465 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC Call Sign KNKA465  Radio Service CL ­ Cellular Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market CMA135  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR  Channel Block B     Submarket 0 Phase 2  Dates Grant 02/05/2008 Expiration 01/22/2018  Effective 11/04/2016 Cancellation   Five Year Buildout Date 02/04/1993   Control Points 2 500 West Dove Road, TARRANT, Southlake, TX  P: (800)264­6620     Licensee FRN 0003800307  Type Limited Liability Company   Licensee Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Contact Verizon Wireless Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership Is the applicant a foreign government or the representative of anyforeign government?No   Is the applicant an alien or the representative of an alien?No   Is the applicant a corporation organized under the laws of anyforeign government?No   Is the applicant a corporation of which more than one­fifth of thecapital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreigncountry? No   Is the applicant directly or indirectly controlled by any othercorporation of which more than one­fourth of the capital stock is Yes   Attachment 3, Page 87 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ Cellular License ­ KNKA465 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=12384&printable 2/2 owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by aforeign government or representative thereof, or by any corporationorganized under the laws of a foreign country? If the answer to the above question is 'Yes', has the applicant received a ruling(s) under Section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act with respect to the same radio service involved in thisapplication? Yes   Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 88 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH374 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10543&printable 1/2 ULS License PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH374 ­ Cellco Partnership Call Sign KNLH374  Radio Service CW ­ PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market BTA133  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR  Channel Block F     Submarket 0 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 001890.00000000­ 001895.00000000  001970.00000000­ 001975.00000000    Dates Grant 05/15/2007 Expiration 04/28/2017  Effective 11/01/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st 04/28/2002  2nd   Notification Dates 1st 01/08/2002  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003290673  Type General Partnership   Licensee Cellco Partnership 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:licensingcompliance@verizonwireless.com      Contact Cellco Partnership Licensing Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:licensingcompliance@verizonwireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership Is the applicant a foreign government or the representative of any foreign government?No   Is the applicant an alien or the representative of an alien?No   Is the applicant a corporation organized under the laws of anyforeign government?No   Is the applicant a corporation of which more than one­fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representativethereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreigncountry? No   Attachment 3, Page 89 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH374 ­ Cellco Partnership http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10543&printable 2/2 Is the applicant directly or indirectly controlled by any othercorporation of which more than one­fourth of the capital stock isowned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by aforeign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country? Yes   If the answer to the above question is 'Yes', has the applicant received a ruling(s) under Section 310(b)(4) of the CommunicationsAct with respect to the same radio service involved in thisapplication? Yes   Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 90 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH664 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10833&printable 1/2 ULS License PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH664 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC Call Sign KNLH664  Radio Service CW ­ PCS Broadband Status Active Auth Type Regular  Market Market BTA133  ­ Eugene­Springfield, OR  Channel Block E     Submarket 0 Associated Frequencies (MHz) 001885.00000000­ 001890.00000000  001965.00000000­ 001970.00000000    Dates Grant 07/23/2007 Expiration 06/26/2017  Effective 11/04/2016 Cancellation   Buildout Deadlines 1st 06/26/2002  2nd   Notification Dates 1st 06/27/2002  2nd     Licensee FRN 0003800307  Type Limited Liability Company   Licensee Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC 5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022  ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Contact Verizon Wireless Licensing ­ Manager  5055 North Point Pkwy, NP2NE Network Engineering Alpharetta, GA 30022 ATTN Regulatory P:(770)797­1070  F:(770)797­1036  E:LicensingCompliance@VerizonWireless.com      Ownership and Qualifications Radio Service Type Mobile   Regulatory Status Common Carrier   Interconnected Yes   Alien Ownership Is the applicant a foreign government or the representative of any