HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 11 Development Code Amendments Small Wireless Facilities{00011030:1}
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/7/2019
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg
Staff Contact/Dept.: Kristina Kraaz, CAO
Staff Phone No: 541-744-4061 (CAO)
Estimated Time: 20 min/15 min
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE REGARDING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, JOURNAL # 811-18-000219-TYP4
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Work Session: Review proposed legislative amendments
Regular Session: Conduct a public hearing and adopt/not adopt the following
Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 4.3-145 – WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
REGARDING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY WITHIN CITY LIMITS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released
a declaratory ruling and order that significantly limits local management of small
wireless infrastructure deployment by preempting discretionary aesthetic standards
and imposing permit review timelines. Staff request that Council approve
amendments to Springfield Development Code (SDC) 4.3-145 as recommended by
the Planning Commission to comply with these new FCC rules.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings
Exhibit B – Amendments to the Springfield Development Code
2. Planning Commission Order and Recommendation
3. Public Comment received as of January 2, 2019
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued
new rules regarding wireless broadband infrastructure that preempt some local
aesthetic regulations and impose 60-90 day shot clocks for small wireless facility
applications. The FCC rules regarding timelines (shot clocks) become effective on
January 14, 2019 and the aesthetic regulations become effective April 14, 2019. At
a work session on November 5, 2018, the Council directed staff to proceed with
amending the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to comply with these new FCC
rules.
Following a public hearing on November 20, 2018, the Planning Commission voted
to forward a recommendation the City Council to approve amendments to SDC 4.3-
145 as proposed by staff, which are limited to small wireless facilities in City-
owned public rights-of-way within City limits.
The amendments adopt objective aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities in
the public rights-of-way and permit these facilities to be approved by the
Development and Public Works Director under Type I ministerial review, rather
than Type III Discretionary Use approval requiring mailed notice and a public
hearing. This change will allow the City to approve or deny permits for small
wireless facilities within required 60- or 90-day shot clock required by the FCC.
{00011009:2} Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. ___________ (EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.3-145 –
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES REGARDING SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES
IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITHIN CITY LIMITS; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6292 on April 15, 2013, to amend
standards and definitions in the Springfield Development Code to regulate and establish a review
process for the development of wireless telecommunication systems (WTS) facilities;
WHEREAS, Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 4.3-145 contains the standards and
processes to be applied to the development of WTS facilities, including WTS facilities in the public
rights-of-way of the city;
WHEREAS, the City has authority under federal, state, and local laws to regulate the use and
occupancy of streets, rights-of-way, and other City property and to grant access to the rights-of-way
and other City property upon certain terms and conditions;
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a
Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order that applies to City regulation of small wireless facilities
in the public rights-of-way and which requires that any aesthetic standards the City applies to the
development of such facilities must be reasonable, non-discretionary, and published in advance, and
which imposes 60 and 90 day “shot clocks” for approving or denying applications for such facilities;
WHEREAS, the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order provisions regarding shot clocks
become effective January 14, 2019, and the provisions regarding aesthetic regulations become
effective on April 14, 2019;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend SDC 4.3-145 regarding small wireless facilities in public rights-of-
way within the City of Springfield to comply with the new FCC rules regarding shot clocks for permit
review and aesthetic regulations;
WHEREAS, notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on November
18, 2018, less than 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing as required under OAR 660-018-0020,
but the untimely submission has been cured under OAR 660-018-0040(8) by leaving the public record
open through January 7, 2018;
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing
regarding this proposal, Planning File # 811-18-000219-TYP4, and after review of the staff report,
evidence in the record, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments based on the findings of fact set
forth in the Commission’s Order and Recommendation;
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2019, the Springfield City Council conducted a first reading and held a duly-
noticed public hearing on the recommended amendments and is ready to approve the amendments
based on the findings of fact in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference;
{00011009:2} Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, these regulations are adopted through the City of Springfield’s broad home rule authority
under the Chapter II of Springfield City Charter, which provides the following:
Section 4. Powers of the City. The City has all powers that the constitutions, statutes and
common law of the United States and of the State of Oregon now or hereafter expressly or
impliedly granted or allowed the City, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated
each of those powers.
Section 5. Construction of Powers. In this Charter no specification of power is exclusive or
restricts authority that the City would have if the power were not specified. The Charter shall be
liberally construed, so that the City may exercise as fully as possible all powers possible for it
under this Charter and under United States and Oregon law. A power of the City continues
unless the grant of the power clearly indicates the contrary.
WHEREAS, these amendments to SDC 4.3-145 for small wireless facilities in a public right-of-way are
necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The findings of fact set forth in Exhibit A are adopted.
Section 2. Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield Development Code is amended as provided in
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Section 3. Savings Clause. Except as specifically amended herein, Section 4.3-100 of the
Springfield Development Code shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 4. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.
Section 5. Effective date of Ordinance. It is hereby found and determined that the matters
relating to the adoption of amendments to SDC 4.3-145 regarding small wireless facilities in the public
rights-of-way are matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare and that an emergency
therefore exists, and this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the Council and
approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ___ day of _________, 2019,
by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of __________, 2019.
_______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
Exhibit A – Page 1 of 8
{00010981:2}
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
City Council Public Hearing Date: January 7, 2019
Springfield Journal #: 811-18-000219-TYP4
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Proposal: Amendments to Springfield Development Code section 4.3-145 regarding small wireless
facilities in the public rights-of-way, to comply with new Federal Communication
Commission rules
Applicant: City of Springfield
Location: The proposed code amendments apply to public rights-of-way within the limits of the
City of Springfield.
BACKGROUND
On September 27th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling and
Third Report and Order regarding wireless broadband infrastructure that preempts many aspects of local
management of small cell wireless infrastructure in the public rights-of-way. There are three main
components to the Declaratory Ruling: (1) it caps local government fees for use of the right-of-way (not
addressed by these proposed amendments), (2) it preempts some local aesthetic regulations, and (3) it
imposes 60-90 day shot clocks (timelines within which an application must be approved) for small
wireless facility applications.
Specifically, the new FCC rules apply to small wireless facilities, which are defined as facilities that meet
the following requirements:
(1) Facilities:
Mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or
Mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or
That do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than
50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no
more than 3 cubic feet in volume; and
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment
associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume.
The Springfield Development Code section 4.3-145 governs development standards regarding all wireless
telecommunications systems (WTS) facilities within the City and its Urban Growth Boundary. It also
determines the level of review required to approve applications for WTS facilities. To comply with the
FCC order, staff have determined that the City should amend section 4.3-145 for facilities that fall under
the FCC rules, which is limited to small wireless facilities in City-owned public rights-of-way within City
limits. Findings 8 and 9 below address how the proposed amendments enable the City to comply with the
new FCC rules.
Exhibit A – Page 2 of 8
{00010981:2}
The FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order has an effective date of January 14, 2019.
After the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, the FCC issued a subsequent order on
December 11, 2018, clarifying that the aesthetic requirements set out in the Declaratory Ruling and Third
Report and Order do not become effective until April 15, 2019, or 90 days after the effective date of the
order. However, the new FCC requirements that impose 60- and 90-day shot clocks will take effect on
January 14, 2019. The amendments contained herein are necessary to allow the City to comply with these
shot clocks (see Finding 9), and so staff still recommend that the City Council approve the amendments
as an emergency ordinance following the January 7 public hearing.
The proposed amendments are limited to public rights-of-way inside City limits to address the FCC rules,
and will not apply in the urbanizable area. If Lane County determines that it should amend the standards
that apply to these facilities outside City limits, then the City and County can co-adopt standards for
rights-of-way outside City limits at a later time.
NOTIFICATION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing on November 20, 2018 was published in the The
Register Guard on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 as required by Springfield Development Code 5.2-
115.B. Notice was also provided to Lane County as a right-of-way owner within the City and to
Springfield Utility Board as the owner of utility poles within the City. Notice of the Springfield City
Council public hearing on January 7, 2019, was published in The Register Guard on Tuesday, December
18, 2018 as required by Springfield Development Code 5.2-115.B.
Under ORS 197.610(1) and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change
to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first
evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was transmitted to the DLCD on November 14,
2018, which is less than 35 days prior to the Planning Commissions’ public hearing on the matter.
Under ORS 197.610(2) and OAR 660-018-0022(2), the local government may submit changes later than
the 35-day deadline if it determines that emergency circumstances outside the control of the local
government require expedited review. The FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order was
issued on September 27, 2018 and published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018. Staff met with
the City Council in work session on November 5 to review the new FCC rules. The Council provided
staff with direction to pursue amendments to the Springfield Development Code allow the City to comply
with the new FCC rules regarding objective aesthetic requirements and shot-clocks for reviewing
applications. The FCC rules regarding shot clocks become effective on January 14, 2019 and the rules
regarding aesthetic standards become effective April 15, 2019. These circumstances necessitate expedited
review and prevent the City from being able to comply with the requirement to provide DLCD with 35
day notice prior to the first evidentiary hearing. In compliance with the City’s acknowledged procedures
for legislative amendments to the Springfield Development Code, the Springfield Planning Commission
held the first evidentiary hearing on November 20, 2018; the City Council public hearing is being held on
January 7, 2019. The proposed amendments were submitted to DLCD on November 14, 2018, which is
as early as practicable.
Alternately, if the FCC rulemaking is not an emergency circumstance that justifies expedited review, then
the City has cured the untimely submission under ORS 197.620 and OAR 660-018-0040(8). Specifically,
the City cured the untimely submission of proposed changes by holding the evidentiary record open for an
additional period of time equal to 10 days or the number of days by which the submission was late,
whichever is greater. The submission to DLCD on November 14, 2018 is 6 days before the Planning
Exhibit A – Page 3 of 8
{00010981:2}
Commission hearing on November 20, 2018. The written record has been left open until the City Council
public hearing on January 7, 2019, which is longer than the additional time needed to cure under OAR
660-018-0040(8).
Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on November 20, City staff received input from
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and wireless company representatives regarding the proposed
amendments to SDC 4.3-145. At the public hearing on November 20, 2018, staff provided the Planning
Commission with an updated version of the proposed amendments which incorporated the follow input
from SUB and wireless representatives: a new definition for “small wireless facility structure” to include
utility poles and other poles supporting small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way; further
clarification as to which existing standards for WTS facilities are applicable to small wireless facilities;
revision of the height limits for small wireless facilities and the definition of “antenna equipment” to
match language used in the FCC rules; additional flexibility for the location of antennas and equipment on
poles to comply with SUB’s requirements for co-location on its power poles; and clarification that
placement of small wireless facilities on poles not owned by the City requires written authorization from
the owner. The Planning Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve the updated version
of the proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145. Representatives of AT&T and Verizon Wireless offered
testimony to the Planning Commission in favor of the proposed amendments, citing the need for small
wireless facilities in the City’s public rights-of-way to keep up with current demand for wireless data and
to allow deployment of 5G wireless technology.
Wireless carrier representatives also provided input to City staff that was not incorporated into the
Planning Commission recommendation. Wireless company representatives both requested that the City
amend SDC 4.3-145.F to remove the requirement that new WTS facilities, other than small wireless
facilities, show the need for a new WTS facility and lack of coverage and capacity. This proposed
revision was not included in staff’s updated proposed code amendments because it is outside the scope of
these amendments, which is limited to addressing small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way in
City limits. The wireless company representatives also provided input that a limit of two antennas or
antenna arrays per pole (proposed SDC 4.3-145.F.28.d) may not be reasonable to meet the needs of 5G,
which they stated could require as many as 3-5 antennas per pole. The Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the 2-antenna per pole limitation as a reasonable aesthetic standard.
