HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 02 05 AIS PC Communication MemorandumCOMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: 2/5/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3775
S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Estimated Time: 45 minutes
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC) SECTION 4.3-145—WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FACILITIES; AND CERTAIN
TERMS FOUND IN SECTION 6.1-110—MEANING OF SPECIFIC WORDS AND TERMS,WHICH APPLY TO SECTION 4.3-145.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
No action required. Commissioners are requested to review this memorandum in
preparation for a discussion of Development Code standards guiding the installation of wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facilities. Proposed amendments to these standards will be considered at the February 5th work session and at a February
19th public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum, 3/26/2012
2. Visual Tour of Springfield’s Towers
3. Council Briefing Memorandum 10/22/2012 4. Proposed Development Code Amendments with Annotations
DISCUSSION: In December 2011, Council requested that staff consider the feasibility of amending the Development Code to address the visual impact of cell towers, and their impact
on residential neighborhoods in particular.
On March 26, 2012, Council was briefed on existing standards guiding the installation of cell towers and other telecommunications facilities. The briefing
included a discussion of the visual impact cell towers have had on surrounding neighborhoods. Specific concerns were identified at the March meeting that led to
staff to meet again with Council on October 22, 2012. Staff presented a package of
measures which addressed Council’s concerns from the March meeting. Council approved the measures in principle and directed staff to develop specific
amendments to the SDC to implement them.
Staff has prepared a package of amendments to SDC Sections 4.3-145 and 6.1-115
which gives the Planning Commission the lead role in approving all new cell tower installations. The proposed amendments add new standards to the code which would establish minimum setbacks for towers from streets and would allow the City to
require cell tower applicants to fund a peer review of certain technical elements of their application. The amendments rewrite SDC Section 4.3-145 and require changes to Section 6.1-115 which includes definitions of various telecommunication
terms used in Section 4.3-145.
The scope of the amendments prompted staff to provide Commission members with
advance copies of the proposed changes to allow more time for review. Attachments 1-3 were prepared for Council. These are included to provide additional background
for the changes that will come before the Commission. Attachment 4 includes an
annotated version of the proposed new code sections that will replace SDC Section 4.3-145 and revise Section 6.1-115.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 3/26/2012
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Len Goodwin, Assistant Public Works Director
Mark Metzger, Senior Planner
Subject: CELL TOWER SITING STANDARDS
ISSUE: Staff will make a brief presentation concerning Springfield’s cell tower siting and development
standards and requests comments and direction from Council. Council is requested to review the existing standards and the effectiveness these have had in managing the siting and appearance of local
cell towers. This memorandum also compares Springfield’s standards with four other Oregon communities.
COUNCIL GOALS: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
At the December 5, 2011 meeting, Council requested that staff provide information about the feasibility of having design standards for cell towers in the City limits. Set out below is an overview
of Springfield’s existing “Wireless Telecommunication Systems” (WTS) standards as found in Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield Development Code. WTS includes all of the facilities that we
think of when we are speaking about cell towers, transmitters, receivers and related equipment. This
memorandum also provides a brief comparison of the city’s standards with those in Roseburg, Ashland, Albany and Medford.
Executive Summary
Springfield has 18 cell tower facilities within its Urban Growth Boundary. Seventeen of these were built between 1995 and 2005. Only two applications for tower facilities have been received since
2005 and only one of those two were built. Based on the trend towards the use of smaller antennas for WTS coverage, it is unlikely that there will be a significant new demand for imposing new tower facilities as was experienced in past years. For the most part, providers in Springfield have replaced
and upgraded equipment on existing towers and related facilities to accommodate increased service demand.
Cellular phone towers, which are defined in the Springfield Development Code as Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities, are governed by Section 4.3-145 of the Development Code. That code, however, must operate within the framework of a body of federal law which has some
constraints on local government regulatory activity.
The Code first requires that applicants show that they cannot collocate on an existing structure, pole
or tower. Second, if a tower is approved, the developer must allow potential competitors to collocate on the new tower.
Springfield has used increasing levels of design review to encourage towers to be built in industrial areas and on public land. Design review for placing towers in industrial/public land may be built
using a Type I review process (staff review without public notice) requiring just building permits.
Locating towers in commercial areas requires Type II review (staff review with public notice) and Site Plan Review.
Placing towers in residential areas requires a Type III review process that brings the matter before the Planning Commission (or Hearings Official) in a public hearing. A Discretionary Use process is used
1/7/2013 Page 2
which allows wide latitude on the part of the decision makers to require “stealth design” to minimize
the visual impacts of the facilities.
This approach has been largely successful. Fifteen of the 18 towers in Springfield are located in
industrial zoning districts or on land zoned Public Land and Open Space. Two towers are located in
commercial areas. One tower was built at the SUB electric substation on Game Farm Rd., which is zoned Medium Density Residential.
Springfield’s Code is similar in most regards to the policies applied by Ashland, Roseburg, Albany and Medford. Not all of these communities use increasing levels of design review to channel where
towers are built. All communities seek to encourage tower installation in industrial areas first, then commercial. Unlike Springfield, some of these communities do not allow new towers in residential zoning districts, but these communities do allow WTS equipment to be located on existing structures.
All of the communities have the ability to require stealth design to be applied, particularly in visually sensitive areas.
Springfield is geographically large enough to require WTS facilities both inside and outside of the city to provide needed coverage. Ashland and Roseburg are largely served from forested hill tops or
from the fringes of their communities with a small number of WTS facilities in core areas. Appendix
A includes a gallery of maps, aerial photos and pictures of existing “stealth design” used in Ashland and Roseburg.
It is possible that a review of the existing policies found in the Development Code and proposing new policies could provide some benefits with respect to the location and appearance of future tower
construction. The current practice of encouraging the location of towers on public land (school
district property) creates the most visible conflict with neighboring residential properties. Some towers in industrial and commercial zones are located in front of the primary buildings on the site,
near the street. Placing towers behind primary buildings may protect streetscapes in commercial and industrial areas. Such policy adjustments as suggested above are not recommendations, but are the type of adjustments that could be considered if staff were directed to review existing WTS policies.
Given, however, that the industry is now transitioning to collocation of facilities, and to advanced designs which are much less obtrusive (such as whip antennas on utility poles) the benefit to be achieved might prove to be minimal.
Background
As mentioned, the placement of WTS facilities is initially governed by federal law. In general, those
provisions (particularly Section 322(c)(7) of the Communications Act) support broad general
authority of local governments to govern siting of cell towers and antennas, and related facilities. One specific exception to that general grant is that local governments may not regulate the emission of
radio frequency radiation beyond requiring that a proposed facility comply with FCC rules on emissions. Other restrictions include that local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, and may prohibit, or effectively prohibit
provision of wireless services. Recently, the FCC has established time limits within which local governments must act on requests: 150 days in the case of new siting applications, and 90 days in the
case of requests to locate additional facilities on existing towers or antennas. The ability of the FCC
to establish firm time limits is now under judicial review. Finally, last week Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation which mandates approval of collocation requests if the request does not
“substantially change the physical dimensions” of a tower or antenna. It is likely that this most recent
change will be subjected to judicial review.
The late 1990’s saw the rapid expansion of WTS facilities to serve an equally rapid expansion of cell
phone and wireless data use. CTIA, an international association for the wireless telecommunications
industry, reports that the number of wireless subscribers has grown from 38.2 million in 1996 to
1/7/2013 Page 3
322.8 million in 2011. The number of wireless connections as a percentage of the U.S population in
1996 was about 14%. In 2011, that percentage had grown to 102%. About 32% of households no
longer have land lines.
Wireless Subscribers in the U.S.1 2011 2006 2001 1996
Wireless Subscriber Connections 322.8M 219.6M 118.4M 38.2M
Wireless Penetration (equals # of active
units divided by total U.S. population)
102% 73% 41% 14%
Wireless-Only Households (no land
line)
32% 11% N/A N/A
Growth in WTS use has evidenced itself in the proliferation of cell towers. Springfield has 18 towers within its UGB. The initial influx of tower construction has slowed. Only two applications
for new towers have been submitted since 2005, both were reviewed in 2009 and only one of those two towers was built. Companies continue to upgrade their facilities on existing poles and structures.
Companies are not required to seek planning approvals to replace or upgrade their equipment on
existing facilities.
While the demand for new towers has slowed, the type of equipment required for WTS is changing.
The latest technology is replacing towers with small whip type antennas that can be mounted on the top of existing street light and telephone poles. While the towers are not likely to go away any time
soon, the construction of new towers is not likely to grow significantly.
Regulation of WTS Facility Placement
Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) details the city’s approach to managing
the placement and appearance of WTS facilities. The Code first encourages co-location of new cell facilities on existing towers or to integrate facilities with existing structures. All applications for
WTS facilities must include an engineer’s statement stating why proposed new equipment cannot be installed on existing towers. Where new towers are needed, the owner of the proposed new facility must sign an agreement allowing other companies to collocate on the same pole.