foreign government?No   Is the applicant an alien or the representative of an alien?No   Is the applicant a corporation organized under the laws of anyforeign government?No   Is the applicant a corporation of which more than one­fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representativethereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreigncountry? No   Attachment 3, Page 91 of 123 12/30/2016 ULS License ­ PCS Broadband License ­ KNLH664 ­ Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=10833&printable 2/2 Is the applicant directly or indirectly controlled by any othercorporation of which more than one­fourth of the capital stock isowned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by aforeign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country? Yes   The Alien Ruling question is not answered.  Basic Qualifications The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions. Tribal Land Bidding Credits This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.   Demographics Race   Ethnicity  Gender         Attachment 3, Page 92 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 6 _______________ FAA Filing Form Attachment 3, Page 93 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 94 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 7 _______________ ODA Assessment letter Attachment 3, Page 95 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 96 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 8 _______________ Letter from Verizon regarding Colocation Attachment 3, Page 97 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 98 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 9 _______________ Letter from Structural Engineer regarding Colocation and Design for Multiple Carriers Attachment 3, Page 99 of 123 50 116th Avenue SE, Suite 210, Bellevue, WA 98004 Arizona California Colorado Florida Georgia Maryland New Hampshire New Jersey New York Texas Washington a Planner Lane County Land Management Division 3050 N. Delta Hwy. Eugene, OR 97408 December 21, 2016 Subject Verizon Wireless New Wireless Telecommunication Facility in Lane County, OR – EUG Harvest Property – 3200 Vitus Lane, Springfield, OR 97477 Lane County Oregon, Map and tax lot: 17-02-30-00 Tax Lot # 00801 Application No.: PRE16-00037 To whom it may concern: The above proposed tower, represented on Infinigy’s ZD Package dated December 21, 2016, is to be designed to support (2) additional carriers in addition to Verizon’s proposed initial installation. Verizon plans to install at 100’ centerline. Future carriers are to be installed below Verizon’s array, proposed at 100’ centerline. If you have any questions or need further assistance on this or any other projects please give us a call. Respectfully submitted by: Infinigy Name of Engineer: Andrew B. MacDonald OR License No: 87055 Stamp: Attachment 3, Page 100 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 10 _______________ Generator Specifications including Noise Information Attachment 3, Page 101 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 102 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 103 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 104 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 11 _______________ Facility Lease Attachment 3, Page 105 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 12 _______________ Photosimulations Attachment 3, Page 106 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 107 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 108 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 109 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 110 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 111 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 15 _______________ Lighting Specification Attachment 3, Page 112 of 123 PFS22LED 22 Watt LED Power Flood SPECIFICATIONS: Lumens: 2049Watts: 22.15Lumens/Watt: 92.5CRI: 72.8CCT: 4300Lifespan: 200,000+ hrs.1 Construction:Designed for commercial and industrial applications, providing cooler operating temperatures, brighter light and longer LED life. Apertures for eld or factory installed photocontrol. Heavy duty knuckle with 90° adjustment. Optics:Atlas Power Flood Pro xtures utilize individual lenses for maximum light intensity. These lenses are made of optical grade acrylic. This guarantees more footcandles, less glare and less wasted light. Thermal Management:Atlas Power Flood Pro xtures are designed as a complete system to optimize LED life and light output. The Patent Pending thermal stacking heat removal technology extracts heat from within the housing moving it away from LEDs and components. The lower temperatures result in long LED life (200,000+ hrs) and component life and also allows for higher light output. Listings:Luminaire is certied to cUL and CSA Standards for Wet LocationsLighting Facts CertiedDesignLights Consortium qualied luminaire, eligible for rebates from DLC member utilities. AC Input:120/208/240/277 V Driver:Constant current, Class 2, 120-277 VAC, 50-60 HzHigh Eciency – min. 84%O-State Power: 0 Watts0-10 V Dimming LEDs:4500K CCTEpoxy Guard™ protective conformal coated boards Atlas LEDs provide higher lumen output, greater energy eciency and more reliable xture performance. They are tested and binned at 700mA which is the actual operating current used in Atlas LED luminaires, giving a better representation