Finally, wireless company representatives provided input to staff that the code should allow equipment to
be located on the ground or per utility owner’s requirements. SUB and City staff have worked together to
reach agreement that new equipment pedestals in the rights-of-way are a serious safety concern. Utility
meters may need to be located on a pole lower than the 10-foot clearance identified in proposed
subsection F.28.f, but City engineering staff would work with the applicant and SUB to identify the
proper location to protect pedestrians and others.
Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation, the Springfield Utility Board
provided additional public comment regarding the proposed height limitations and the likely future
applicability of the code amendments, included in the packet as Attachment 3. In response to this
comment, staff advise that the height limitations for small wireless facilities in SDC 4.3-145.F.28.a are
consistent with the height limitations set forth by the FCC rules for small wireless facilities; if a wireless
facility in the public right-of-way is proposed that exceeds these height limits, it would not be considered
a “small wireless facility” subject to the FCC rules and the City could approve such facility through Type
III Discretionary Use approval.
Exhibit A – Page 4 of 8
{00010981:2}
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115 lists the approval criteria for an amendment to the code:
A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the
City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following:
1. The Metro Plan;
2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Criteria A.1. Consistency with the Metro Plan
Finding 1: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the prevailing
Comprehensive Plan. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
was adopted in 2011 through Springfield Ordinance 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA. 1274 as a
refinement to the Metro Plan. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Economic Element and
Urbanization Elements were adopted in 2016 through Springfield Ordinance 6361 and Lane County
Ordinance No. PA 1304 to replace portions of the Metro Plan, but are not yet acknowledged.
Amendments to the development code must be considered within the context of adopted policies. Thus
any proposed amendments must be consistent with the Metro Plan and the Springfield 2030 Residential
Land Use and Housing Element, Economic Element, and Urbanization Element. In addition, because the
Economic Element and Urbanization Element are unacknowledged, any plan or land use regulation that
implicates those elements must be consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Finding 2: Communication facilities generally are included as an element of “the minimum level of key
urban services” in Urbanization Element Policy 31. The proposed amendments specifically address small
wireless facilities in the public right-of-way that are necessary to meet future demand for wireless data
services and access to broadband. Improving and increasing siting opportunities for small wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way consistent with this comprehensive plan text and the policies cited
under this criteria (A.1):
“31. For the purposes of land use planning and annexation approval,
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan defines key urban facilities and
services as: wastewater service; stormwater service; transportation; solid
waste management; water service; fire and emergency medical services;
police protection; citywide park and recreation programs; electric
service; land use controls; communication facilities; and public schools
on a districtwide basis.”
Finding 3: The implementation action under Urbanization Element Policy 27 provides that the City will,
“Prepare and adopt comprehensive plan and zoning updates at the neighborhood, district, and corridor
scale to determine the density, character and design of urban development in alignment with
infrastructure capacity to ensure efficient and economical delivery of urban services in balance with the
City’s financial resources.” The proposed amendments further this policy by ensuring that small wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way do not conflict with other utilities already located in the public right-
of-way. Furthermore, the proposed amendments offer a set of objective criteria for siting these facilities
and allow them to be processed under Type I ministerial development review. This minimizes the cost to
Exhibit A – Page 5 of 8
{00010981:2}
the City and to the wireless providers to deploy new wireless infrastructure, in keeping with the above
guidance under Policy 27.
Finding 4: Many policies throughout the Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Plan favor updating land use
regulations and zoning to allow for more efficient land use that supports higher density and mixed-use
development (see, e.g., Springfield Transportation System Plan Policy 3.3, Springfield Residential
Element Policy H.6, Springfield Economic Element Policy E.6). Higher density development will require
additional capacity for wireless services. Making the City’s public rights-of-way available to this
infrastructure to meet this new demand for telecommunication services further frees up developable
property within the City that otherwise may have been needed for larger wireless telecommunications
facilities systems (i.e. traditional, large “macrocell” towers).
Conclusion: The code amendments comply with applicable policies from the Metro Plan including
the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and therefore meet Criterion A.1.
Criteria A.2. Consistency with State statues.
Finding 5: ORS Chapter 759 covers the regulation of telecommunication utilities within the State of
Oregon. However, ORS 759 pertains to regulatory oversight of utility providers and how they conduct
business within Oregon. This Chapter does not provide guidance or limitations for local jurisdictions
responsible for reviewing and approving WTS facilities in accordance with adopted zoning and
Development Code standards.
Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 759.015, it is the goal of the State of Oregon to “secure and maintain
high-quality universal telecommunications service at just and reasonable rates for all classes of customers
and to encourage innovation within the industry by a balanced program of regulation and competition”.
The state Public Utility Commission is responsible for administering the statutes with respect to
telecommunications rates and services.
Finding 7: In accordance with ORS 759.016, it is the goal of the state of Oregon to promote access to
broadband services in order to improve the economy, improve the quality of life in communities
throughout the state, and to reduce the economic gap between communities that have access to broadband
digital services and those that do not. One of the ways that the State of Oregon policy proposes to
achieve that goal is by “Removing barriers to the full deployment of broadband digital applications and
services and providing incentives for the removal of those barriers[.]” ORS 759.016(2)(d). Streamlining
the development review process and standards that are applicable to small wireless facilities in the public
right-of-way will reduce development-related barriers to the deployment of future mobile broadband
infrastructure.
Finding 8: In the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, the FCC determined that state and
local governments are preempted under the Telecommunications Act from applying aesthetic
requirements for small wireless facilities unless they are (1) reasonable; (2) no more burdensome than
those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; (3) objective; and (4) published in advance.
The new FCC rules become effective on January 14, 2019. The proposed amendments implement
aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities that are reasonable. The City was provided with examples
of small wireless facilities by representatives of the wireless industry at the League of Oregon Cities’ “5G
Summit” on October 25, 2018. Most of the examples provided are designs that are permitted under the
proposed standards. The proposed standards are no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
infrastructure; in general, they are less burdensome than other types of wireless telecommunications
systems facilities because they do not provide for discretionary review. The proposed standards are
objective in their regulation of aesthetics, and they are published in advance by virtue of being adopted
Exhibit A – Page 6 of 8
{00010981:2}
into the Springfield Development Code. The standards include the ability of the City Engineer to allow
deviations or modifications to the proposed standards, but these are to allow adjustments for identified
engineering or safety issues, and not to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of small wireless facilities.
Finding 9: The FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order also includes new shot-clock
requirements for approving all applications for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. The
shot-clock for attachments to existing or replacement poles is 60 days; the shot-clock for entirely new
poles in the public right-of-way is 90 days. Under the current regulations in SDC 4.3-145, most small
wireless facilities would require Type III development review and Discretionary Use approval. The Type
III review process requires 20 days for mailed notice of a quasi-judicial hearing, up to 21 days after the
first public hearing to leave the record open allowed by law, 15 days to appeal the Planning
Commission’s decision to City Council, time to schedule the City Council appeal hearing and provide
notice of the hearing, and time for the City Council to make a decision. It would be nearly impossible to
approve small wireless facilities under Type III review within 60 days and extremely difficult to do so
within in 90 days. Because the FCC rules preempt the City from applying discretionary aesthetic
approval criteria, there is no need to provide a quasi-judicial decision-making process to an application
for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way (unless necessitated within the Willamette River
Greenway Overlay District for a new pole). The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145 remove the
discretionary approval criteria for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and classify these
facilities as low visibility facilities that are subject to Type I ministerial review. The Type I ministerial
review process does not include mailed notice, a public hearing, or a hearing on appeal, and therefore will
allow the City to approval or deny applications for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way
within the shot-clocks established by the FCC.
Conclusion: There are no state statutes that directly apply to the content of the proposed
amendments, but the proposed amendments are in keeping with the State of Oregon’s expressed
policy regarding access to telecommunications and broadband services. The proposed amendments
comply with the federal Telecommunications Act as interpreted by the Federal Communications
Commission. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet Criterion A.2.
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Finding 10: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.” The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145 are the subject of a
legislative decision-making process with public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission and City
Council. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendment on November 20, 2018. The Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the legal
notices section of The Register-Guard on November 13, 2018. The recommendation of the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration at a public hearing
scheduled for January 7, 2019. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Finding 11: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide planning
program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the plan’s
policies into force and effect. As discussed under Criteria A.1., the City has adopted a comprehensive
plan and the proposed amendments are consistent with that plan.
Finding 12: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land and Goal 4 – Forest Land apply to areas that are outside the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary, and are not applicable.
Exhibit A – Page 7 of 8
{00010981:2}
Finding 13: The proposed amendments do not alter the City’s acknowledged land use regulations for
complying with Goals 5 through 10. Therefore, these goals are not applicable to the proposed
amendment.
Finding 14: Goal 11–Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision of
public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. Communications services are
identified in Goal 11, but within the definition of urban facilities and services that are provided at the
appropriate type and level to support planned development. Wireless telecommunications systems are not
listed among the public facilities that must be included in local public facilities plans. As explained under
Criteria A.1, the proposed amendments reduce barriers to the deployment of new communications
services within Springfield to meet future demand for wireless data services and access to broadband.
Finding 15: Goal 12 – Transportation requires the City to plan for the provision of a “safe, convenient
and economic transportation system.” OAR 660-012-0060 requires that proposed amendments to a
comprehensive plan or land use regulation that significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility provide mitigation. The proposed amendments address small wireless facilities that are located in
the public rights-of-way, but they will not significantly affect any existing or planned transportation
facility because they will not affect the flow of traffic or transit services within the right-of-way, nor will
they result in any increase in vehicle trips. The proposed amendments include requirements to protect
traffic safety and pedestrian safety. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances,
policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 12 requirements. Therefore this action has no
effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 12.
Finding 16: Goal 13–Energy Conservation states that “land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles.” The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies,
plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. Streamlining the standards and process
for siting small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way is likely to have no net effect on energy
conservation because these facilities are likely to replace demand for new macrocell WTS facilities.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 13.
Finding 17: Goal 14–Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and to
incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The proposed amendments
streamline development review for siting telecommunications infrastructure in the public right-of-way in
compliance with Goal 14, and do not otherwise affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or
studies adopted to comply with Goal 14 requirements.
Finding 18: Goal 15–Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits. The
regulations in the City’s Willamette River Greenway Overlay District (SDC 3.3-300) and in SDC 4.3-145
allow low visibility and stealth facilities within the overlay. The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145
do not change or nullify the requirement for development proposals to comply with the City’s existing
Willamette River Greenway regulations regardless of the underlying zoning, and to demonstrate
compliance with Goal 15 requirements. Staff notes that this proposed amendment applies only to facilities
located within existing public right-of-way inside the Springfield City limits. Small wireless facilities
could be placed on existing or replacement utility poles, which would not result in any new disturbance of
land or habitat. Any small wireless facilities that are proposed for new poles inside the Greenway
Setback would require additional Discretionary Use approval under the provisions of SDC 3.3-300.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 15.
Exhibit A – Page 8 of 8
{00010981:2}
Finding 19: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and Ocean
Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield.
Therefore, in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16 through 19 do not
apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: The code amendments comply with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules and therefore meet Criterion A.3.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145 comply
with the applicable criteria of approval for amendments to the Springfield Development Code, under SDC
5.6-115. Staff recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments via emergency procedures.