The Development Code identifies “preferred sites,” “acceptable sites” and “conditionally suitable sites,” based on the zoning districts in which the towers are to be located. “Preferred sites” are
deemed to be the zoning districts that are least sensitive to the visual impacts of WTS (generally industrial and public lands and open space districts). “Acceptable sites” are zoning districts that may be moderately impacted by WTS facilities (generally commercial and campus industrial zoning
districts). “Conditionally suitable sites” are those deemed to be most sensitive to these facilities (generally residential districts).
Springfield’s WTS standards seek to direct the placement of tower facilities to “Preferred Sites” by lowering the level of review required to approve them. Preferred sites are those located
in the following zoning districts: which includes the Special Heavy Industrial, Heavy Industrial,
Light-Medium Industrial, Quarry Mining and Operations or Public Land and Open Space. Generally WTS facilities placed in these zoning districts require only building and electrical permits (Type I review).
1 Source: CTIA, http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/index.cfm/AID/10323
1/7/2013 Page 4
Figure 1: Springfield Cell Towers
Figure 1 shows that 15 of Springfield’s 18 WTS tower sites are located in “preferred sites, that is industrial districts or on public lands. Towers located on public lands are primarily school
district properties. School District 19 has three towers on publically zoned land, two at Thurston High School and one at Silke Field near Springfield High School. Springfield Memorial Gardens Cemetery has a tower on its property in South Thurston Hills. Cemeteries are zoned Public Land and
Open Space in Springfield.
“Acceptable Sites” are located in Community Commercial, Campus Industrial, and the Booth Kelly
Mixed-Use zoning districts. Figure 1 shows that only 2 of Springfield’s 18 WTS tower sites are located in one of these zoning districts. These sites are at the Gateway Mall and in front of the Elk’s
Club near the intersection of Centennial and Mohawk Blvds.
WTS facilities proposed for “acceptable sites” generally require Site Plan Review (Type II review), including public notice and the opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed
installation. SDC Section 4.3-145(A)(1) encourages the installation of WTS equipment on existing poles and structures by allowing approval of installation with just a building permit, and not site plan review.
“Conditionally Suitable Sites” are located in Neighborhood Commercial, Major Retail Commercial,
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential zoning districts or Medical Services, Willamette Greenway, Floodplain, Hillside Development, and Hospital Support Overlay districts.
1/7/2013 Page 5
WTS facilities built on “conditionally suitable sites” require Discretionary Use (Type III) review by the Planning Commission or Hearing’s Official. This review involves public notice and
a public hearing before the Planning Commission or Hearings Official. Conditions may be applied to the approval of WTS facilities in these zoning districts that address potential adverse effects. SDC
Section 4.3-145(A) (2) encourages the use of stealth design by allowing facilities in
conditionally suitable areas to be approved by site plan review instead of a public hearing.
Figure 1 shows that 2 towers were approved for conditionally suitable sites in 2009 but only one was built. The first tower (zoned Medium Density Residential) was built on the grounds of SUB’s electric substation located on Game Farm Rd. The second was approved for installation at 2095
Yolanda Ave. behind the former Albertson’s store (zoned Neighborhood Commercial). The Yolanda site was opposed by staff but was approved by the Hearing’s Official. The decision was appealed by neighbors to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA upheld the Hearing’s
Official’s decision. The tower has never been built.
Regulation of WTS Facility Appearance
Regulation of visual impacts (appearance) is governed in part by location, and in part by the type of
WTS facility that is allowed. As demonstrated above Springfield has been successful in steering
installations to industrial areas and public lands that are less sensitive to the visual impact of WTS
facilities. The second approach is to manage impacts by encouraging the use of “attached facilities”
and “stealth design.”
Attached facilities are defined by the Springfield Development Code as “an existing pole, tower or
other structure capable of accommodating a WTS facility antenna, whether originally intended for the
use or not. Stealth designs include a variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate reduce visual
impacts of WTS facilities by mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not
limited to: light poles, church steeples and trees). Stealth can also include the installation of
equipment on roof tops behind parapets or walls.
As discussed above, SDC Section 4.3-145 uses incentives related to the review process to encourage
the use of “attached facilities” and “stealth design.” When cell towers are proposed for “conditionally suitable” sites, i.e. residential and sensitive locations, the mandated Discretionary Use review process
allows the Planning Commission or Hearings Official to require the use of attached facilities or
stealth design to mitigate the visual impacts of WTS facilities. SDC Section 5.9-125 states, “The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the
Discretionary Use approval to be granted.”
1/7/2013 Page 6
Figure 2. Types of WTS Facilities
Typical monopole WTS facility
located at Thurston High School
“Attached WTS facility”—
Stadium lights at Silke Field at Springfield High School
“Stealth tree” similar to one
installed on the municipal golf course near the VA hospital in
Roseburg
Multiple roof-mounted WTS facilities built into the façade of the Ashland Springs Hotel. The building is
about 9 stories high and is located in the heart of Ashland’s sensitive historic district. Additional facilities
are located in the elevator tower. Installing WTS equipment on the roof, behind the parapet is a “stealth design” strategy. The building height and central location of this site makes it work.
How Do Springfield’s WTS Policies Compare with Other Cities?
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) allows local governments latitude in
their siting requirements so long as those policies do not unreasonably discriminate among providers
of functionally equivalent services, and do not prohibit, or effectively prohibit provision of wireless services. The table below compares key policy features that affect the placement and appearance of
WTS facilities in Springfield, Ashland, Roseburg, Albany and Medford.
1/7/2013 Page 7
The comparison shows that there are many similarities between the communities. The differences
relate to the use of increase levels of review to encourage the placement of towers in less sensitive
zoning districts. Springfield, Ashland and Albany use this approach. Roseburg requires Type II review (staff review with public notice) for all tower placements regardless of the location. Medford
requires Type III review (Planning Commission, Approval Authority public hearing) for all towers.
Ashland, Roseburg and Albany do not allow cell towers in most residential zoning districts, although
they do allow equipment to be placed on existing structures. Springfield and Medford allow consideration of tower placement in residential areas. In Springfield, the applicant must show that a good faith effort was made to locate in a less sensitive area. Both Springfield and Medford require a
Type III review of such applications to build in residential areas and may require stealth measures for approval.
Comparison of Community WTS Placement and Appearance Standards
Policy Strategy Springfield
SDC 4.3-145
Ashland
AMC 18.72.180
Roseburg
Article 29
Albany
8.500
Medford
18.72.180
Uses increasing levels of review
for increasingly sensitive sites?
Yes
Type I Review
Type II Review
Type III Review
Yes
Type II
Type III
No
Type II
for all
Yes
Type II
Type III
No
Type III
for all
Requires
collocation on existing poles or
existing
structures where possible?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Requires others be allowed to
collocate on new tower?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Allows towers in most industrial
districts?
Yes
Type I Review
Yes
Type II
Yes
Type II
Yes
Type I
Type II
Yes
Type III
Allows towers in most
commercial districts?
Yes
Type II Review
Yes
Type II
Type III
Yes
Type II
Yes
Type II
Type III
Yes
Type III
Allows towers in
most residential districts?
Yes, but must prove
less sensitive sites are not available.
May require stealth measures.
No, new
equipment allowed on
existing structures
only. No towers.
No, only on
existing pole, mast or tower
structure (e.g. stadium light
tower). No new towers
No Yes,
Requires stealth
measures
May require the Yes, Type III Planning Yes, Type III Yes, Type II Yes, Type Yes, Type
1/7/2013 Page 8
use of “stealth
design” to mitigate the
visual impact of WTS equipment?
Commission or Hearings Official may
require stealth designs
to be used in “conditionally suitable” areas to
mitigate visual impacts.
CUP may require stealth
designs
CUP may require stealth
designs
III CUP may
require
stealth designs
III CUP may require
stealth
designs
Type I Review: Staff review, no public notice
Type II Review: Staff review, public notice and opportunity to comment
Type III Review: Planning Commission or Approval Authority, public notice and public hearing
Stealth Designs: A variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate the visual presence of WTS
support structures, including, but not limited to screening by mature trees (75 percent or more of pole
beneath tree canopy), mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not limited
to: light poles, church steeples and trees), painting antennas to match the color of supporting building
walls, or roof mounting behind parapets.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council provide direction for staff if changes to existing cell tower siting and development standards should be considered.
1/7/2013 Page 9
Appendix A: Gallery of Maps and Images
Cell Tower Locations-Ashland, OR (CellReception.com, July 2011)
Cell facilities (7-8 providers) have been placed
on the roof of the Ashland Springs Hotel behind parapets. The building is on the Historic
Registry in downtown Ashland.
1/7/2013 Page 10
Ashland Springs Hotel. WTS antennas are mounted on the roof behind the decorative parapet and
in the elevator tower. The hotel is in central Ashland. Towers are mostly on the periphery of the town
on hill tops and along I-5 and Highway 99.
1/7/2013 Page 11
Cell Tower Locations- Roseburg, OR (CellReception.com, July 2011)
“Stealth Tree” at Stewart Park Golf
Course
1/7/2013 Page 12
The City of Roseburg owns and operates a golf course on Stewart Parkway near the Veterans Administration Hospital. A “stealth tree” shown above was installed by the city in a corner of the
course to blend in with the surrounding landscape. This is the only stealth installation of its type in Roseburg. Towers serve the city from hill tops on the periphery of the community and in industrial areas along I-5 and Hwy 99. Some WTS equipment is located on the roof of the Courthouse on the
edge of the downtown area.