of actual performance. Reduced Glare:Positioning of the LED modules within the housing result in light directedto desired locations and reduces oensive light. Testing: Atlas LED luminaires have been tested by an independent laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79 & LM-80. Warranty:Five-year limited warranty Photo Control:For factory installed 120V button photo control add sux PC to part number. LED Life Span Based Upon LM-80 Test Results Project Information Job Name Fixture Type Catalog Number Approved by Made in the USA of US and imported parts. Meets Buy American requirements within the ARRA. Rebates and Incentives are available in many areas.Contact an Atlas Representative for more information. PFS22LED 22 Watt LED Power Flood PROFESSIONAL GRADE 9.29" 9.36" 6.28" 3.43" 7.53" 4.68" 3.65" 6.36" 5.43" 5.36" 9.35" ATLAS LIGHTING PRODUCTS, INC. PO BOX 2348 | BURLINGTON, NC 27216 800-849-8485 | FAX: 336-227-0110 | www.atlasled.com Power Flood Pro LED Product Partner DIMENSIONS: PFS22LED Design is Protected by US Patent D710,530 Weight: 7 lbs. EPA: 0.33 Attachment 3, Page 113 of 123 Made in the USA of US and importedparts. Meets Buy American requirements within the ARRA. PFS22LED 22 Watt LED Power Flood PHOTOMETRIC ENERGY SAVINGS WATTAGE ANNUALCOST LED ANNUALSAVINGSSOURCEWATTAGE TOTALWATTAGEUSED HID ANNUALCOST 22 22 22 $10 $10 $10 $42 $49 $67 50 70 100 72 90 129 $52 $59 $77 MOUNTING DETAIL .78" .66" FITS 1/2" NPT ATLAS LIGHTING PRODUCTS, INC. PO BOX 2348 | BURLINGTON, NC 27216 800-849-8485 | FAX: 336-227-0110 | www.atlasled.com Power Flood Pro 8.2 14.31.5 20' 6.7 AverageFootcandle s 20' Setback 5'10' Attachment 3, Page 114 of 123 VERIZON WIRELESS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY DISCRETIONARY USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit 16 _______________ Geotechnical Report Attachment 3, Page 115 of 123 GEIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. 4200 Park Boulevard #149, Oakland, California 94602 510.238.8851 (p) / 510.238.8644 (f) Field Offices: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington November 8, 2015 Sent via email: paul.danneberg@smartlinkllc.com Smartlink Paul Danneberg, Smartlink A&E Project Manager RE: Geotechnical Investigation with Soil Resistivity Proposed Verizon NSB Monopole (monopine) Tower Raw Land Verizon Name: EUG Harvest Verizon Address: 3200 Vitus Lane, Springfield, Lane County, Oregon GE2G Project # 310542 Dear Mr. Danneberg, Geist Engineering and Environmental Group, Inc. (GE2G), appreciates the opportunity have assisted Smartlink by having one geotechnical assessment and findings report completed for the proposed above listed proposed Verizon Wireless undertaking. Executive Summary: From a geotechnical viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed monopole provided the recommendations are followed during design and construction. The area to be improved contains very hard basalt at shallow depths. Per the completed geotechnical evaluation the undisturbed basalt is suitable for support of the proposed cell tower and adjacent equipment building. Per the completed geotechnical evaluation, the cell tower foundation can be completed on a raft type foundation founded on hard undisturbed basalt. Specific geotechnical, site preparation, structural fill, soil resistivity, and other recommendations for the improvement project are presented in the attached report. Smartlink should send one copy to the Architect or Engineer. The applicable regulatory agency may require one to two copies. If hardcopies are needed please let me know and I will have them sent out to your office. If you have any inquiries or would like any additional information, please contact me at (510) 238-8851, or sgeist@geistenvironmental.com. Sincerely, Stephen Geist, President, Geist Engineering and Environmental Group, Inc. Attached: Completed Geotechnical Report by Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting for EUG Harvest with recommendations as competed by Oregon Registered Professional Engineer Attachment 3, Page 116 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 117 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 118 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 119 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 120 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 121 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 122 of 123 Attachment 3, Page 123 of 123 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE + CASE NO. TYP317-00001 + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, + AND ORDER NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant submitted a Discretionary Use request for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility consisting of a 125-foot tall monopine tower at 3200 Vitus Lane (Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 801 and Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5100). The site is zoned Public Land and Open Space and the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.3-145.H lists moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facilities as a Discretionary Use in the PLO District. The Discretionary Use request requires action by the Planning Commission before successive land use actions can be approved for the site. 1. On January 5, 2017 the following application for a Discretionary Use was accepted: Allow for a moderate visibility wireless telecommunications system facility (monopine cellular tower) in the Public Land and Open Space District, Case Number TYP317-00001, Kelly Lea, Verizon Wireless, applicant. 