Exhibit B – Page 1 of 22
Exhibit B
Section 4.3-145 of the Springfield Development Code is amended to read as follows:
Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facilities
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to:
1. Implement the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996;
2. Provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and review procedures
for the placement, operation, alteration and removal of WTS facilities;
3. Allow new WTS facilities where necessary to provide service coverage and there
is a demonstrated need that cannot be met through existing facilities;
4. Maximize the use of existing WTS facilities in order to minimize the need to
construct additional facilities;
5. Encourage the siting of new WTS facilities in preferred locations;
6. Lessen impacts of new WTS facilities on surrounding residential areas; and
7. Minimize visual impacts of new WTS facilities through careful design,
configuration, screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques.
B. Applicability/Conflicts.
1. Applicability. This Section applies within Springfield’s city limits and its Urban
Growth Boundary. No WTS facility may be constructed, altered (to include co-locations)
or replaced, unless exempt, without complying with the requirements of this Section.
Exempt facilities are listed in Subsection D. below.
2. Conflicts. In cases where:
a. The development standards of this Section conflict with other Sections of
this Code, these standards will prevail.
EXCEPTION: In the Glenwood Riverfront, the WTS standards regarding type
and height of the antenna will apply. All other aspects of the application
submittal and review process specified in this Section will apply.
b. These development standards conflict with Federal and/or State
regulations, the Federal and/or State regulations will prevail.
Exhibit B – Page 2 of 22
Page 2 of 22
C. Pre-Existing WTS Facilities.
1. WTS facilities that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance
codified in this Section 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 D.1.
3. Lawfully existing WTS facilities may be replaced as specified in Subsection D.2.
D. Exemptions. The following shall be considered exempt structures or activities, however,
all other applicable Federal, State and City permits will be required:
1. Emergency or routine repairs or routine maintenance of previously approved
WTS facilities.
2. Replacement of existing previously approved WTS facilities.
a. A WTS facility may be replaced if it:
i. Is in the exact location of the facility being replaced;
ii. Is of a construction type identical in height, size, lighting and
painting;
iii. Can accommodate the co-location of additional antennas or
arrays;
iv. Does not increase radio frequency emissions from any source;
and
v. Does not intrude or cause further intrusion into a setback area.
b. Those WTS facilities that cannot meet the replacement standard in
Subsection D.2.a. will be treated as new construction, requiring Type I or III
review as specified in Subsection H.
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.
Exhibit B – Page 3 of 22
Page 3 of 22
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 that are less than 3 cubic
feet total volume for all equipment. Such facilities include, but are not limited to,
microcell radio transceivers located on existing utility poles and light standards and
strand-mounted wi-fi devices within public right-of-way.
9. Cell on Wheels (COW), which are permitted as temporary uses in nonresidential
Metro Plan or 2030 Springfield Refinement Plan designations for a period not to exceed
14 days, or during a period of emergency as declared by the City, County, or State.
E. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Section shall have the following
meanings:
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.
Approval Authority.
1. Type I Review. Staff has the authority to approve new co-locations, equipment
replacement, and applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities.
2. Type III Review. The Planning Commission and the City Council are the
Approval Authority for applications to construct high and medium visibility WTS facilities
within the city limits.
Exhibit B – Page 4 of 22
Page 4 of 22
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.
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 or other support structure 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:
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. Except for small
wireless facilities, the following WTS facilities 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,
Exhibit B – Page 5 of 22
Page 5 of 22
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.
5. Small wireless facilities located on small wireless facility structures in the public
right-of-way that meet the standards in section 4.3-145.F.28.a. through c.
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.
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 1
or more antennas without guy wires or ground anchors.
Exhibit B – Page 6 of 22
Page 6 of 22
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.
Small Wireless Facility. A WTS facility located on a small wireless facility structure in City
limits in the public right-of-way that meets the dimensional standards in section 4.3-145.F.28,
typically taking the form of one or two small antenna(s) and associated pole-mounted
equipment.
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.
Structure, Small Wireless Facility. Any utility pole, guy pole or support pole, utility pole
extension, light standard or other similar pole in the public right-of-way. A small wireless
facility structure may be an existing, modified, new, or replacement structure.
Exhibit B – Page 7 of 22
Page 7 of 22
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, freestanding
tower, or other structure designed and primarily used to support antennas; provided that,
“tower” does not include small wireless facility structures.
Whip Antenna. An antenna that transmits or receives signals in 360 degrees. Whip antennas
are typically cylindrical in shape, less than 3 inches in diameter and no more than 6 feet long,
including the mounting.
Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facility. Any facility that transmits and/or
receives electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, antennas, dish antennas,
microwave antennas, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of these
signals, including, but not limited to, telecommunications towers and similar supporting
structures, equipment cabinets or buildings, parking areas, and other accessory development.
This definition also includes any facility that transmits radio or television signals. This definition
does not apply to amateur radio stations as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission, Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules.
F. General Standards. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes limitations
on the siting standards that local governments can place on WTS facilities. Section 704 of the
Act states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in this Section to the extent that
they do not violate Federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the
standards found in this Section constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for
providing coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
1. Design for Co-Location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally
accommodate the maximum number of additional users technically practicable.
2. Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Except for small wireless 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. Except for small wireless facilities, 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
Exhibit B – Page 8 of 22
Page 8 of 22
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. Except for small
wireless facilities, the application shall demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and
evaluate less intrusive alternatives, including, but not limited to, less sensitive sites,
alternative design systems, alternative tower designs, the use of repeaters, or multiple
facilities. Subsection F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each
zoning district.
5. Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection E. defines various types of WTS
facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low visibility
and stealth facilities. Table 4.3-1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each of
Springfield’s zoning districts.
Table 4.3-1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial High visibility
Heavy Industrial Moderate visibility
Light-Medium Industrial Low visibility
Quarry Mining Operations Stealth
Community Commercial Moderate visibility
Campus Industrial Low visibility
Booth Kelly Mixed Use Stealth
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Public Land and Open Space (1)
Neighborhood Commercial Low visibility
General Office Stealth
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
(1) Moderate visibility WTS facilities in the Public Land and Open Space District are allowed only within the city
limits.
6. Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility
facility is allowed on any 1 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:
Exhibit B – Page 9 of 22
Page 9 of 22
a. Co-location of additional high visibility facilities is consistent with
neighborhood character;
b. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high
visibility WTS facilities would have the effect of prohibiting service because the
proposed facility would fill a significant gap in coverage and no alternative
locations are available and technologically feasible; or
c. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high
visibility WTS facilities would unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services.
7. Separation between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than
2,000 feet from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made
under Subsections F.2., 3. and 4. by the Approval Authority.
8. WTS Towers Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Property. In order to ensure public
safety, all towers located on or adjacent to any residential zoning district shall be set
back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the
facility, including any antennas or other appurtenances. The setback shall be measured
from that part of the WTS tower that is closest to the neighboring residentially zoned
property.
9. Historic Buildings and Structures. Except for small wireless facilities, no WTS
facility shall be allowed on any building or structure, or in any district, that is listed on
any Federal, State or local historic register unless a finding is made by the Approval
Authority that the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the
building, structure, or district. No change in architecture and no high or moderate
visibility WTS facilities are permitted on any building or any site within a historic district.
Proposed WTS facilities in the Historic Overlay District are also subject to the applicable
provisions of Section 3.3-900.
10. Equipment Location. The following location standards shall apply to WTS
facilities, except for small wireless 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.
Exhibit B – Page 10 of 22
Page 10 of 22
11. Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in
this Code. However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall
require Discretionary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the
approval criteria specified in Subsection I.
12. Accessory Building Size. All accessory buildings and structures built to contain
equipment accessory to a WTS facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height unless a greater
height is necessary and required by a condition of approval to maximize architectural
integration. Each accessory building or structure located on any residential or public land
and open space zoned property is limited to 200 square feet, unless approved through
the Discretionary Use process.
13. Visual Impact. Except for small wireless facilities, which must meet the
requirements of section 4.3-145.F.28, 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 nonreflective
and chosen to minimize visibility. Facilities, including support equipment and buildings,
shall be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background,
unless required by any other applicable law.
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. Façade-mounted antennas shall be architecturally
integrated into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If
possible, antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created
architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Façade-mounted
antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face.
17. Roof-Mounted Antenna. Roof-mounted antennas shall be constructed at the
minimum height possible to serve the operator’s service area and shall be set back as
far from the building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from
the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
18. Compliance with Photo Simulations. As a condition of approval and prior to final
staff inspection of the WTS facility, the applicant shall submit evidence, e.g., photos,
Exhibit B – Page 11 of 22
Page 11 of 22
sufficient to prove that the facility is in substantial conformance with photo simulations
provided with the initial application. Nonconformance shall require any necessary
modification to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant.
19. Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with
the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035.
20. Signage. No signs, striping, graphics, or other attention-getting devices are
permitted on any WTS facility except for warning and safety signage that shall:
a. Have a surface area of no more than 3 square feet;
b. Be affixed to a fence or equipment cabinet; and
c. Be limited to no more than 2 signs, unless more are required by any
other applicable law.
21. Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the
public or private right-of-way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that
obstructs traffic.
22. Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of
the installation of any WTS facility.
23. Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair
pedestrian use of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private
land.
24. Lighting. WTS facilities shall not include any beacon lights or strobe lights,
unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable
authority. If beacon lights or strobe lights are required, the Approval Authority shall
review any available alternatives and approve the design with the least visual impact. All
other site lighting for security and maintenance purposes shall be shielded and directed
downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5-100,
unless required by any other applicable law.
25. Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of
the base zone, at least 1 row of evergreen trees or shrubs, not less than 4 feet high at
the time of planting, and spaced out not more than 15 feet apart, shall be provided in
the landscape setback. Shrubs shall be of a variety that can be expected to grow to form
a continuous hedge at least 5 feet in height within 2 years of planting. Trees and shrubs
in the vicinity of guy wires shall be of a kind that would not exceed 20 feet in height or
would not affect the stability of the guys. In all other cases, the landscaping, screening
and fence standards specified in Section 4.4-100 shall apply.
26. Prohibited WTS Facilities.
Exhibit B – Page 12 of 22
Page 12 of 22
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.
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.
28. Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. Small wireless facilities in
the public right-of-way must comply with the following standards:
a. Small wireless facility structures must meet the following height limits,
whichever is more:
i. 50 feet or less in height, including antenna height; or
ii. No more than 10% taller than the existing structure or other
adjacent utility poles, light poles, or similar structures.
b. Each antenna associated with the small wireless facility, excluding
associated antenna equipment, must be no more than 3 cubic feet in
volume.
c. All wireless equipment associated with the structure other than the
antenna, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna
and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, must be no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume. Antenna equipment includes only
such equipment that is associated with the antenna that is in the same
fixed location as the antenna, and is installed at the same time as the
antenna.
d. No more than a total of two antennas or antenna arrays may be located
on a single pole.
e. Antennas may not project more than five feet above or two feet laterally
from the pole, or the minimum necessary to achieve required safety
clearances. Omni-directional antennas mounted above the pole may not
exceed the diameter of the pole on which they are attached, or 16 inches
in diameter, whichever is greater.
Exhibit B – Page 13 of 22
Page 13 of 22
f. All equipment must be mounted to the pole at least 10 feet above grade.
Alternately, equipment may be located in an underground vault or
another location on the pole upon approval by the City Engineer.
g. Other than the antenna, antenna equipment, electric meter, and power
disconnect, all pole-mounted equipment must be concealed in a single
flush-mounted cabinet that complies with the dimensional standards in
this section or otherwise entirely shielded from public view.