1
Tour of Springfield’s Cell Towers (WTS Facilities)
I-5 and Hwy 126
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
1075
Shelly Street
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
2
3030
Gateway Loop
Zoning: CC
“Acceptable Site”
3365
Game Farm Rd.
Zoning: MDR
“Conditionally
Acceptable Site”
3
2300
Henderson Ave.
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
5310
Franklin Blvd.
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
4
800 and 801
S. 18th Street
Zoning: QMO
“Preferred Site”
995
S. A Street
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
5
1001
10th Street
(Silke Field)
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
1701
Centennial Blvd.
(Elk’s Lodge across
from WareMart)
Zoning: MUC
“Acceptable Site”
6
2656
Olympic Street
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
3950
Kathryn Ave.
Zoning: HI
“Preferred Site”
7
693 36th Street
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
785 42nd Street
(Weyerhaeuser
Water Tower)
Zoning: HI
“Preferred Site”
8
4684
Main Street
Zoning: LMI
“Preferred Site”
333 58th Street
(Thurston High #1)
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
9
333 58th Street
(Thurston High #2)
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
7305
Main Street
(Springfield Gardens
Cemetery)
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
10
36417
Brand S Rd.
(Near Bob Straub
Pkwy. and Jasper
Rd.)
Zoning: SHI
“Preferred Site”
Kelly Butte
Reservoir
Zoning: PLO
“Preferred Site”
1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 10/22/2012
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Len Goodwin, Development and Public Works BRIEFING
Subject: CELL TOWER SITING STANDARDS MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: At the March 26, 2012 work session, Council reviewed the City’s policies concerning cell towers and related equipment. These are referred to as Wireless Telecommunication System facilities
(WTS) in Section 4.3-145 of the Development Code. Council directed staff to prepare amendments to
the Code to address a number of issues related to design and placement standards as well as the review process used to approve WTS facilities. The intent of this memorandum is to summarize the concerns
identified at the work session and to outline the possible amendments to the Code which respond to
those concerns.
COUNCIL GOALS: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
This memorandum reviews the concerns expressed by Council about WTS siting standards at the March
26 work session and presents two options for addressing those concerns. Staff is scheduled to meet with Council in work session on October 22nd to discuss these options in more detail with the goal of
identifying a specific direction for staff to pursue. To expedite the implementation of the selected option,
staff has already prepared draft changes to the Development Code that support each of the options provided. Staff anticipates initiation of the code amendment process in November.
Option 1 includes amendments to the existing Development Code language that surgically address the Council concerns that were expressed about WTS siting and appearance. Option 1 offers four “choices”
for Council that deal with the level of review and approval for new tower facilities (i.e., staff, Planning
Commission, or Council). Option 1 would allow equipment upgrades and collocations on existing towers to continue to be processed with staff review and the appropriate building and electrical permits.
Option 2 is a complete re-write of the WTS section of the Development Code to make it more readable. It addresses the same siting and appearance standards that are of concern to Council. In doing so the
concepts of Preferred, Acceptable and Conditionally Suitable sites are dropped. Option 2 requires Planning Commission review for all most new towers. It requires Council review for WTS towers proposed on sites designated as Residential or Public Lands and Open Space. Equipment upgrades and
collocations on existing towers would continue be processed with staff review and the appropriate building and electrical permits.
I. TERMINOLOGY REVIEW To facilitate an understanding of the issues and potential changes in WTS policies related to Option 1, a
review of terminology currently used in the Development Code is provided below. The Development Code uses zoning districts to define “Preferred,” “Acceptable” and “Conditionally Suitable” sites for
the placement of WTS facilities. In the current code, the applicable design standards and review process
depend on which of the following zoning categories a WTS facility is located.
2
Category Defining Zoning Districts
Review Process/Appeals
“Preferred Sites”
13 towers are located in this
category
Public Land and Open Space, Special
Heavy Industrial, Heavy Industrial,
Light-Medium Industrial, and Quarry Mining Operations
Type I Ministerial
Applications for Building and Electrical Permits are required.
Approval is by staff decision. No
public notice is required.
Type I decisions are the final decision of the city (Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-125).
“Acceptable
Sites”
2 towers are located in this category
Community Commercial, Campus
Industrial, and Booth Kelly Mixed Use
Type II Administrative
Application for Site Plan Review is
required. Approval is by staff decision. Mailed public notice is provided for
both the proposed action and the staff decision.
Decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission (SDC 5.1-130).
“Conditionally
Suitable Sites”
1 tower is located
in this category
Neighborhood Commercial, Major Retail Commercial, General Office,
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential and Medical Service zoning
districts and the Hillside Development, Historic District, Hospital Support, Willamette Greenway, Floodplain, and
Urbanizable Fringe overlay districts.
Type III Discretionary
Applications for Discretionary Use
Permit and Site Plan Review are required. Reviewed by Planning Commission with a public hearing (or
Hearings Official if outside of the City Limits).
Decisions may be appealed to the Council (SDC 5.1-135). Hearings
Official decisions go to LUBA.
Definitions
Stealth Measures: A variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate the visual presence of WTS
support structures, including, but not limited to screening by mature trees (75 percent or more of pole
beneath tree canopy), mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not limited to:
light poles, church steeples and trees), painting antennas to match the color of supporting building walls,
or roof mounting behind parapets.
3
Attached WTS Facilities: An existing pole, tower or other structure capable of accommodating a WTS
facility antenna, whether originally intended for the use or not. The Weyerhaeuser Water Tank and the
Silke Field Stadium Light tower are examples of an Attached WTS Facilities.
II. COUNCIL CONCERNS
Staff understood the principle Council concerns to be those listed below. These concerns fell into two
areas: 1) design and placement standards and 2) the review process for approving WTS facilities. The proposed amendments address the design and placement standards and provide a spectrum of choices regarding how WTS facilities should be reviewed and approved in the future.
The towers at Thurston High School illustrate how
location on PLO sites with limited review has
impacted residential properties.
This tower across from WalMart on Olympic Street
is in an industrial district but its location close to
the street has an undesirable visual impact.
Summary
Current policies allow WTS facilities to be located in “Preferred Sites” with just building permit
and minimal staff review. The Public Lands and Open Space (PLO) zoning district is listed among those zoning districts identified as Preferred Sites. The listing of PLO as a “Preferred
Site” allowed the placement of three towers near single-family residential neighborhoods on
School District property (Thurston High and Silke Field with building permits and minimal planning review.
At the work session, some expressed a desire for Council to review and approve the placement of
all new cell towers regardless of the zoning. As mentioned above, new WTS facilities are generally allowed within “Preferred Site” zoning districts with just a building permit. Staff
4
review is required for tower placement in Acceptable Sites and Planning Commission review is
required for new towers located in Conditionally Suitable Sites.
Existing design standards have allowed towers to be placed in front of buildings, in some cases
just behind the sidewalk adjacent to fronting streets. Two towers are located just behind the sidewalk on Centennial Blvd. and Olympic Streets.
“Stealth” designs are required when towers are located in or near residential zones, but not always
for commercial or industrial districts. Design standards should protect sensitive commercial areas
like Downtown and the Mohawk district where from visual impacts. III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WTS DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL OPTIONS
Staff has proposed changes that address the siting standard and design issues that were of concern to
Council members. The changes would also remove the “Public Land and Open Space” zoning district
from the list of “Preferred Sites” where cell towers could be located with building and electrical permits and a minimum of staff review. The changes are recommended for both Option 1 and Option 2.
Mixed use zoning districts for the city were adopted in 2005. As a housekeeping update, these districts (Mixed Use Commercial, Mixed Use Residential and Mixed Use Employment) shall be added to the
Conditionally Suitable Site category.
1. Design and Location Changes Staff recommends the following changes for the design and placement of WTS facilities:
Towers shall not be located in front of primary buildings or near fronting streets.
Stealth design strategies shall be employed when locating towers within 500 feet of Conditionally
Suitable Sites, even though the towers themselves are located in Acceptable (mostly Commercial)
or Preferred sites (mostly Industrial).
Stealth design shall also be required for Acceptable sites where they are not already required. 2. Remove the PLO Zoning District from the List of Preferred Sites Staff recommends that the PLO zoning district be removed from the list of Preferred Sites and added to the list of Conditionally Acceptable Sites which currently requires Planning Commission or Hearing Official review.
IV. OPTIONS FOR CHANGING THE LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR NEW WTS FACILITIES
Staff has provided Council with options for modifying the level of review required for cell tower placement. These are intended to apply to new tower facilities. Upgrades and collocation of new
equipment on existing towers are currently allowed by building permit where such changes do not significantly change the appearance or footprint of the tower and associated equipment. No change in the
review process is proposed for collocation or equipment replacement on existing towers if such changes
to not significantly change the footprint or visual impact of the tower.