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2-115 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On February 22, 2017 a public hearing on the Discretionary Use request was held. The Development & Public Works Department staff notes including criteria of approval, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at the hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSION Supported by substantial evidence in the record, the requested Discretionary Use application is consistent with the criteria of Section 5.9-120 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) attached hereto. ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that Case Number TYP317-00001, Discretionary Use Request, be approved. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2017. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL This approval expires three (3) calendar years after the date of approval by the Planning Commission, or upon expiration of the accompanying Site Plan Review approval, Case TYP217-00001, whichever date is later. Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2 APPEAL Pursuant to SDC Section 5.2-155, this Type III decision is final unless appealed to the Springfield City Council in accordance with SDC Section 5.3-120. Only those persons who participated either orally or in writing have standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. An appeal application shall be filed with the Director within 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission’s decision (ie. by 5:00 pm on March 9, 2017) to be considered valid. The appeal application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the City Council ($2,420.00). The filing fee will be refunded to the appellant if one or more of the appeal allegations are upheld by the City Council, or if the decision is amended, remanded or reversed. _______________________________ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW + CASE NO. TYP217-00001 + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, + AND ORDER NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant submitted a Site Plan Review application for construction of a 125-foot tall monopine tower with fenced enclosure and equipment cabinets at 3200 Vitus Lane (Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 801 and Map 17-02-30-12, Tax Lot 5100). The site is within the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District and the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.17-105.B.2.g lists wireless telecommunications system facilities as requiring Site Plan Review in the PLO District. The Site Plan Review application is being processed concurrently with a Discretionary Use request requiring action by the Planning Commission before the subject development can be approved for the site. 1. On January 5, 2017 the following application for Site Plan Review was accepted: Allow for a 125-foot tall wireless telecommunications system facility (monopine cellular tower) with fenced enclosure and equipment cabinets in the Public Land and Open Space District, Case Number TYP217-00001, Kelly Lea, Verizon Wireless, applicant. 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code. Public notification and request for comments, pursuant to Section 5.1-130.B of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On February 22, 2017 a public hearing on the Discretionary Use request was held. The Development & Public Works Department staff notes including criteria of approval, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at the hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the requested Site Plan Review application is consistent with the criteria of Section 5.17-125 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact, conclusions, and conditions of approval in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) attached hereto. ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that Case Number TYP217-00001, Site Plan Review application, be approved. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2017. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL This approval expires two (2) calendar years after the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless extended in accordance with the provisions of SDC Section 5.17-140. Attachment 5, Page 1 of 2 APPEAL Pursuant to SDC Sections 5.1-135 and 5.2-155, this Type II decision is final unless appealed to the Springfield City Council in accordance with SDC Section 5.3-120. Only those persons who participated either orally or in writing have standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision. An appeal application shall be filed with the Director within 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission’s decision (ie. by 5:00 pm on March 9, 2017) to be considered valid. The appeal application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by the City Council ($250.00). The filing fee will be refunded to the appellant if one or more of the appeal allegations are upheld by the City Council, or if the decision is amended, remanded or reversed. _______________________________ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 5, Page 2 of 2