EXCEPTION: Multiple equipment cabinets on a single pole are permitted
only when necessary to comply with the pole owner’s joint use
requirements.
h. All cabling and wires that run between the antenna and equipment must
be concealed or shielded inside conduit.
i. All antennas, equipment, conduit, cabling, cabinets and ancillary parts
must be painted or textured in a non-reflective neutral color that
matches, or is compatible with, the pole.
j. Where there are no existing overhead utilities, utility service lines and
backhaul fiber must be located underground, unless approved otherwise
by the City Engineer.
k. All new or replacement small wireless facility structures must comply with
the following:
i. A replacement small wireless facility structure must be placed as
close to the same location as the existing structure as is possible,
unless minor adjustments to location are needed to comply with
ADA requirements or for public safety, as determined by the City
Engineer.
ii. A new small wireless facility structure is permitted only when no
other existing structure in the right-of-way is available or suitable
to accommodate the small wireless facility, and no other structure
in the right-of-way is available or suitable to be replaced or
modified to accommodate the small wireless facility.
iii. The location of a small wireless facility structure must allow
sufficient clear space for safe passage on the sidewalk; must not
be located within the vision clearance area; must not interfere
with other utilities, traffic control devices, or intersections; and
must be safe, as determined by the City Engineer.
l. Small wireless facilities are not permitted on decorative light poles and no
decorative light poles will be removed or replaced to accommodate small
wireless facilities. EXCEPTION: Upon a determination that no other
option is reasonably available for meeting an identified capacity,
Exhibit B – Page 14 of 22
Page 14 of 22
coverage, or other service need, including locating the small wireless
facility on private property outside the public right-of-way, the City will
permit replacement of a decorative light pole with a small wireless facility
that is camouflaged to match the existing decorative pole.
m. The City may require design or concealment measures for small wireless
facilities and associated structures in the Historic Overlay District. Any
such design or concealment measures are not considered part of the
small wireless facility for purpose of the size restrictions in this
subsection.
G. Application Submittal Requirements. All applications for a WTS facility shall provide the
following reports, documents or documentation:
1. Submittal Requirements for Low Visibility and Stealth Facilities (Type I review).
All applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities shall submit the following
reports and documentation:
a. Narrative. The application shall include a written narrative that describes
in detail all of the equipment and components proposed to be part of the WTS
facility, including, but not limited to, towers, antennas and arrays, equipment
cabinets, back-up generators, air conditioning units, lighting, landscaping and
fencing.
b. Geographic Service Area. Except for small wireless facilities, the
applicant shall identify the geographic service area for the proposed WTS facility,
including a map showing all of the applicant’s and any other existing sites in the
local service network associated with the gap the facility is meant to close. The
applicant shall describe how this service area fits into and is necessary for the
service provider’s service network.
The service area map for the proposed WTS facility shall include the following:
i. The area of significant gap in the existing coverage area;
ii. The service area to be effected by the proposed WTS facility;
iii. The locations of existing WTS tower facilities where co-location is
possible within a 5-mile radius of the proposed WTS facility.
c. Co-Location. An engineer’s analysis/report of the recommended site
location area is required for a proposed WTS tower. For small wireless facilities in
the public right-of-way, this report is required only when a new structure is
proposed. 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:
Exhibit B – Page 15 of 22
Page 15 of 22
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.
d. Plot Plan. A plot plan showing: the lease area, antenna structure, height
above grade and setback from property lines, equipment shelters and setback
from property lines, access, the connection point with the land line system, and
all landscape areas intended to screen the WTS facility.
e. RF Emissions. An engineer’s statement that the RF emissions at grade,
or at nearest habitable space when attached to an existing structure, complies
with FCC rules for these emissions; the cumulative RF emissions if co-located.
Provide the RF range in megahertz and the wattage output of the equipment.
f. Description of Service. A description of the type of service offered
including, but not limited to: voice, data, video and the consumer receiving
equipment.
g. Provider Information. Identification of the provider and backhaul
provider, if different.
h. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. Provide the zoning and
applicable comprehensive plan (e.g., Metro Plan, 2030 Springfield Refinement
Plan) designation of the proposed site and the surrounding properties within 500
feet.
i. FCC, FAA or Other Required Licenses and Determinations. Provide a
copy of all pertinent submittals to the FCC, FAA or other State or Federal
agencies including environmental assessments and impact statements, and data,
assumptions, calculations, and measurements relating to RF emissions safety
standards.
j. Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. Applications for small
wireless facilities in City limits in the public right-of-way must also include:
i. A structural report stamped by an Oregon licensed engineer that
the small wireless facility structure can structurally accommodate
Exhibit B – Page 16 of 22
Page 16 of 22
the proposed small wireless facility; For attachment to existing
structures, the engineer who authors and stamps the report must
have conducted an in-person inspection of the pole and any issues
with the condition of the pole must be noted in the report;
ii. A photo simulation showing the maximum silhouette, color and
finish of the proposed facility;
iii. For poles that are not owned by the City of Springfield, written
authorization by the pole owner regarding the specific plan to
attach to the pole; and
iv. All necessary permits and applications required under the
Springfield Municipal Code, which may be processed concurrently.
2. Submittal Requirements for Moderate and High Visibility Facilities (Type III
Review). Applications for moderate and high visibility WTS facilities shall require all of
the required materials for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities specified in Subsection
G.1. In addition to the applicable Site Plan and Discretionary Use application
requirements, WTS applications shall require the applicant to address the following:
a. Height. Provide an engineer’s diagram showing the height of the WTS
facility and all of its visible components, including the number and types of
antennas that can be accommodated. Carriers shall provide evidence that
establishes that the proposed WTS facilities are designed to the minimum height
required from a technological standpoint to meet the carrier’s coverage
objectives. If the WTS facility tower height will exceed the height restrictions of
the applicable base zone, the narrative shall include a discussion of the physical
constraints, e.g., topographical features, making the additional height necessary.
The narrative shall include consideration of the possibility for design alternatives,
including the use of multiple sites or microcell technology that would avoid the
need for the additional height for the proposed WTS facility.
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.
Exhibit B – Page 17 of 22
Page 17 of 22
f. Co-Location. In addition to the co-location requirements specified in
Subsection G.1.c., the applicant shall submit a statement from an Oregon
registered engineer certifying that the proposed WTS facility and tower, as
designed and built, will accommodate co-locations, and that the facility complies
with the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emission standards as specified
by the FCC. The applicant shall also submit:
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.
j. Utilities. Utility and service lines for proposed WTS facilities shall be
placed underground.
k. Alternative Site Analysis. The applicant shall include an analysis of
alternative sites and technological design options for the WTS facility within and
outside of the City that are capable of meeting the same service objectives as
the proposed site with an equivalent or lesser visual or aesthetic impact. If a new
tower is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate the need for a new tower,
and why alternative locations and design alternatives, or alternative technologies
including, but not limited to microcells and signal repeaters, cannot be used to
meet the identified service objectives.
l. Visual Impact Study and Photo Simulations. The applicant shall provide a
visual impact analysis showing the maximum silhouette, viewshed analysis, color
and finish palette, and screening for all components of the proposed WTS facility.
Exhibit B – Page 18 of 22
Page 18 of 22
The analysis shall include photo simulations and other information necessary to
determine visual impact of the facility as seen from multiple directions. The
applicant shall include a map showing where the photos were taken.
3. Independent Consultation Report.
a. Review and approval of WTS facilities depends on highly specialized
scientific and engineering expertise not ordinarily available to Springfield staff or
to residents who may be adversely impacted by the proposed development of
these facilities. Therefore, in order to allow the Approval Authority to make an
informed decision on a proposed WTS facility, the Director may require the
applicant to fund an independent consultation report for all new moderate and
high visibility facilities. The consultation shall be performed by a qualified
professional with expertise pertinent to the scope of the service requested.
b. The scope of the independent consultation shall focus on the applicant’s
alternatives analysis. The consultant will evaluate conclusions of applicant’s
analysis to determine if there are alternative locations or technologies that were
not considered or which could be employed to reduce the service gap but with
less visual or aesthetic impact. There may be circumstances where this scope
may vary but the overall objective shall be to verify that the applicant’s proposal
is safe and is the least impactful alternative for closing the service gap.
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 5.1-120C. It is anticipated that the independent
consultation will be required when the applicant proposes to locate a moderate
or high visibility WTS facility in a residential zoning district or within 500 feet of a
residential zoning district. Other instances where a proposed WTS facility may
have a visual or aesthetic impact on sensitive neighborhoods could also prompt
the Director to require an independent consultation.
H. Review Process. The review process is determined by the type of WTS facility or activity
that is proposed. High or moderate visibility WTS facilities, defined in Subsection E., 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 5.1-120A. is required only for high and moderate visibility WTS facility
applications. Applicable development standards as specified in Subsection F. and
submittal requirements as specified in Subsection G., will be discussed at the DIM.
2. Type I Review Process. The following WTS facilities are allowed with the
approval of the Director with applicable building and electrical permits:
Exhibit B – Page 19 of 22
Page 19 of 22
a. Stealth and low visibility WTS facilities, as defined in Subsection E., in
any zoning district.
b. Façade-mounted antennas or low powered networked
telecommunications facilities, e.g., as those employing microcell antennas
integrated into the architecture of an existing building in a manner that no
change to the architecture is apparent and no part of the WTS facility is visible to
public view.
c. Antennas or arrays that are hidden from public view through the use of
architectural treatments, e.g., within a cupola, steeple, or parapet which is
consistent with the applicable building height limitation.
d. New antennas or arrays including side-mounted antennas and small top-
mounted antennas that are attached to an existing broadcast communication
facility located in any zone. No more than 3 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. Small wireless facilities proposed within the public right-of-way on an
existing, modified, new, or replacement small wireless facility structure in any
zoning district in City limits, that meet the standards in section 4.3-145.F.28.
g. Co-location of antennas or arrays on existing WTS facilities.
h. The Director will use the applicable criteria specified in Subsection I. to
evaluate the proposal.
Exhibit B – Page 20 of 22
Page 20 of 22
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 H.2. and 3.
c. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official will use the applicable
criteria specified in Subsection I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
4. Council Notification and Possible Review.
a. A briefing memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to the City
Council upon receipt of an application for a high or moderate visibility or any
other WTS 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 I. in place of the
Discretionary Use criteria in Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
b. By agreement with Lane County, the Hearings Official shall be the
Approval Authority for applications outside of the city limits but inside of the
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The Hearings Official will use the applicable
criteria specified in Subsection I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
I. Approval Criteria.
1. Low Visibility and Stealth WTS Facility Applications. The Director shall approve
the low visibility and stealth WTS facility applications upon a determination that the
applicable standards specified in Subsection F. and the submittal requirements specified
in Subsection G. are met.
2. Moderate and High Visibility WTS Facility Applications. The Approval Authority
shall approve moderate visibility and high visibility WTS facility applications upon a
determination that the applicable standards specified in Subsection F. and the submittal
requirements specified in Subsection G. are met. Through the Discretionary Use review,
the Approval Authority shall also determine if there are any impacts of the proposed
WTS facility on adjacent properties and on the public that can be mitigated through
application of other Springfield Development Code standards or conditions of approval
as specified in Subsection J.
Exhibit B – Page 21 of 22
Page 21 of 22
J. Conditions of Approval. For Type III applications, the Approval Authority may impose
any reasonable conditions deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the approval criteria
as allowed by Section 5.9-125.
K. Maintenance. The property owner and the carrier in charge of the WTS facility and
tower shall maintain all equipment and structures, landscaping, driveways and mitigating
measures as approved. Additionally:
1. All WTS facilities shall maintain compliance with current RF emission standards
of the FCC, the National Electric Safety Code, and all State and local regulations.
2. All equipment cabinets shall display a legible operator’s contact number for
reporting maintenance problems.
L. Inspections.
1. The City shall have the authority to enter onto the property upon which a WTS
facility is located to inspect the facility for the purpose of determining whether it
complies with the Building Code and all other construction standards provided by the
City and Federal and State law.
2. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable
notice to the WTS facility owner. In the event the inspection results in a determination
that violation of applicable construction and maintenance standards established by the
City has occurred, remedy of the violation may include cost recovery for all City costs
incurred in confirming and processing the violation.
M. Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. The following requirements apply to the
abandonment and/or discontinuation of use for all WTS facilities:
1. All WTS facilities located on a utility pole shall be promptly removed at the
operator’s expense at any time a utility is scheduled to be placed underground or
otherwise moved.
2. All operators who intend to abandon or discontinue the use of any WTS facility
shall notify the City of their intentions no less than 60 days prior to the final day of use.
3. WTS facilities shall be considered abandoned 90 days following the final day of
use or operation.
4. All abandoned WTS facilities shall be physically removed by the service provider
and/or property owner no more than 90 days following the final day of use or of
determination that the facility has been abandoned, whichever occurs first.
5. The City reserves the right to remove any WTS facilities that are abandoned for
more than 90 days at the expense of the facility owner.
Exhibit B – Page 22 of 22
Page 22 of 22
6. Any abandoned site shall be restored to its natural or former condition. Grading
and landscaping in good condition may remain.
N. Review of WTS Facilities Standards. In the event that the Federal or State government
adopts mandatory or advisory standards more stringent than those described in this Section,
staff will prepare a report and recommendation for the City Council with recommendations on
any necessary amendments to the City’s adopted standards.
Attachment 2 - Page 1 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 1 of 7
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Planning Commission Public Hearing Date: November 20, 2018
Springfield Journal #: 811-18-000219-TYP4
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Proposal: Amendments to Springfield Development Code section 4.3-145 regarding small wireless
facilities in the public rights-of-way, to comply with new FCC rules
Applicant: City of Springfield
Location: The proposed code amendments would apply to public right-of-way within the limits of
the City of Springfield.
BACKGROUND
On September 27th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling and
Third Report and Order regarding wireless broadband infrastructure that preempts many aspects of local
management of small cell wireless infrastructure in the public rights-of-way. There are three main
components to the Declaratory Ruling: (1) it caps local government fees for use of the right-of-way (not
addressed by these proposed amendments), (2) it preempts some local aesthetic regulations, and (3) it
imposes 60-90 day shot clocks (timelines within which an application must be approved) for small
wireless facility applications. The new FCC rules become effective on January 14, 2019.
Specifically, the new FCC rules apply to small wireless facilities, which are defined as facilities that meet
the following requirements:
(1) Facilities:
Mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or
Mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or
That do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than
50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no
more than 3 cubic feet in volume; and
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment
associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume.
The Springfield Development Code section 4.3-145 governs development standards regarding all wireless
telecommunications systems (WTS) facilities within the City and its Urban Growth Boundary. It also
determines the level of review required to approve applications for WTS facilities. To comply with the
FCC order, staff have determined that the City should amend section 4.3-145 for facilities that fall under
the FCC rules, which is limited to small wireless facilities in City-owned public rights-of-way within City
limits. Findings 8 and 9 below address how the proposed amendments enable the City to comply with the
new FCC rules.
Attachment 2 - Page 2 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 2 of 7
The proposed amendments are limited to public rights-of-way inside City limits to address the FCC rules,
and will not apply in the urbanizable area. If Lane County determines that it should amend the standards
that apply to these facilities outside City limits, then the City and County can co-adopt standards for
rights-of-way outside City limits at a later time.
NOTIFICATION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the The Register Guard on Tuesday,
November 13, 2018 as required by Springfield Development Code 5.2-115.B. Notice was also provided
to Lane County as a right-of-way owner within the City and to Springfield Utility Board as the owner of
utility poles within the City.
Under ORS 197.610(1) and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change
to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first
evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was transmitted to the DLCD on November 14,
2018, which is less than 35 days prior to the Planning Commissions’ public hearing on the matter.
Under ORS 197.610(2) and OAR 660-018-0022(2), the local government may submit changes later than
the 35-day deadline if it determines that emergency circumstances outside the control of the local
government require expedited review. The FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order was
issued on September 27, 2018 and published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018. Staff met with
the City Council in work session on November 5 to review the new FCC rules. The Council provided
staff with direction to pursue amendments to the Springfield Development Code allow the City to comply
with the new FCC rules regarding objective aesthetic requirements and shot-clocks for reviewing
applications. The FCC rules become effective on January 14, 2019. These circumstances necessitate
expedited review and prevent the City from being able to comply with the requirement to provide DLCD
with 35 day notice prior to the first evidentiary hearing. In compliance with the City’s acknowledged
procedures for legislative amendments to the Springfield Development Code, the first evidentiary hearing
is scheduled for the Springfield Planning Commission on November 20, 2018; the City Council public
hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2019. The proposed amendments were submitted to DLCD on
November 14, 2018, which is as early as practicable.
Alternately, if the FCC rulemaking is not an emergency circumstance that justifies expedited review, then
the City can cure the untimely submission under ORS 197.620 and OAR 660-018-0040(8). Specifically,
the City will cure the untimely submission of proposed changes by holding the evidentiary record open
for an additional period of time equal to 10 days or the number of days by which the submission was late,
whichever is greater. The submission to DLCD on November 14, 2018 is 6 days before the Planning
Commission hearing. To cure the late submittal, the City intends to leave the written record open until at
least December 19, 2018.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115 lists the approval criteria for an amendment to the code.
A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the
City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following:
1. The Metro Plan;
2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Attachment 2 - Page 3 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 3 of 7
FINDINGS OF FACT
Criteria A.1. Consistency with the Metro Plan
Finding 1: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the prevailing
Comprehensive Plan. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
was adopted in 2011 through Springfield Ordinance 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA. 1274 as a
refinement to the Metro Plan. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Economic Element and
Urbanization Elements were adopted in 2016 through Springfield Ordinance 6361 and Lane County
Ordinance No. PA 1304 as a refinement to the Metro Plan, but are not yet acknowledged. Amendments
to the development code must be considered within the context of adopted policies. Thus any proposed
amendments must be consistent with the Metro Plan and the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and
Housing Element, Economic Element, and Urbanization Element. In addition, because the Economic
Element and Urbanization Element are unacknowledged, any plan or land use regulation that implicates
those elements must be consistent with any applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Finding 2: Communication facilities generally are included as an element of “the minimum level of key
urban services” in Urbanization Element Policy 31. The proposed amendments specifically address small
wireless facilities in the public right-of-way that are necessary to meet future demand for wireless data
services and access to broadband. Improving and increasing siting opportunities for small wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way consistent with this comprehensive plan text and the policies cited
under this criteria (A.1):
“31. For the purposes of land use planning and annexation approval,
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan defines key urban facilities and
services as: wastewater service; stormwater service; transportation; solid
waste management; water service; fire and emergency medical services;
police protection; citywide park and recreation programs; electric
service; land use controls; communication facilities; and public schools
on a districtwide basis.”
Finding 3: The implementation action under Urbanization Element Policy 27 provides that the City will,
“Prepare and adopt comprehensive plan and zoning updates at the neighborhood, district, and corridor
scale to determine the density, character and design of urban development in alignment with
infrastructure capacity to ensure efficient and economical delivery of urban services in balance with the
City’s financial resources.” The proposed amendments further this policy by ensuring that small wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way do not conflict with other utilities already located in the public right-
of-way. Furthermore, the proposed amendments offer a set of objective criteria for siting these facilities
and allow them to be processed under Type I ministerial development review. This minimizes the cost to
the City and to the wireless providers to deploy new wireless infrastructure, in keeping with the above
guidance under Policy 27.
Finding 4: Many policies throughout the Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Plan favor updating land use
regulations and zoning to allow for more efficient land use that supports higher density and mixed-use
development (see, e.g., Springfield Transportation System Plan Policy 3.3, Residential Element Policy
H.6, Economic Element Policy E.6). Higher density development will require additional capacity for
wireless services. Making the City’s public rights-of-way available to this infrastructure to meet this new
demand for telecommunication services further frees up developable property within the City that
otherwise may have been needed for larger wireless telecommunications facilities systems (i.e.
traditional, large “macrocell” towers).
Attachment 2 - Page 4 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 4 of 7
Conclusion: The code amendments comply with applicable policies from the Metro Plan including
the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and therefore meet Criterion A.1.
Criteria A.2. Consistency with State statues.
Finding 5: ORS Chapter 759 covers the regulation of telecommunication utilities within the State of
Oregon. However, ORS 759 pertains to regulatory oversight of utility providers and how they conduct
business within Oregon. This Chapter does not provide guidance or limitations for local jurisdictions
responsible for reviewing and approving WTS facilities in accordance with adopted zoning and
Development Code standards.
Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 759.015, it is the goal of the State of Oregon to “secure and maintain
high-quality universal telecommunications service at just and reasonable rates for all classes of customers
and to encourage innovation within the industry by a balanced program of regulation and competition”.
The state Public Utility Commission is responsible for administering the statutes with respect to
telecommunications rates and services.
Finding 7: In accordance with ORS 759.016, it is the goal of the state of Oregon to promote access to
broadband services in order to improve the economy, improve the quality of life in communities
throughout the state, and to reduce the economic gap between communities that have access to broadband
digital services and those that do not. One of the ways that the State of Oregon policy proposes to
achieve that goal is by “Removing barriers to the full deployment of broadband digital applications and
services and providing incentives for the removal of those barriers[.]” ORS 759.016(2)(d). Streamlining
the development review process and standards that are applicable to small wireless facilities in the public
right-of-way will reduce development-related barriers to the deployment of future mobile broadband
infrastructure.
Finding 8: In the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, the FCC determined that state and
local governments are preempted under the Telecommunications Act from applying aesthetic
requirements for small wireless facilities unless they are (1) reasonable; (2) no more burdensome than
those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; (3) objective; and (4) published in advance.
The new FCC rules become effective on January 14, 2019. The proposed amendments implement
aesthetic standards for small wireless facilities that are reasonable. The City was provided with examples
of small wireless facilities by representatives of the wireless industry at the League of Oregon Cities’ “5G
Summit” on October 25, 2018. Most of the examples provided are designs that are permitted under the
proposed standards. The proposed standards are no more burdensome than those applied to other types of
infrastructure; in general, they are less burdensome than other types of wireless telecommunications
systems facilities because they do not provide for discretionary review. The proposed standards are
objective in their regulation of aesthetics, and they are published in advance by virtue of being adopted
into the Springfield Development Code. The standards include the ability of the City Engineer to allow
deviations or modifications to the proposed standards, but these are to allow adjustments for identified
engineering or safety issues, and not to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of small wireless facilities.
Finding 9: The FCC Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order also includes new shot-clock
requirements for approving all applications for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way. These
shot-clock for attachments to existing or replacement poles is 60 days; the shot-clock for entirely new
poles in the public right-of-way is 90 days. Under the current regulations in SDC 4.3-145, most small
wireless facilities would require Type III development review and Discretionary Use approval. The Type
III review process requires 20 days for mailed notice of a quasi-judicial hearing, up to 21 days after the
first public hearing to leave the record open allowed by law, 15 days to appeal the Planning
Commission’s decision to City Council, time to schedule the City Council appeal hearing and provide
Attachment 2 - Page 5 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 5 of 7
notice of the hearing, and time for the City Council to make a decision. It would be nearly impossible to
approve small wireless facilities under Type III review within 60 days and extremely difficult to do so
within in 90 days. Because the FCC rules preempt the City from applying discretionary aesthetic
approval criteria, there is no need to provide a quasi-judicial decision-making process to an application
for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way (unless necessitated within the Willamette River
Greenway Overlay District for a new pole). The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145 remove the
discretionary approval criteria for small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and classify these
facilities as low visibility facilities that are subject to Type I ministerial review. The Type I ministerial
review process does not include mailed notice, a public hearing, or a hearing on appeal, and therefore will
allow the City to approval or deny applications for small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way
within the shot-clocks established by the FCC.