5
Option 1: Amend the Existing Development Code, choose the level of review
Choice 1: Amend the standards, keep the existing review process.
Keep the existing review process that encourages the location of cell towers in industrial areas by minimizing the level of review and associated fees. The Preferred, Acceptable
and Conditionally Suitable site categories would be retained. Tower placement in
Preferred Sites is allowed by building permit with staff review (Type I). Site Plan Review (Type II) is required for tower placement in Acceptable sites. Planning
Commission review (Type III) is required for tower placement in Conditionally Suitable
Sites. The Lane County Hearings Official reviews tower placement requests in place of the Planning Commission where towers are proposed outside of the City Limits but
inside the UGB.
The PLO district shall be moved from the Preferred category to the Conditionally
Suitable category which requires Planning Commission review. All of the proposed
design and location changes mentioned above would apply. Choice 2: Amend the standards, require Site Plan Review by Staff (Type II) or
Planning Commission (Type III) review for all new towers.
Require Site Plan Review (Type II) for new tower facilities proposed for Preferred Sites
as is currently required for Acceptable Sites. Site Plan review requires mailed notice of the proposal and the staff decision. Site Plan decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Conditionally Suitable Sites would continue to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
The PLO district shall be moved to the Conditionally Suitable category which requires
Planning Commission review. All of the proposed design and location changes mentioned above would apply.
Choice 3: Amend the standards, require Planning Commission review (Type III) for all new towers.
The Lane County Hearings Official will continue to review proposed facilities outside of
the City Limits but inside the UGB as per the current intergovernmental agreement.
The Preferred, Acceptable and Conditionally Suitable categories shall be dropped for the
purpose of the level of review. Most design standards that currently apply within theses categories will be retained with the exception of those standards proposed for
amendment.
Choice 4: Amend the standards, require Council review (Type IV) for all new tower
facilities.
The Planning Commission would review the matter and make a recommendation to the
Council. Council would make the final decision on all tower placements. The Lane County Hearings Official will continue to review proposed facilities outside of the city
limits but inside the UGB as per the current intergovernmental agreement.
6
The Preferred, Acceptable and Conditionally Suitable categories shall be dropped for the
purpose of the level of review. Most design standards that currently apply within theses categories will be retained with the exception of those standards proposed for
amendment.
Option 2: Complete re-write of the existing Development Code Section to
provide more readable standards and policies.
Re-write SDC Section 4.3-145 to make it more readable. Incorporate the
siting and design standard changes contained in Option 1. Require Planning
Commission review (Type III) all new towers except those proposed for residential zoning districts. Towers in residential districts would be reviewed by Council (Type IV).
To date, only two towers have been approved for development in a residential district. Only one was constructed. That tower is located next to the SUB Substation on Game
Farm Rd. Staff recommends limiting the number of towers that would be reviewed for
approval by the Council. Appeals of land use decisions by Council go directly to LUBA. Planning Commission decisions are appealed to Council, providing an additional
opportunity for finding a remedy before going to LUBA.
1
Annotated Version of the Proposed Amendments to Section 4.3-145
of the Springfield Development Code
I. BACKGROUND
On October 22, 2012, the City Council asked staff to prepare amendments to the Springfield Development Code
that would remedy certain concerns with the existing policies that guide the location and appearance of cell
towers and related Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facilities. The Council request review the WTS
standards was a reminder that SDC Subsection 4.3-145 G., intended that the current WTS policies be periodically
updated to ensure “contemporaneity with technological changes made in this industry.”
In preparing the amendments to the current policies, it was imperative that proposed changes comply with the
approval criteria for Development Code amendments found in SDC Section 5.6-115. These criteria state that in
“reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings which
demonstrate conformance to the following:
A. The Metro Plan;
B. Applicable State statutes; and
C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
The staff report provides findings that support a conclusion that proposed amendments comply with the
approval criteria. The local and state policies mentioned in the approval criteria have little to say about
how communities regulate the location and appearance of WTS facilities. The Federal
Telecommunication Act of 1996 (TCA) recognizes the right of local governments to regulate the siting of
WTS facilities to minimize the intrusion of the facilities on local neighborhoods. The TCA placed certain
limits on those local siting standards (listed below). Those limitations have shaped the proposed WTS
amendments.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) – The stated purpose of the TCA is to “promote competition
and reduce regulation in order to secure lower process and higher quality services for American
telecommunication consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies.” In carrying out this purpose, the TCA implements three important (but somewhat
competing) principles:
1) The siting of wireless telecommunications facilities must comply with local zoning and land use
regulations; and
2) Local jurisdictions must not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services but may distinguish applications based upon different visual, aesthetic and safety concerns;
and
3) The local regulations must not result in the actual or effective prohibition in the provision of
personal wireless services.
2
During the 16 years that have elapsed since the enactment of the TCA, a multitude of Federal cases have
explained or elaborated the meaning and application of the three principles (not always consistently). As
a result, a great deal of uncertainty exists as to what local jurisdictions can and cannot do, and what cell
tower providers can expect. However, the most recent cases from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
(Includes Oregon) give much clearer guidelines for reviewing tower applications.
MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3rd 715 (2005) – The court said that denial of
an individual application may constitute an ‘effective denial’ of wireless services if:
a) The provider establishes a significant gap in service by showing that it is prevented from filling a
significant gap in its own coverage; and
b) The manner in which the carrier proposes to fill the gap is the least intrusive choice.
The court said the gap in service must be truly ‘significant’ and not merely ‘dead spots’ within a greater
service area. Aside from this comment, the opinion does not provide a clear test for when a gap is
considered significant. Instead the court noted such determinations are “extremely fact-specific
inquiries that defy any bright-line legal rule.
The second element of the ‘effective prohibition’ rule requires the provider to show a particular site is
least intrusive based upon different visual, aesthetic and safety concerns implemented through local
review standards and criteria.
In choosing the term ‘least intrusive’ the court rejected the rule that would require showing the site is
the only ‘viable option’ to close the service gap. Instead, the provider must show a good faith effort has
been made to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives (e.g., less sensitive sites, alternative
system designs, alternative tower designs, co-location of antennas, etc.). In reviewing local decisions
under the MetroPCS test, the court said decisions may not be overturned when supported by a
reasonable amount of evidence (that is, substantial evidence) that appropriately addresses local
regulations.
Finally, the MetroPCS court said local governments shall not regulate placement, construction or
modification of WTFs on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions once facilities
comply with Federal rules concerning such emissions.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3rd 987 (2009) – The court clarified and extended the
MetroPCS holding as it relates to how a provider satisfies the burden of showing a particular site meets
the least intrusive test. Even when a local jurisdiction’s record contains substantial evidence supporting
denial under local approval criteria, the denial may nevertheless violate the TCA as an ‘effective
prohibition of service’ when the carrier makes out a prima facie case the proposed site is least intrusive
after comparing the site against other potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives for
closing the significant gap. When this happens, the burden shifts to the local jurisdiction to show the
existence of some other potentially available and technologically feasible alternatives to the proposed
location. In short, once a provider establishes a prima facie case, the City cannot deny the tower
application unless it shows there are other viable sites available to the provider. By doing so, the City
avoids an effective prohibition under the TCA.
3
Amendments to the TCA – Two subsequent amendments to the TCA need to be mentioned in
conjunction with the proposed amendments. 1) The new law now requires all new towers to have back
up power supplies as a matter of homeland security planning. 2) Local jurisdictions must complete new
tower applications within 150 days. Co-location applications must be approved within 90 days. Failure to
meet these deadlines gives the tower applicants the right to transfer application review to Federal
District Court.
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SDC SECTION 4.3-145
The following proposed amendments to SDC Section 4.3-145 are adapted from recently adopted policies
that were prepared by the City of Bend and by Josephine County. Both of these jurisdictions have
updated their regulations to be consistent with current case law and the most recent Federal wireless
telecommunications facilities regulations. Commentary explaining the new regulations is shown in
italicized font.
Section 4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facilities
Commentary. The current wireless telecommunications facilities regulations do not have a “Purpose”
Section. This Subsection provides the rationale for wireless telecommunications facilities regulations in
Springfield and specifically supports limiting the siting of new facilities by using co-location or other
means.
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 new 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.
Commentary. This Subsection is new and is consistent with other SDC Sections that discuss
Applicability.
B. Applicability/Conflicts.
4
1. Applicability. This Section applies within Springfield’s city limits and its Urban Services
Area. No WTS facility may be constructed, altered (to include co-locations) or replaced,
unless exempt, without complying with the requirements of this Section.
2. Conflicts. In cases where:
a. The development standards of this Section conflict with other Sections of this
Code, these standards will prevail.
EXCEPTION: In the Glenwood Riverfront, the WTS standards regarding type and
height of the antenna will apply. All other aspects of the application submittal
and review process specified in this Section will apply.
b. These development standards conflict with Federal and/or State regulations, the
Federal and/or State regulations will prevail.
Commentary. This Subsection is new. Currently there are no regulations for pre-existing WTS towers
other than they should be capable of co-location.