Conclusion: There are no state statutes that directly apply to the content of the proposed
amendments, but the proposed amendments are in keeping with the State of Oregon’s expressed
policy regarding access to telecommunications and broadband services. The proposed amendments
comply with the federal Telecommunications Act as interpreted by the Federal Communications
Commission. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet Criterion A.2.
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Finding 10: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.” The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145 are the subject of a
legislative decision-making process with public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission and City
Council. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendment on November 20, 2018. The Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the legal
notices section of The Register-Guard on November 13, 2018. The recommendation of the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration at a public hearing
scheduled for January 7, 2019. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Goal 1.
Finding 11: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide planning
program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the plan’s
policies into force and effect. As discussed under Criteria A.1., the City has adopted a comprehensive
plan and the proposed amendments are consistent with that plan.
Finding 12: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land and Goal 4 – Forest Land apply to areas that are outside the
City’s Urban Growth Boundary, and are not applicable.
Finding 13: The proposed amendments do not alter the City’s acknowledged land use regulations for
complying with Goals 5 through 10. Therefore, these goals are not applicable to the proposed
amendment.
Finding 14: Goal 11–Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision of
public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. Communications services are
identified in Goal 11, but within the definition of urban facilities and services that are provided at the
appropriate type and level to support planned development. Wireless telecommunications systems are not
listed among the public facilities that must be included in local public facilities plans. As explained under
Criteria A.1, the proposed amendments reduce barriers to the deployment of new communications
services within Springfield to meet future demand for wireless data services and access to broadband.
Attachment 2 - Page 6 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 6 of 7
Finding 15: Goal 12 – Transportation requires the City to plan for the provision of a “safe, convenient
and economic transportation system.” OAR 660-012-0060 requires that proposed amendments to a
comprehensive plan or land use regulation that significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility provide mitigation. The proposed amendments address small wireless facilities that are located in
the public rights-of-way, but they will not significantly affect any existing or planned transportation
facility because they will not affect the flow of traffic or transit services within the right-of-way, nor will
they result in any increase in vehicle trips. The proposed amendments include requirements to protect
traffic safety and pedestrian safety. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances,
policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 12 requirements. Therefore this action has no
effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 12.
Finding 16: Goal 13–Energy Conservation states that “land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles.” The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies,
plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. Streamlining the standards and process
for siting small wireless facilities in the public rights-of-way is likely to have no net effect on energy
conservation because these facilities are likely to replace demand for new macrocell WTS facilities.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 13.
Finding 17: Goal 14–Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and to
incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The proposed amendments
streamline development review for siting telecommunications infrastructure in the public right-of-way in
compliance with Goal 14, and do not otherwise affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or
studies adopted to comply with Goal 14 requirements.
Finding 18: Goal 15–Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits. The
regulations in the City’s Willamette River Greenway Overlay District (SDC 3.3-300) and in SDC 4.3-145
allow low visibility and stealth facilities within the overlay. The proposed amendments to SDC 4.3-145
do not change or nullify the requirement for development proposals to comply with the City’s existing
Willamette River Greenway regulations regardless of the underlying zoning, and to demonstrate
compliance with Goal 15 requirements. Staff notes that this proposed amendment applies only to facilities
located within existing public right-of-way inside the Springfield City limits. Small wireless facilities
could be placed on existing or replacement utility poles, which would not result in any new disturbance of
land or habitat. Any small wireless facilities that are proposed for new poles inside the Greenway
Setback would require additional Discretionary Use approval under the provisions of SDC 3.3-300.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 15.
Finding 19: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and Ocean
Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield.
Therefore, in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16 through 19 do not
apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: The code amendments comply with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules and therefore meet Criterion A.3.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings above, staff concludes that the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145 comply
with the applicable criteria of approval for amendments to the Springfield Development Code, under SDC
Attachment 2 - Page 7 of 30
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings, Page 7 of 7
5.6-115. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council
to adopt the proposed amendments.
Attachment 2 - Page 8 of 30
Exhibit B
Proposed Code Amendments
The proposed code amendments are shown in legislative format (deleted text with strike-thru
red font and new text with underline red font).
4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facilities
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to:
1. Implement the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996;
2. Provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards and review procedures
for the placement, operation, alteration and removal of WTS facilities;
3. Allow new WTS facilities where necessary to provide service coverage and there
is a demonstrated need that cannot be met through existing facilities;
4. Maximize the use of existing WTS facilities in order to minimize the need to
construct additional facilities;
5. Encourage the siting of new WTS facilities in preferred locations;
6. Lessen impacts of new WTS facilities on surrounding residential areas; and
7. Minimize visual impacts of new WTS facilities through careful design,
configuration, screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques.
B. Applicability/Conflicts.
1. Applicability. This Section applies within Springfield’s city limits and its Urban
Services AreaGrowth Boundary. No WTS facility may be constructed, altered (to include
co-locations) or replaced, unless exempt, without complying with the requirements of
this Section. Exempt facilities are listed in Subsection D. below.
2. Conflicts. In cases where:
a. The development standards of this Section conflict with other Sections of
this Code, these standards will prevail.
EXCEPTION: In the Glenwood Riverfront, the WTS standards regarding type
and height of the antenna will apply. All other aspects of the application
submittal and review process specified in this Section will apply.
Attachment 2 - Page 9 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 2 of 22
Page 2 of 22
b. These development standards conflict with Federal and/or State
regulations, the Federal and/or State regulations will prevail.
C. Pre-Existing WTS Facilities.
1. WTS facilities that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance
codified in this Section 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 D.1.
3. Lawfully existing WTS facilities may be replaced as specified in Subsection D.2.
D. Exemptions. The following shall be considered exempt structures or activities, however,
all other applicable Federal, State and City permits will be required:
1. Emergency or routine repairs or routine maintenance of previously approved
WTS facilities.
2. Replacement of existing previously approved WTS facilities.
a. A WTS facility may be replaced if it:
i. Is in the exact location of the facility being replaced;
ii. Is of a construction type identical in height, size, lighting and
painting;
iii. Can accommodate the co-location of additional antennas or
arrays;
iv. Does not increase radio frequency emissions from any source;
and
v. Does not intrude or cause further intrusion into a setback area.
b. Those WTS facilities that cannot meet the replacement standard in
Subsection D.2.a. will be treated as new construction, requiring Type I or III
review as specified in Subsection H.
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.
Attachment 2 - Page 10 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 3 of 22
Page 3 of 22
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 that are less than 3 cubic
feet total volume for all equipment. Such facilities include including, but are not limited
to, microcell radio transceivers located on existing utility poles and light standards and
strand-mounted wi-fi devices within public right-of-way.
9. Cell on Wheels (COW), which are permitted as temporary uses in nonresidential
Metro Plan or 2030 Springfield Refinement Plan designations for a period not to exceed
14 days, or during a period of emergency as declared by the City, County, or State.
E. Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Section shall have the following
meanings:
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.
Approval Authority.
1. Type I Review. Staff has the authority to approve new co-locations, equipment
replacement, and applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities.
2. Type III Review. The Planning Commission and the City Council are the
Approval Authority for applications to construct high and medium visibility WTS facilities
within the city limits.
Attachment 2 - Page 11 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 4 of 22
Page 4 of 22
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.
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 or other support structure 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:
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. Except for small
wireless facilities, the following 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,
Attachment 2 - Page 12 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 5 of 22
Page 5 of 22
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.
5. Small wireless facilities located on small wireless facility structures in the public
right-of-way that meet the standards in section 4.3-145.F.28.a. through c.
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.
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 1
or more antennas without guy wires or ground anchors.
Attachment 2 - Page 13 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 6 of 22
Page 6 of 22
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.
Small Wireless Facility. A WTS facility located on a small wireless facility structure in City
limits in the public right-of-way that meets the dimensional standards in section 4.3-145.F.28,
typically taking the form of one or two small antenna(s) and associated pole-mounted
equipment.
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.
Structure, Small Wireless Facility. Any utility pole, guy pole or support pole, utility pole
extension, light standard or other similar pole in the public right-of-way. A small wireless
facility structure may be an existing, modified, new, or replacement structure.
Attachment 2 - Page 14 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 7 of 22
Page 7 of 22
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, freestanding
tower, or other structure designed and primarily used to support antennas; provided that,
“tower” does not include small wireless facility structures.
Whip Antenna. An antenna that transmits or receives signals in 360 degrees. Whip antennas
are typically cylindrical in shape, less than 3 inches in diameter and no more than 6 feet long,
including the mounting.
Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) Facility. Any facility that transmits and/or
receives electromagnetic waves, including, but not limited to, antennas, dish antennas,
microwave antennas, and other types of equipment for the transmission or receipt of these
signals, including, but not limited to, telecommunications towers and similar supporting
structures, equipment cabinets or buildings, parking areas, and other accessory development.
This definition also includes any facility that transmits radio or television signals. This definition
does not apply to amateur radio stations as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission, Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules.
F. General Standards. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes limitations
on the siting standards that local governments can place on WTS facilities. Section 704 of the
Act states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in this Section to the extent that
they do not violate Federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the
standards found in this Section constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for
providing coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
1. Design for Co-Location. All new towers shall be designed to structurally
accommodate the maximum number of additional users technically practicable.
2. Demonstrated Need for New WTS Facilities. Except for small wireless facilities,
aApplications 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. Except for small wireless facilities, tThe
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
Attachment 2 - Page 15 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 8 of 22
Page 8 of 22
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. Except for small
wireless facilities, tThe application shall demonstrate a good faith effort to identify and
evaluate less intrusive alternatives, including, but not limited to, less sensitive sites,
alternative design systems, alternative tower designs, the use of repeaters, or multiple
facilities. Subsection F.5. defines the type of WTS facilities that are allowed in each
zoning district.
5. Location of WTS Facilities by Type. Subsection E. defines various types of WTS
facilities by their visual impact. These are: high visibility, moderate visibility, low visibility
and stealth facilities. Table 4.3-1 lists the type of WTS facilities allowed in each of
Springfield’s zoning districts.
Table 4.3-1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial High visibility
Heavy Industrial Moderate visibility
Light-Medium Industrial Low visibility
Quarry Mining Operations Stealth
Community Commercial Moderate visibility
Campus Industrial Low visibility
Booth Kelly Mixed Use Stealth
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Public Land and Open Space (1)
Neighborhood Commercial Low visibility
General Office Stealth
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
(1) Moderate visibility WTS facilities in the Public Land and Open Space District are allowed only within the city
limits.
6. Maximum Number of High Visibility WTS Facilities. No more than 1 high visibility
facility is allowed on any 1 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:
Attachment 2 - Page 16 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 9 of 22
Page 9 of 22
a. Co-location of additional high visibility facilities is consistent with
neighborhood character;
b. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high
visibility WTS facilities would have the effect of prohibiting service because the
proposed facility would fill a significant gap in coverage and no alternative
locations are available and technologically feasible; or
c. The provider has shown that denial of an application for additional high
visibility WTS facilities would unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services.
7. Separation between Towers. No new WTS tower may be installed closer than
2,000 feet from any existing or proposed tower unless supporting findings can be made
under Subsections F.2., 3. and 4. by the Approval Authority.