C. Pre-existing WTS Facilities.
1. WTS facilities that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be
allowed to continue their use as they presently exist.
2. Routine maintenance will be permitted on lawful pre-existing WTS facilities as specified
in Subsection 4.3-145D.1.
3. Lawfully existing WTS facilities may be replaced as specified in Subsection 4.3-145D.2.
Commentary. This Subsection is an expansion of current regulations that exempt only ham radios and
satellite dishes. Note: Criteria is proposed for the replacement of an existing WTS facility with only a
building permit as specified in proposed Subsection D.2. If all of these criteria cannot be met, the
replacement will be considered as new construction and require Planning Commission (Type III) review
as specified in Subsection H.3.
D. Exemptions. The following shall be considered exempt structures or activities under, however,
all other applicable Federal, State and City permits will be required:
1. Emergency or routine repairs or routine maintenance of previously approved WTS
facilities.
2. Replacement of existing previously approved WTS facilities.
a. A WTS facility may be replaced if it:
i. Is in the exact location of the facility being replaced;
ii. Is of a construction type identical in height, size, lighting and painting;
5
iii. Can accommodate the co-location of additional antennas or arrays;
iv. Does not increase radio frequency emissions from any source; and
v. Does not intrude or cause further intrusion into a setback area.
b. Those WTS facilities that cannot meet the replacement standard in Subsection
4.3-145D.2.a. will be treated as new construction, requiring Type I or III review as
specified in Subsection 4.3-145H.
3. Industrial, scientific and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that
purpose by the Federal Communications Commission.
4. Essential public telecommunications services - military, Federal, State, and local
government telecommunications facilities.
5. Amateur and citizen band radio transmitters and antennas.
6. Military or civilian radar operating within the regulated frequency ranges for the
purpose of defense or aircraft safety.
7. Antennas (including, but not limited to: direct-to-home satellite dishes;, TV antennas;
and wireless cable antennas) used by viewers to receive video programming signals
from direct broadcast facilities, broadband radio service providers, and TV broadcast
stations.
8. Low-powered networked telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to
microcell radio transceivers located on existing utility poles and light standards within
public right-of-way.
9. Cell on Wheels (COW), which are permitted as temporary uses in nonresidential Metro
Plan or 2030 Springfield Refinement Plan designations for a period not to exceed 14
days, or during a period of emergency as declared by the City, County, or State.
Commentary. These WTS definitions are primarily from Bend’s Ordinance and are more up-to-date
and precise than Springfield’s definitions. These definitions are proposed to be placed in this Section,
rather than in Chapter 6—Definitions and because they are specific to wireless telecommunications
facilities and for customer convenience. The current WTS definitions in Chapter 6 are proposed to be
deleted.
E. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Section shall have the following meanings:
Approval Authority.
1. Type I Review. Staff has the authority to approve new co-locations, equipment replacement,
and applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities.
6
2. Type III Review. The Planning Commission and the City Council are the Approval Authority for
applications to construct high and medium visibility WTS facilities within the city limits.
3. Type III Review. The Hearings Official, by agreement with Lane County, is the Approval
Authority for high and medium visibility WTS facilities located outside the city limits but
within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary.
Antenna. Any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs or similar devices designed for
telephonic, radio, facsimile, data, or television telecommunications through sending and/or
receiving of electromagnetic waves when the system is either external to or attached to the
exterior of a structure. Antennas include, but are not limited to:, devices having active elements
extending in any direction;, and directional beam-type arrays having elements carried by and
disposed from a generally horizontal boom that may be mounted up and rotated through a
vertical mast or tower interconnecting the boom and antenna support. All of the latter elements
are part of the antenna.
Antenna height. The vertical distance measured from the ground surface at grade to the tip of
the highest point of the antenna on the proposed structure.
Antenna support. Any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod or any other structure that supports
a device used in the transmitting and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves.
Camouflaged. Any WTS facility that is designed to blend into the surrounding environment.
Examples of camouflaged facilities include, but are not limited to: architecturally screened roof-
mounted antennas; building-mounted antennas painted to match the existing structure;
antennas integrated into architectural elements; towers made to look like trees; and antenna
support structures designed to look like flag poles or light poles.
Carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to build and/or operate a WTS facility.
Co-location. The use of a single WTS tower for the placement of multiple antennas or related
telecommunications equipment often involving different carriers.
Equipment building, shelter or cabinet. A cabinet or building used to house associated
equipment used by providers at a WTS facility. Associated equipment includes, but is not limited
to: air conditioning; and emergency generators.
Façade mounted antenna. An antenna architecturally integrated into the façade of a building or
structure.
Facility. A WTS facility.
Faux tree. A WTS tower camouflaged to resemble a tree.
Guyed tower. A WTS tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground
anchors.
High visibility. The following WTS facilities are examples of high visibility facilities:
7
1. Monopoles, lattice towers and guyed towers.
2. Any WTS facilities that do not meet the definition of stealth, low visibility, or moderate
visibility.
Lattice tower. A guyed or self-supporting three or four sided, open, steel frame support
structure used to support WTS equipment.
Low visibility. The following are examples of low visibility WTS facilities that shall not exceed the
height limit of the base zone and shall not increase the height of an existing WTS facility:
1. Whip antennas not exceeding 6 feet in length or height, including mounting, and measuring
no more than 3 inches in diameter, located on existing structures including, but not limited
to, water storage tanks, high-voltage transmission towers, utility towers and poles, sign
standards, and roadway overpasses, with equipment cabinets that are screened from view.
2. Facilities, including equipment cabinets that are screened from view through the use of
architectural treatments, including, but not limited to: cupolas; steeples; and parapets; and
are consistent with existing development on adjacent properties.
3. Additions to existing permitted low-visibility facilities, if the additions themselves meet the
definition of low visibility and are designed to minimize visibility the WTS facility.
4. Changes to an existing building that are consistent with the building’s architectural style and
the equipment cabinets are not visible.
Maintenance. Emergency or routine repairs or replacement of transmitters, antennas, or other
components of previously approved WTS facilities that do not create a significant change in
visual appearance or visual impact.
Microcells. These devices provide additional coverage and capacity where there are high
numbers of users within urban and suburban macrocells. The antennas for microcells are
mounted at street level, typically on the external walls of existing structures, lamp-posts, and
other street furniture. Microcell antennas are usually smaller than macrocell antennas, and
when mounted on existing structures, can often blend into building features. Microcells provide
radio coverage over distances, typically between 100 meters and 1,000 meters, and operate at
power levels substantially below those of macrocells.
Moderate visibility. The following WTS facilities are examples of moderate visibility facilities:
1. Panel-shaped antennas not exceeding 8 feet in length or height that are flush-mounted to an
existing building façade or other existing structure on at least one edge, or extend a
maximum of 24 inches from the building façade or other structure at any edge, do not
exceed the height of the building or other structure, and are designed to blend with the
color, texture, and design of the existing building or structure, with equipment cabinets that
are screened from view.
8
2. WTS facilities that are camouflaged, including, but not limited to: faux trees; flag poles; and
light poles, provided that the equipment building, shelter, or cabinet for the facility is
screened or camouflaged.
Monopole. A WTS facility consisting of a single pole constructed for purposes of supporting one
or more antennas without guy wires or ground anchors.
Panel or directional antenna. An antenna or array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio
signal in a particular area.
Residential Zoning District. Any Springfield zoning district where single-family and or multi-
family dwelling units are intended to be the dominate land use.
RF. Radio Frequency.
Roof mounted antenna. Any antenna with its support structure placed directly on the roof of
any building or structure.
Screened. Concealed from view with a sight obscuring fence, wall or vegetation.
Service area. The area served by a single WTS facility.
Side-mounted antennas. Those antennas that are mounted on the side of a tower structure at
any height, and including both the antennas and equipment with protective radome coatings.
This term also includes microwave dish antennas, solid or not, located at 150 feet or lower on a
tower structure, regardless of the dish diameter. The term does not include solid microwave
dish antennas exceeding 6 feet in diameter that are located above 150 feet on a tower
structure.
Small top-mounted antennas. Any antenna mounted on the top of a tower structure where the
antenna is 20 feet or less in height and 6 inches or less in outside diameter.
Speculation tower. An antenna support structure designed for the purpose of providing location
mounts for WTS facilities, without a binding written commitment or executed lease from a
service provider to utilize or lease space on the tower at the time the application is submitted.
Stealth. WTS facilities including, but not limited to: microcells; antennas; equipment cabinets;
and any other ancillary equipment that cannot be seen from any street or any adjacent
property, improved or unimproved, and that do not result in any apparent architectural changes
or additions to existing buildings. The addition of landscaping, walls, fences, or grading as
screening techniques does not make an otherwise visible WTS facility a stealth facility.
Telecommunications. The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as
sent and received.
Tower or WTS tower. Any mast, pole, monopole, guyed tower, lattice tower, free standing
tower, or other structure designed and primarily used to support antennas.
9
Whip antenna means an antenna that transmits or receives signals in 360 degrees. Whip
antennas are typically cylindrical in shape, less than 3 inches in diameter and no more than 6
feet long, including the mounting.
Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facility. Any facility that transmits and/or receives
electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, antennas, dish antennas, microwave
antennas, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of these signals,
including, but not limited to: telecommunications towers and similar supporting structures;
equipment cabinets or buildings; parking areas; and other accessory development. This
definition also includes any facility that transmits radio or television signals. This definition does
not apply to Amateur Radio Stations as defined by the Federal Communications Commission,
Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules.
F. General Standards. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes limitations on the
siting standards that local government can place on WTS facilities. Section 704 of the Act states
that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in this section to the extent that
they do not violate federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the
standards found in this section constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for
providing coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
Commentary. Subsections 1-3 limit the siting of new WTS towers by requiring collocation
where possible and by requiring the carrier to demonstrate need for a new one. Subsection 4
requires the carrier to identify the least intrusive alternative for providing coverage. Newer
technology can be used to serve gaps in coverage without new towers. Some of these
alternatives include small whip antennas that can be mounted to existing utility poles.
1. Design for Co-location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate
the maximum number of additional users technically practicable.
2. Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Applications shall demonstrate that the
proposed WTS facility is necessary to close a significant gap in service coverage or
capacity for the carrier and is the least intrusive means to close the significant gap.
3. Lack of Coverage and Lack of Capacity. The application shall demonstrate that the gap in
service cannot be closed by upgrading other existing facilities. In doing so, evidence
shall clearly support a conclusion that the gap results from a lack of coverage and not a
lack of capacity to achieve adequate service. If the proposed WTS facility is to improve
capacity, evidence shall further justify why other methods for improving service capacity
are not reasonable, available or effective.
4. Identify the Least Intrusive Alternative for Providing Coverage. The application shall
demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and evaluate less intrusive alternatives,
10
including, but not limited to: less sensitive sites; alternative design systems; alternative
tower designs; the use of repeaters; or multiple facilities.
Subsection 5 defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each zoning district.
5. Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection 4.3-145 E. defines various types of WTS
facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low
visibility and stealth facilities. Table 4.3-1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each
of Springfield’s zoning districts.
Table 4.3-1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Light-Medium Industrial
Quarry Mining Operations
High visibility
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Community Commercial
Campus Industrial
Booth Kelly Mixed Use
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Low visibility
Moderate visibility
Stealth
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Neighborhood Commercial
General Office
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
Public Land and Open Space
Low visibility
Stealth
6. Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than one high visibility
facility is allowed on any one lot/parcel.
EXCEPTION: The Approval Authority may approve exceeding the maximum number of
high visibility facilities per lot/parcel if one of the following findings is made:
a. Co-location of additional high visibility facilities is consistent with neighborhood
character,
b. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high visibility
WTS facilities would have the effect of prohibiting service because the proposed
11
facility would fill a significant gap in coverage and no alternative locations are
available and technologically feasible, or
c. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high visibility
WTS facilities would unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services.
7. Separation between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than 2,000 feet
from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made under
Subsections 4.3-145F.2., 3. and 4 by the Approval Authority.
Commentary. Subsection 8 provides more specific regulation for the location of new wireless
telecommunications towers that abut residentially zoned properties. This Subsection
addresses the City Council’s concerns regarding the placement of WTS towers.
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.
Commentary. Subsection 9 provides more protection for historic buildings than the current
regulations.
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.
Commentary. Subsection 10 provides specific setback standards for equipment location. This
addresses the problem that resulted in the placement of towers just behind the sidewalks on
Olympic Street across from WalMart and on Centennial just east of Mohawk Blvd.
10. Equipment Location. The following location standards shall apply to WTS facilities:
a. No WTS facility shall be located in a front, rear, or side yard building setback in
any base zone and no portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the
property lines.
b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30 feet from
a property line abutting a street.
c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet from all
property lines.
12
Commentary. Subsection 11 is similar to current tower height standards.
11. Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in this Code.
However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall require
Discretionary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the approval
criteria specified in Subsection 4.3-145I.
Commentary. Subsection 12 is new and provides specific standards for accessory structures,
especially those in residential and public land designations.
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.
Commentary. Subsections 13-17 provide specific and easily understood standards for these
topics.
13. Visual Impact. All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the
greatest extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and
camouflage. All facilities shall also be designed to be compatible with existing
architectural elements, building materials, and other site characteristics. The applicant
shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to accomplish the coverage
objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be sited in a manner to
cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring
properties, and distant properties.
14. Minimize Visibility. Colors and materials for WTS facilities shall be non-reflective and
chosen to minimize visibility. Facilities, including support equipment and buildings, shall
be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background,
unless required by any other applicable law.
15. Camouflaged Facilities. All camouflaged WTS facilities shall be designed to visually and
operationally blend into the surrounding area in a manner consistent with existing
development on adjacent properties. The facility shall also be appropriate for the
specific site. In other words, it shall not "stand out" from its surrounding environment.
16. Façade-Mounted Antenna. Facade-mounted antennas shall be architecturally integrated
into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If possible,
antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created architectural
feature so as to be completely screened from view. Facade-mounted antennas shall not
extend more than 2 feet out from the building face.
17. Roof Mounted Antenna. Roof mounted antennas shall be constructed at the minimum
height possible to serve the operator's service area and shall be set back as far from the
13
building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from the public
right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Commentary. Subsection 18 is new and requires compliance with photo simulations. This is
not an additional step. Planning staff performs a site visit prior to occupancy for all Site Plan
applications. The current regulations only require a photo simulation as a submittal
requirement.
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.
Commentary. Subsection 19 is new. The current regulations do not contain noise standards.
19. Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with the
regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035.
Commentary. Subsections 20-23 are new. The current regulations do not address these topics.
20. Signage. No signs, striping, graphics, or other attention-getting devices are permitted
on any WTS facility except for warning and safety signage that shall:
a. Have a surface area of no more than 3 square feet;
b. Be affixed to a fence or equipment cabinet; and
c. Be limited to no more than two signs, unless more are required by any other
applicable law.
21. Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the public or
private right-of-way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that obstructs
traffic.
22. Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of the
installation of any WTS facility.
23. Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair pedestrian use
of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private land.
Commentary. Subsection 24 is more specific than the current regulations concerning lighting.
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
14
downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5-100,
unless required by any other applicable law.
25. Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of the
base zone, at least one row of evergreen trees or shrubs, not less than 4 feet high at the
time of planting, and spaced out not more than 15 feet apart, shall be provided in the
landscape setback. Shrubs shall be of a variety that can be expected to grow to form a
continuous hedge at least 5 feet in height within 2 years of planting. Trees and shrubs in
the vicinity of guy wires shall be of a kind that would not exceed 20 feet in height or
would not affect the stability of the guys. In all other cases, the landscaping, screening
and fence standards specified in Section 4.4-100 shall apply.
26. Prohibited WTS Facilities.
a. Any high or moderate visibility WTS facility in the Historic Overlay District.
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.
Commentary. Subsection 27 is new and is intended to prevent the construction of WTS towers
purely for speculation.
27. Speculation. No application shall be accepted or approved for a speculation WTS tower,
i.e., from an applicant that simply constructs towers and leases tower space to service
carriers, but is not a service carrier, unless the applicant submits a binding written
commitment or executed lease from a service carrier to utilize or lease space on the
tower.
G. Application Submittal Requirements. All applications for a WTS facility shall provide the
following reports, documents or documentation:
Commentary. Subsection 1 lists the submittal requirements for Low Visibility and Stealth WTS
facilities. By definition, these facilities have a very small visual impact on surrounding
properties and are generally attached to existing facilities. Consequently fewer submittal
elements are required.
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:
Commentary. Subsection a. requires a more detailed narrative than current
regulations and places the burden on the applicant to explain the potential impacts of
15
the proposed facility. Some of the required information is more detailed than current
regulations.
a. Narrative. The application shall include a written narrative that describes in
detail all of the equipment and components proposed to be part of the WTS
facility, including, but not limited to: towers; antennas and arrays; equipment
cabinets; back-up generators; air conditioning units; lighting; landscaping, and
fencing.
b. Geographic Service Area. The applicant shall identify the geographic service area
for the proposed WTS facility, including a map showing all the applicant’s and
any other existing sites in the local service network associated with the gap the
facility is meant to close. The applicant shall describe how this service area fits
into and is necessary for the service provider’s service network.
The service area map for the proposed WTS facility shall include the following:
i. The area of significant gap in the existing coverage area;
ii. The service area to be effected by the proposed WTS facility;
iii. The locations of existing WTS tower facilities where co-location is
possible within a 5 mile radius of the proposed WTS facility.
e. Co-location. An engineer’s analysis/report of the recommended site location
area is required for the proposed WTS facility. If an existing structure approved
for co-location is within the area recommended by the engineer’s report,
reasons for not collocating shall be provided demonstrating at least one of the
following deficiencies:
i. The structure is not of sufficient height to meet engineering
requirements;
ii. The structure is not of sufficient structural strength to
accommodate the WTS facility, or there is a lack of space on all
suitable existing towers to locate proposed antennas.
iii. Electromagnetic interference for one or both WTS facilities will
result from co-location; or
iv. The radio frequency coverage objective cannot be adequately
met.
f. Plot Plan. A plot plan showing: the lease area; antenna structure; height above
grade and setback from property lines; equipment shelters and setback from
property lines; access; the connection point with the land line system; and all
landscape areas intended to screen the WTS facility.