8. WTS Facilities Towers Adjacent to Residentially Zoned Property. In order to
ensure public safety, all towers located on or adjacent to any residential zoning district
shall be set back from all residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the
height of the facility, including any antennas or other appurtenances. The setback shall
be measured from that part of the WTS tower that is closest to the neighboring
residentially zoned property.
9. Historic Buildings and Structures. Except for small wireless facilities, nNo WTS
facility shall be allowed on any building or structure, or in any district, that is listed on
any Federal, State or local historic register unless a finding is made by the Approval
Authority that the proposed facility will have no adverse effect on the appearance of the
building, structure, or district. No change in architecture and no high or moderate
visibility WTS facilities are permitted on any building or any site within a historic district.
Proposed WTS facilities in the Historic Overlay District are also subject to the applicable
provisions of Section 3.3-900.
10. Equipment Location. The following location standards shall apply to WTS
facilities, except for small wireless facilities:
a. No WTS facility shall be located in a front, rear, or side yard building
setback in any base zone and no portion of any antenna array shall extend
beyond the property lines;
b. Where there is no building, the WTS facility shall be located at least 30
feet from a property line abutting a street;
c. For guyed WTS towers, all guy anchors shall be located at least 50 feet
from all property lines.
Attachment 2 - Page 17 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 10 of 22
Page 10 of 22
11. Tower Height. Towers may exceed the height limits otherwise provided for in
this Code. However, all towers greater than the height limit of the base zone shall
require Discretionary Use approval through a Type III review process, subject to the
approval criteria specified in Subsection I.
12. Accessory Building Size. All accessory buildings and structures built to contain
equipment accessory to a WTS facility shall not exceed 12 feet in height unless a greater
height is necessary and required by a condition of approval to maximize architectural
integration. Each accessory building or structure located on any residential or public land
and open space zoned property is limited to 200 square feet, unless approved through
the Discretionary Use process.
13. Visual Impact. Except for small wireless facilities, which must meet the
requirements of section 4.3-145.F.28, all 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 nonreflective
and chosen to minimize visibility. Facilities, including support equipment and buildings,
shall be painted or textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background,
unless required by any other applicable law.
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. Façade-mounted antennas shall be architecturally
integrated into the building design and otherwise made as unobtrusive as possible. If
possible, antennas shall be located entirely within an existing or newly created
architectural feature so as to be completely screened from view. Façade-mounted
antennas shall not extend more than 2 feet out from the building face.
17. Roof-Mounted Antenna. Roof-mounted antennas shall be constructed at the
minimum height possible to serve the operator’s service area and shall be set back as
far from the building edge as possible or otherwise screened to minimize visibility from
the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
18. Compliance with Photo Simulations. As a condition of approval and prior to final
staff inspection of the WTS facility, the applicant shall submit evidence, e.g., photos,
Attachment 2 - Page 18 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 11 of 22
Page 11 of 22
sufficient to prove that the facility is in substantial conformance with photo simulations
provided with the initial application. Nonconformance shall require any necessary
modification to achieve compliance within 90 days of notifying the applicant.
19. Noise. Noise from any equipment supporting the WTS facility shall comply with
the regulations specified in OAR 340-035-0035.
20. Signage. No signs, striping, graphics, or other attention-getting devices are
permitted on any WTS facility except for warning and safety signage that shall:
a. Have a surface area of no more than 3 square feet;
b. Be affixed to a fence or equipment cabinet; and
c. Be limited to no more than 2 signs, unless more are required by any
other applicable law.
21. Traffic Obstruction. Maintenance vehicles servicing WTS facilities located in the
public or private right-of-way shall not park on the traveled way or in a manner that
obstructs traffic.
22. Parking. No net loss in required on-site parking spaces shall occur as a result of
the installation of any WTS facility.
23. Sidewalks and Pathways. Cabinets and other equipment shall not impair
pedestrian use of sidewalks or other pedestrian paths or bikeways on public or private
land.
24. Lighting. WTS facilities shall not include any beacon lights or strobe lights,
unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or other applicable
authority. If beacon lights or strobe lights are required, the Approval Authority shall
review any available alternatives and approve the design with the least visual impact. All
other site lighting for security and maintenance purposes shall be shielded and directed
downward, and shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards in Section 4.5-100,
unless required by any other applicable law.
25. Landscaping. For WTS facilities with towers that exceed the height limitations of
the base zone, at least 1 row of evergreen trees or shrubs, not less than 4 feet high at
the time of planting, and spaced out not more than 15 feet apart, shall be provided in
the landscape setback. Shrubs shall be of a variety that can be expected to grow to form
a continuous hedge at least 5 feet in height within 2 years of planting. Trees and shrubs
in the vicinity of guy wires shall be of a kind that would not exceed 20 feet in height or
would not affect the stability of the guys. In all other cases, the landscaping, screening
and fence standards specified in Section 4.4-100 shall apply.
26. Prohibited WTS Facilities.
Attachment 2 - Page 19 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 12 of 22
Page 12 of 22
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.
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.
28. Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. Small wireless facilities in
the public right-of-way must comply with the following standards:
a. Small wireless facility structures must meet the following height limits,
whichever is more:
i. 50 feet or less in height, including antenna height; or
ii. No more than 10% taller than the existing structure or other
adjacent utility poles, light poles, or similar structures.
b. Each antenna associated with the small wireless facility, excluding
associated antenna equipment, must be no more than 3 cubic feet in
volume.
c. All wireless equipment associated with the structure other than the
antenna, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna
and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, must be no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume. Antenna equipment includes only
such equipment that is associated with the antenna that is in the same
fixed location as the antenna, and is installed at the same time as the
antenna.
d. No more than a total of two antennas or antenna arrays may be located
on a single pole.
e. Antennas may not project more than five feet above or two feet laterally
from the pole, or the minimum necessary to achieve required safety
clearances. Omni-directional antennas mounted above the pole may not
exceed the diameter of the pole on which they are attached, or 16 inches
in diameter, whichever is greater.
Attachment 2 - Page 20 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 13 of 22
Page 13 of 22
f. All equipment must be mounted to the pole at least 10 feet above grade.
Alternately, equipment may be located in an underground vault or
another location on the pole upon approval by the City Engineer.
g. Other than the antenna, antenna equipment, electric meter, and power
disconnect, all pole-mounted equipment must be concealed in a single
flush-mounted cabinet that complies with the dimensional standards in
this section or otherwise entirely shielded from public view.
EXCEPTION: Multiple equipment cabinets on a single pole are permitted
only when necessary to comply with the pole owner’s joint use
requirements.
h. All cabling and wires that run between the antenna and equipment must
be concealed or shielded inside conduit.
i. All antennas, equipment, conduit, cabling, cabinets and ancillary parts
must be painted or textured in a non-reflective neutral color that
matches, or is compatible with, the pole.
j. Where there are no existing overhead utilities, utility service lines and
backhaul fiber must be located underground, unless approved otherwise
by the City Engineer.
k. All new or replacement small wireless facility structures must comply with
the following:
i. A replacement small wireless facility structure must be placed as
close to the same location as the existing structure as is possible,
unless minor adjustments to location are needed to comply with
ADA requirements or for public safety, as determined by the City
Engineer.
ii. A new small wireless facility structure is permitted only when no
other existing structure in the right-of-way is available or suitable
to accommodate the small wireless facility, and no other structure
in the right-of-way is available or suitable to be replaced or
modified to accommodate the small wireless facility.
iii. The location of a small wireless facility structure must allow
sufficient clear space for safe passage on the sidewalk; must not
be located within the vision clearance area; must not interfere
with other utilities, traffic control devices, or intersections; and
must be safe, as determined by the City Engineer.
l. Small wireless facilities are not permitted on decorative light poles and no
decorative light poles will be removed or replaced to accommodate small
wireless facilities. EXCEPTION: Upon a determination that no other
option is reasonably available for meeting an identified capacity,
Attachment 2 - Page 21 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 14 of 22
Page 14 of 22
coverage, or other service need, including locating the small wireless
facility on private property outside the public right-of-way, the City will
permit replacement of a decorative light pole with a small wireless facility
that is camouflaged to match the existing decorative pole.
m. The City may require design or concealment measures for small wireless
facilities and associated structures in the Historic Overlay District. Any
such design or concealment measures are not considered part of the
small wireless facility for purpose of the size restrictions in this
subsection.
G. Application Submittal Requirements. All applications for a WTS facility shall provide the
following reports, documents or documentation:
1. Submittal Requirements for Low Visibility and Stealth Facilities (Type I review).
All applications for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities shall submit the following
reports and documentation:
a. Narrative. The application shall include a written narrative that describes
in detail all of the equipment and components proposed to be part of the WTS
facility, including, but not limited to, towers, antennas and arrays, equipment
cabinets, back-up generators, air conditioning units, lighting, landscaping and
fencing.
b. Geographic Service Area. Except for small wireless facilities, tThe
applicant shall identify the geographic service area for the proposed WTS facility,
including a map showing all of the applicant’s and any other existing sites in the
local service network associated with the gap the facility is meant to close. The
applicant shall describe how this service area fits into and is necessary for the
service provider’s service network.
The service area map for the proposed WTS facility shall include the following:
i. The area of significant gap in the existing coverage area;
ii. The service area to be effected by the proposed WTS facility;
iii. The locations of existing WTS tower facilities where co-location is
possible within a 5-mile radius of the proposed WTS facility.
c. Co-Location. An engineer’s analysis/report of the recommended site
location area is required for the a proposed WTS facilitytower. For small wireless
facilities in the public right-of-way, this report is required only when a new
structure is proposed. If an existing structure approved for co-location is within
the area recommended by the engineer’s report, reasons for not collocating shall
be provided demonstrating at least one of the following deficiencies:
Attachment 2 - Page 22 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 15 of 22
Page 15 of 22
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.
d. Plot Plan. A plot plan showing: the lease area, antenna structure, height
above grade and setback from property lines, equipment shelters and setback
from property lines, access, the connection point with the land line system, and
all landscape areas intended to screen the WTS facility.
e. RF Emissions. An engineer’s statement that the RF emissions at grade,
or at nearest habitable space when attached to an existing structure, complies
with FCC rules for these emissions; the cumulative RF emissions if co-located.
Provide the RF range in megahertz and the wattage output of the equipment.
f. Description of Service. A description of the type of service offered
including, but not limited to: voice, data, video and the consumer receiving
equipment.
g. Provider Information. Identification of the provider and backhaul
provider, if different.
h. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation. Provide the zoning and
applicable comprehensive plan (e.g., Metro Plan, 2030 Springfield Refinement
Plan) designation of the proposed site and the surrounding properties within 500
feet.
i. FCC, FAA or Other Required Licenses and Determinations. Provide a
copy of all pertinent submittals to the FCC, FAA or other State or Federal
agencies including environmental assessments and impact statements, and data,
assumptions, calculations, and measurements relating to RF emissions safety
standards.
j. Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. Applications for small
wireless facilities in City limits in the public right-of-way must also include:
i. A structural report stamped by an Oregon licensed engineer that
the small wireless facility structure can structurally accommodate
Attachment 2 - Page 23 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 16 of 22
Page 16 of 22
the proposed small wireless facility; For attachment to existing
structures, the engineer who authors and stamps the report must
have conducted an in-person inspection of the pole and any issues
with the condition of the pole must be noted in the report;
ii. A photo simulation showing the maximum silhouette, color and
finish of the proposed facility;
iii. For poles that are not owned by the City of Springfield, written
authorization by the pole owner regarding the specific plan to
attach to the pole; and
iv. All necessary permits and applications required under the
Springfield Municipal Code, which may be processed concurrently.