16
h. RF Emissions. An engineer’s statement that the RF emissions at grade, or at
nearest habitable space when attached to an existing structure, complies with
FCC rules for these emissions; the cumulative RF emissions if co-located. Provide
the RF range in megahertz and the wattage output of the equipment
i. Description of Service. A description of the type of service offered including, but
not limited to: voice; data; and video, and the consumer receiving equipment.
j. Provider Information. Identification of the provider and backhaul provider, if
different.
m. Zoning and Metro Plan Designation. Provide the zoning and Metro Plan
designation of the proposed site and the surrounding properties within 500
feet.
n. FCC, FAA or Other Required Licenses and Determinations. Provide a copy of all
pertinent submittals to the FCC, FAA or other State or Federal agencies including
environmental assessments and impact statements, and data, assumptions,
calculations, and measurements relating to RF emissions safety standards.
Commentary. Subsection 2 lists the submittal requirements for Moderate and High Visibility
WTS facilities. These are facilities include the common monopole towers as well as WTS
facilities disguised as faux trees, flag poles and other designs that have a significant visual
impact on neighboring properties. Submittal requirements for Moderate and High Visibility
facilities are processed as a Type III Discretionary Use application which also requires Site Plan
Review. Applications for Moderate and High Visibility facilities will be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Submittal Requirements for Moderate and High Visibility Facilities (Type III review).
Applications for moderate and high visibility WTS facilities shall require all of the
required materials for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities specified in Subsection 4.3-
145G.1. In addition to the applicable Site Plan and Discretionary Use application
requirements, WTS applications shall require the applicant to address the following:
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 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.
17
b. Construction. Describe the anticipated construction techniques and timeframe
for construction or installation of the WTS facility to include all temporary
staging and the type of vehicles and equipment to be used.
c. Maintenance. Describe the anticipated maintenance and monitoring program
for the antennas, back-up equipment, and landscaping.
d. Noise/Acoustical Information. Provide the manufacturer’s specifications for all
noise-generating equipment including, but not limited to: air conditioning units;
and back-up generators, and a depiction of the equipment location in relation to
abutting properties.
e. Landscaping and Screening. Discuss how the proposed landscaping and
screening materials will screen the site at maturity.
Commentary. Subsection f. expands on current regulations and places the burden on
the applicant to co-locate where possible.
f. Co-location. In addition to the co-location requirements specified in Subsection
4.3-145G.1.e., the applicant shall submit a statement from an Oregon registered
engineer certifying that the proposed WTS facility and tower, as designed and
built, will accommodate co-locations, and that the facility complies with the
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emission standards as specified by the
FCC. The applicant shall also submit:
i. A letter stating the applicant’s willingness to allow other carriers to co-
locate on the proposed facilities wherever technically and economically
feasible and aesthetically desirable;
ii. A copy of the original Site Plan for the approved existing WTS facility
updated to reflect current and proposed conditions on the site; and
iii. A depiction of the existing WTS facility showing the proposed placement
of the co-located antenna and associated equipment. The depiction
shall note the height, color and physical arrangement of the antenna
and equipment.
g. Lease. If the site is to be leased, a copy of the proposed or existing lease
agreement authorizing development and operation of the proposed WTS
facility.
h. Legal Access. The applicant shall provide copies of existing or proposed
easements, access permits and/or grants of right-of-way necessary to provide
lawful access to and from the site to a City street or a State highway.
i. Lighting and Marking. Any proposed lighting and marking of the WTS facility,
including any required by the FAA.
18
j. Utilities. Utility and service lines for proposed WTS facilities shall be placed
under ground.
k. Alternative Site Analysis. The applicant shall include an analysis of alternative
sites and technological design options for the WTS facility within and outside of
the City that are capable of meeting the same service objectives as the
proposed site with an equivalent or lesser visual or aesthetic impact. If a new
tower is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate the need for a new tower,
and why alternative locations and design alternatives, or alternative
technologies including, but not limited to microcells and signal repeaters,
cannot be used to meet the identified service objectives.
Commentary. This Subsection expands on current regulations requiring visual impact
analysis.
l. Visual Impact Study and Photo Simulations. The applicant shall provide a visual
impact analysis showing the maximum silhouette, viewshed analysis, color and
finish palette, and screening for all components of the proposed WTS facility.
The analysis shall include photo simulations and other information necessary to
determine visual impact of the facility as seen from multiple directions. The
applicant shall include a map showing where the photos were taken.
Commentary. Subsection 6 is new. It allows the Director to require the applicant to fund a
peer review of certain technical analysis that is beyond the expertise of city staff to evaluate.
This requirement will not apply to all new facilities, only those Moderate and High Visibility
facilities. The Director will have discretion in requiring peer review, and will be exercised
primarily to confirm that the applicant has adequately considered less impactful alternatives
to erecting new tower facilities in the vicinity of residential or sensitive commercial areas.
3. Independent Consultation Report.
a. Review and approval of WTS facilities depends on highly specialized scientific
and engineering expertise not ordinarily available to Springfield staff or to
residents who may be adversely impacted by the proposed development of
these facilities. Therefore, in order to allow the Approval Authority to make an
informed decision on a proposed WTS facility, the Director may require the
applicant to fund an independent consultation report for all new Moderate and
High visibility facilities. The consultation shall be performed by a qualified
professional with expertise pertinent to the scope of the service requested.
b. The scope of the independent consultation shall focus on the applicant’s
alternatives analysis. The consultant will evaluate conclusions of applicant’s
analysis to determine if there are alternative locations or technologies that were
not considered or which could be employed to reduce close the service gap but
with less visual or aesthetic impact. There may be circumstances where this
scope may vary but the overall objective shall be to verify that the applicant’s
proposal is safe and is the least impactful alternative for closing the service gap.
19
c. The applicant shall be informed of the Director’s decision about the need for an
independent consultation at the time of the Pre-Submittal Meeting that is
required under Section 5.1-120 (C). It is anticipated that the independent
consultation will be required when the applicant proposes to locate a Moderate
or High visibility WTS facility in a residential zoning district or within 500 feet of
a residential zoning district. Other instances where a proposed WTS facility may
have a visual or aesthetic impact on sensitive neighborhoods could also prompt
the Director to require an independent consultation.
Commentary. The review process described in Subsection H for WTS facilities is determined by the
visibility of the facility. Stealth and Low Visibility facilities will be reviewed under a Type I staff review.
A Type III review process is required for Moderate and High Visibility facilities. Type III review comes
before the Planning Commission as a Discretionary Use application. Current policy ties the review
type to the zoning district where towers are to be installed. The proposed policy ties the review to the
relative visibility of the proposed structure.
H. Review Process. The review process is determined by the type of WTS facility or activity that is
proposed. High or moderate visibility WTS facilities, defined in Subsection 4.3-145E., require
Type III Planning Commission or Hearings Official review. Low visibility or stealth facilities, and
the co-location of new equipment of existing facilities are allowed under a Type I staff review
with applicable building or electrical permits. Routine equipment repair and maintenance do
not require planning review; however, applicable building and electrical permits are required.
1. Development Issues Meeting. A Development Issues Meeting (DIM) as specified in
Subsection 5.1-120(A.) is required only for high and moderate visibility WTS facility
applications. Applicable development standards as specified in Subsection 4.3-145F.
and submittal requirements as specified in Subsection 4.3-145G. will be discussed at the
DIM.
Commentary. The Type I process is a decision of the Director, without public notice. This type
of review will apply to Stealth and Low Visibility facilities (see Subsection 4.3-145E for a
definition of these facilities) and to applications for replacement or repair of equipment on
existing towers.
2. Type I Review Process. The following WTS facilities are allowed with the approval of the
Director with applicable building and electrical permits:
a. Stealth and low visibility WTS facilities, as defined in Subsection 4.3-145E., in
any zoning district.
b. Façade mounted antennas or low powered networked telecommunications
facilities, e.g., as those employing microcell antennas integrated into the
architecture of an existing building in a manner that no change to the
architecture is apparent and no part of the WTS facility is visible to public view.
c. Antennas or arrays that are hidden from public view through the use of
architectural treatments, e.g., within a cupola, steeple, or parapet which is
consistent with the applicable building height limitation.
20
d. New antennas or arrays including side-mounted antennas and small top-
mounted antenna that are attached to an existing broadcast communication
facility located in any zone. No more than three small top-mounted antennas
shall be placed on the top of any one facility without a Type III review.
e. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation and
clustering of towers, co-location of antennas or arrays on existing towers shall
take precedence over the construction of new towers, provided the co-location
is accomplished in a manner consistent with the following:
i. An existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height to
accommodate the co-location of additional antennas or arrays, as long
as the modified or rebuilt tower will not exceed the height limit of the
applicable zoning district. Proposals to increase the height of a tower in
a residential zoning district, or within 500 feet of a residential zoning
district shall be reviewed under a Type III process. The height change
may only occur one time per tower.
ii. An existing tower that is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the
co- location of additional antennas or arrays shall be of the same tower
type and reconstructed in the exact same location as the existing tower.
f. WTS facilities proposed within the public right-of-way on an existing utility or
light pole in any zoning district, so long as they meet all of the following:
i. The antennas do not project more than 24 inches above the existing
utility pole support structure;
ii. No more than a total of 2 antennas or antenna arrays are located on a
single pole; and
iii. The equipment cabinet is no larger than 6 cubic feet and is concealed
from public view by burying or screening by means other than walls or
fences.
g. Co-location of antennas or arrays on existing WTS facilities.
h. The Director will use the applicable criteria specified in Subsection 4.3-145I. to
evaluate the proposal.
Commentary. The Type III process is requires public notice and a hearing before the Planning
Commission as a Discretionary Use review. This type of review will apply to Moderate and
High Visibility facilities (see Subsection 4.3-145E for a definition of these facilities). In essence
each new tower facility, even faux trees and other facilities that are intended to be less visible,
shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The exception is when a tower is proposed for
a site outside of the city limits but inside the UGB. Such applications are reviewed by the Lane
County Hearings Official.
21
3. Type III Review Process. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official review and
approve a Discretionary Use application and a concurrently processed Site Plan Review
application for the following WTS facilities:
a. High visibility and moderate visibility WTS facilities.
b. All other locations and situations not specified in Subsections 4.3-145H. 2. and
3.
c. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official will use the applicable criteria
specified in Subsection 4.3-145I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
Commentary. The Council asked for notification of tower applications. In rare instances the
Council may choose to elevate an application to direct Council review. This is likely to be very
rare since a land use appeal of a Council decision goes direct to the Oregon land Use Board of
Appeals. Allowing the Planning Commission to fulfill its role in reviewing Discretionary
applications allows for appeals to go to the Council, maintaining more local influence over
land use decisions.
4. Council Notification and Possible Review.
a. A briefing memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to the City Council
upon receipt of an application for a High or Moderate visibility or any other WTS
facility subject to review by the Planning Commission. By action of the City
Council, an application for a facility proposed within the city limits may be
elevated for direct City Council review. In those instances where an application
is elevated for direct review, the City Council shall be the Approval Authority
and will use the applicable criteria specified in Subsection 4.3-145I. in place of
the Discretionary Use criteria in Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
b. By agreement with Lane County, the Hearings Official shall be the Approval
Authority for applications outside of the city limits but inside of the Springfield
Urban Growth Boundary. The Hearings Official will use the applicable criteria
specified in Subsection 4.3-145I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
I. Approval Criteria.
1. Low Visibility and Stealth WTS Facility Applications. The Director shall approve the low
visibility and stealth WTS facility applications upon a determination that the applicable
standards specified in Subsection 4.3-145F. and the submittal requirements specified in
Subsection 4.3-145G. are met.
2. Moderate and High Visibility WTS Facility Applications. The Approval Authority shall
apply the standards specified in Subsection 4.3-145F. and the submittal requirements
specified in Subsection 4.3-145G. are met. Through the Discretionary Use review, the
22
Approval Authority shall also determine if there are any impacts of the proposed WTS
facility on adjacent properties and on the public that can be mitigated through
application of other Springfield Development Code standards or conditions of approval
as specified in Subsection 4.3-145J.
J. Conditions of Approval. For Type III applications, the Approval Authority may impose any
reasonable conditions deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the approval criteria as
allowed by SDC Section 5.9-125.
Commentary. Subsection K expands upon the current regulation requiring the submittal of a facilities
maintenance schedule.
K. Maintenance. The property owner and the carrier in charge of the WTS facility and tower shall
maintain all equipment and structures, landscaping, driveways and mitigating measures as
approved. Additionally:
1. All WTS facilities shall maintain compliance with current RF emission standards of the
FCC, the National Electric Safety Code, and all State and local regulations.
2. All equipment cabinets shall display a legible operator’s contact number for reporting
maintenance problems.
Commentary. Subsection L is new. The proposed text is similar to other City inspection needs
elsewhere in the SDC.
L. Inspections.
1. The City shall have the authority to enter onto the property upon which a WTS facility is
located to inspect the facility for the purpose of determining whether it complies with
the Building Code and all other construction standards provided by the City and Federal
and State law.
2. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice
to the WTS facility owner. In the event the inspection results in a determination that
violation of applicable construction and maintenance standards established by the City
has occurred, remedy of the violation may include cost recovery for all City costs
incurred in confirming and processing the violation.
Commentary. Subsection M expands upon the current regulation stating that an abandoned facility
must be removed within 90 days.
M. Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. The following requirements apply to the abandonment
and/or discontinuation of use for all WTS facilities:
1. All WTS facilities located on a utility pole shall be promptly removed at the operator’s
expense at any time a utility is scheduled to be placed underground or otherwise
moved.
23
2. All operators who intend to abandon or discontinue the use of any WTS facility shall
notify the City of their intentions no less than 60 days prior to the final day of use.
3. WTS facilities shall be considered abandoned 90 days following the final day of use or
operation.
4. All abandoned WTS facilities shall be physically removed by the service provider and/or
property owner no more than 90 days following the final day of use or of determination
that the facility has been abandoned, whichever occurs first.
5. The City reserves the right to remove any WTS facilities that are abandoned for more
than 90 days at the expense of the facility owner.
6. Any abandoned site shall be restored to its natural or former condition. Grading and
landscaping in good condition may remain.
Commentary. Subsection N replaces current Subsection 4.135G. that states: “The provisions of this
Section shall be reviewed no sooner than 3 years nor later than 5 years from their date of adoption.
This review ensures contemporaneity with technological changes made in this industry.”
N. Review of WTS Facilities Standards. In the event that the Federal or State government adopts
mandatory or advisory standards more stringent than those described in this Section, staff will
prepare a report and recommendation for the City Council with recommendations on any
necessary amendments to the City’s adopted standards.
III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SDC SECTION 6.1-115—DEFINITIONS
Commentary. Chapter 6 (specifically Section 6.1-115) contains the definitions of many planning terms
used in the Development Code. Certain terms in Chapter 6 are used exclusively for the WTS policies
found in Section 4.3-145. For the convenience of the reader, these WTS-specific definitions are being
moved from Chapter 6 to the new Section 4.3-145 E. The terms shown below are proposed for
removal from Chapter 6.
Section 2. SDC Section 6.1-115 is amended to remove the following terms:
Acceptable Site. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, any land planned
and zoned Community Commercial, Booth-Kelly Mixed Use or Campus Industrial.
Antenna. The specific device used to capture an incoming and/or transmit an outgoing radio-frequency
signal. This definition includes omni-directional (whip) antennas; directional (panel) antennas; parabolic
(microwave dish) antennas; and ancillary antennas (i.e., GPS). All other transmitting or receiving
equipment not specifically described in this definition are regulated in conformity with the type of
antenna which most closely resembles the equipment.
Attached WTS Facility. An existing pole, tower or other structure capable of accommodating a WTS
facility antenna, whether originally intended for the use or not.
24
Collocation. Two or more WTS providers utilizing a structure or site specifically designed and/or
approved for the multiple use, and including equipment shelters.
Conditionally Suitable Site. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, any
land planned and zoned Neighborhood Commercial, Major Retail Commercial, General Office, Low
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and the Medical Services,
Hillside Development, Willamette Greenway and Urbanizable Fringe Overlay Districts.
Detached WTS Facility. A pole, tower or other structure designed and intended to support WTS facility
antennas.
Equipment Shelters. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, the buildings,
structures, cabinets or vaults used to house and protect the equipment necessary to connect/relay radio
signals from cell site to cell site and to land line systems. Associated equipment, for example, air
conditioning or emergency generators is considered appropriate within this definition.
Lattice Tower. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, a WTS support
structure which consists of metal crossed strips or bars and which supports antennas and related
equipment for one or more WTS provider.
Monopole. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, a WTS support
structure which consists of a single tapered steel pole and which supports antennas and related
equipment for one or more WTS provider.
Preferred Site. For purposes of siting wireless telecommunications systems facilities, any land planned
and zoned Special Heavy Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Light Medium Industrial, Quarry and Mine
Operations or Public Land and Open Space.
Stealth Design. A variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate the visual presence of WTS support
structures, including, but not limited to screening by mature trees (75 percent or more of pole beneath
tree canopy), mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not limited to: light
poles, church steeples and trees), painting antennas to match the color of supporting building walls, or
roof mounting behind parapets.
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The site, structures, equipment and appurtenances used to
transmit, receive, distribute, provide or offer wireless telecommunications services. This includes, but is
not limited to antennas, poles, towers, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, vaults, buildings,
electronics and switching equipment.
Wireless Telecommunications Systems (WTS). The sending and receiving of radio frequency
transmissions and the connection and/or relaying of these signals to land lines and other sending and
receiving stations (cell sites), and including cellular radiotelephone, personal communications services,
enhanced/specialized mobile radio, and commercial paging services.