2. Submittal Requirements for Moderate and High Visibility Facilities (Type III
Review). Applications for moderate and high visibility WTS facilities shall require all of
the required materials for low visibility and stealth WTS facilities specified in Subsection
G.1. In addition to the applicable Site Plan and Discretionary Use application
requirements, WTS applications shall require the applicant to address the following:
a. Height. Provide an engineer’s diagram showing the height of the WTS
facility and all of its visible components, including the number and types of
antennas that can be accommodated. Carriers shall provide evidence that
establishes that the proposed WTS facilities are designed to the minimum height
required from a technological standpoint to meet the carrier’s coverage
objectives. If the WTS facility tower height will exceed the height restrictions of
the applicable base zone, the narrative shall include a discussion of the physical
constraints, e.g., topographical features, making the additional height necessary.
The narrative shall include consideration of the possibility for design alternatives,
including the use of multiple sites or microcell technology that would avoid the
need for the additional height for the proposed WTS facility.
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.
Attachment 2 - Page 24 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 17 of 22
Page 17 of 22
f. Co-Location. In addition to the co-location requirements specified in
Subsection G.1.c., the applicant shall submit a statement from an Oregon
registered engineer certifying that the proposed WTS facility and tower, as
designed and built, will accommodate co-locations, and that the facility complies
with the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation emission standards as specified
by the FCC. The applicant shall also submit:
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.
j. Utilities. Utility and service lines for proposed WTS facilities shall be
placed underground.
k. Alternative Site Analysis. The applicant shall include an analysis of
alternative sites and technological design options for the WTS facility within and
outside of the City that are capable of meeting the same service objectives as
the proposed site with an equivalent or lesser visual or aesthetic impact. If a new
tower is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate the need for a new tower,
and why alternative locations and design alternatives, or alternative technologies
including, but not limited to microcells and signal repeaters, cannot be used to
meet the identified service objectives.
l. Visual Impact Study and Photo Simulations. The applicant shall provide a
visual impact analysis showing the maximum silhouette, viewshed analysis, color
and finish palette, and screening for all components of the proposed WTS facility.
Attachment 2 - Page 25 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 18 of 22
Page 18 of 22
The analysis shall include photo simulations and other information necessary to
determine visual impact of the facility as seen from multiple directions. The
applicant shall include a map showing where the photos were taken.
3. Independent Consultation Report.
a. Review and approval of WTS facilities depends on highly specialized
scientific and engineering expertise not ordinarily available to Springfield staff or
to residents who may be adversely impacted by the proposed development of
these facilities. Therefore, in order to allow the Approval Authority to make an
informed decision on a proposed WTS facility, the Director may require the
applicant to fund an independent consultation report for all new moderate and
high visibility facilities. The consultation shall be performed by a qualified
professional with expertise pertinent to the scope of the service requested.
b. The scope of the independent consultation shall focus on the applicant’s
alternatives analysis. The consultant will evaluate conclusions of applicant’s
analysis to determine if there are alternative locations or technologies that were
not considered or which could be employed to reduce the service gap but with
less visual or aesthetic impact. There may be circumstances where this scope
may vary but the overall objective shall be to verify that the applicant’s proposal
is safe and is the least impactful alternative for closing the service gap.
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 5.1-120C. It is anticipated that the independent
consultation will be required when the applicant proposes to locate a moderate
or high visibility WTS facility in a residential zoning district or within 500 feet of a
residential zoning district. Other instances where a proposed WTS facility may
have a visual or aesthetic impact on sensitive neighborhoods could also prompt
the Director to require an independent consultation.
H. Review Process. The review process is determined by the type of WTS facility or activity
that is proposed. High or moderate visibility WTS facilities, defined in Subsection E., 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 5.1-120A. is required only for high and moderate visibility WTS facility
applications. Applicable development standards as specified in Subsection F. and
submittal requirements as specified in Subsection G., will be discussed at the DIM.
2. Type I Review Process. The following WTS facilities are allowed with the
approval of the Director with applicable building and electrical permits:
Attachment 2 - Page 26 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 19 of 22
Page 19 of 22
a. Stealth and low visibility WTS facilities, as defined in Subsection E., in
any zoning district.
b. Façade-mounted antennas or low powered networked
telecommunications facilities, e.g., as those employing microcell antennas
integrated into the architecture of an existing building in a manner that no
change to the architecture is apparent and no part of the WTS facility is visible to
public view.
c. Antennas or arrays that are hidden from public view through the use of
architectural treatments, e.g., within a cupola, steeple, or parapet which is
consistent with the applicable building height limitation.
d. New antennas or arrays including side-mounted antennas and small top-
mounted antennas that are attached to an existing broadcast communication
facility located in any zone. No more than 3 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 Small wireless facilities proposed within the public right-of-way on
an existing, modified, new, or replacement utility or light polesmall wireless
facility structure in any zoning district in City limits, that meet the standards in
section 4.3-145.F.28., 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;
Attachment 2 - Page 27 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 20 of 22
Page 20 of 22
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 I. to
evaluate the proposal.
3. Type III Review Process. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official review
and approve a Discretionary Use application and a concurrently processed Site Plan
Review application for the following WTS facilities:
a. High visibility and moderate visibility WTS facilities.
b. All other locations and situations not specified in Subsections H.2. and 3.
c. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official will use the applicable
criteria specified in Subsection I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
4. Council Notification and Possible Review.
a. A briefing memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to the City
Council upon receipt of an application for a high or moderate visibility or any
other WTS 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 I. in place of the
Discretionary Use criteria in Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
b. By agreement with Lane County, the Hearings Official shall be the
Approval Authority for applications outside of the city limits but inside of the
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The Hearings Official will use the applicable
criteria specified in Subsection I. in place of the Discretionary Use criteria in
Section 5.9-120 to evaluate the proposal.
I. Approval Criteria.
1. Low Visibility and Stealth WTS Facility Applications. The Director shall approve
the low visibility and stealth WTS facility applications upon a determination that the
applicable standards specified in Subsection F. and the submittal requirements specified
in Subsection G. are met.
Attachment 2 - Page 28 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 21 of 22
Page 21 of 22
2. Moderate and High Visibility WTS Facility Applications. The Approval Authority
shall approve moderate visibility and high visibility WTS facility applications upon a
determination that the applicable standards specified in Subsection F. and the submittal
requirements specified in Subsection G. are met. Through the Discretionary Use review,
the Approval Authority shall also determine if there are any impacts of the proposed
WTS facility on adjacent properties and on the public that can be mitigated through
application of other Springfield Development Code standards or conditions of approval
as specified in Subsection J.
J. Conditions of Approval. For Type III applications, the Approval Authority may impose
any reasonable conditions deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the approval criteria
as allowed by Section 5.9-125.
K. Maintenance. The property owner and the carrier in charge of the WTS facility and
tower shall maintain all equipment and structures, landscaping, driveways and mitigating
measures as approved. Additionally:
1. All WTS facilities shall maintain compliance with current RF emission standards
of the FCC, the National Electric Safety Code, and all State and local regulations.
2. All equipment cabinets shall display a legible operator’s contact number for
reporting maintenance problems.
L. Inspections.
1. The City shall have the authority to enter onto the property upon which a WTS
facility is located to inspect the facility for the purpose of determining whether it
complies with the Building Code and all other construction standards provided by the
City and Federal and State law.
2. The City reserves the right to conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable
notice to the WTS facility owner. In the event the inspection results in a determination
that violation of applicable construction and maintenance standards established by the
City has occurred, remedy of the violation may include cost recovery for all City costs
incurred in confirming and processing the violation.
M. Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use. The following requirements apply to the
abandonment and/or discontinuation of use for all WTS facilities:
1. All WTS facilities located on a utility pole shall be promptly removed at the
operator’s expense at any time a utility is scheduled to be placed underground or
otherwise moved.
2. All operators who intend to abandon or discontinue the use of any WTS facility
shall notify the City of their intentions no less than 60 days prior to the final day of use.
Attachment 2 - Page 29 of 30
Exhibit B – Proposed Code Amendments, Page 22 of 22
Page 22 of 22
3. WTS facilities shall be considered abandoned 90 days following the final day of
use or operation.
4. All abandoned WTS facilities shall be physically removed by the service provider
and/or property owner no more than 90 days following the final day of use or of
determination that the facility has been abandoned, whichever occurs first.
5. The City reserves the right to remove any WTS facilities that are abandoned for
more than 90 days at the expense of the facility owner.
6. Any abandoned site shall be restored to its natural or former condition. Grading
and landscaping in good condition may remain.
N. Review of WTS Facilities Standards. In the event that the Federal or State government
adopts mandatory or advisory standards more stringent than those described in this Section,
staff will prepare a report and recommendation for the City Council with recommendations on
any necessary amendments to the City’s adopted standards.
Attachment 2 - Page 30 of 30
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PO Box 34628 - #75604
Seattle, WA 98124
(fax) 206.219.6717
www.wirelesspolicy.com
January 2, 2019
The Honorable Christine Lundberg, Mayor
Springfield City Council
225 Fifth Street
Springfield Oregon 97477
VIA EMAIL: mayor@springfield-or.gov; svangordon@springfield-or.gov; hwylie@springfield-
or.gov; smoore@springfield-or.gov; lstoehr@springfield-or.gov; mwoodrow@springfield-or.gov;
jpishioneri@springfield-or.gov
Re: Proposed Small Wireless Code Change
Development Code Section 4.3-145
January 7, 2019 Hearing
Dear Mayor Lundberg and Councilors:
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the City of Springfield’s proposed
code changes to regulate small wireless facilities. We submit these comments on behalf
of AT&T.
AT&T understands that the City of Springfield (“City”) intends to update its Wireless
Telecommunications System Facilities code to allow small wireless facilities in the right-
of-way, consistent with the recent Federal Communications Commission Order1
addressing the deployment of small wireless facilities.
Small Wireless Facility Standards
According to the FCC Order, aesthetic regulations for small wireless facilities apply to the
extent they are reasonable, technically feasible, objective, no more burdensome than
those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and published in advance.2
1 Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment,
Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-133 (rel. Sept. 27,
2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 51867 (Oct. 15, 2018)(“FCC Order”).
2 Id., paras. 86-87.
Attachment 3 - Page 1 of 6
January 2, 2019
Page 2
Each small wireless facility standard must be technically feasible for all carriers. With
respect to the draft code before you now, AT&T has previously suggested that some of
the proposed standards be deleted or changed by inserting the phrase “to the extent
technically feasible.” AT&T incorporates by reference all of its previously submitted
comments on these and other issues.
In your January 7th hearing, AT&T suggests that the City reconsider two changes of
particular concern:
• Delete limitation on number of antennas. Subsection –F.28.d (see page 12 of
the proposed code change) limits the number of antennas to no more than two
on a single pole. AT&T previously suggested deleting this subsection because,
among other reasons, such a limitation could foreclose the introduction of new
technology, making compliance with this standard technically infeasible. For
instance, AT&T plans to add 5G technology to existing small wireless installations
with a new, special-purpose antenna. The FCC’s new definition of small wireless
facility allows antennas without a numerical limit, and AT&T suggests the City do
the same.
• Delete or modify limitation on vertical and horizontal projections. Subsection -
F.28.e (see page 12 of the proposed code change) limits the projection of
antennas to five feet vertically and two feet laterally from the pole. AT&T
previously suggested deleting these limitations. We note that a later qualification
to the standard (“or the minimum necessary to achieve required safety
clearances”) appears meant to address some of AT&T’s concerns about a lack of
feasibility in this standard, but it does not adequately address other technical
reasons why the standard could be unworkable. For example, AT&T’s canister
antenna, when mounted to the side of a pole, must maintain sufficient distance
from the pole to avoid obstruction by the pole itself. This specific concern might
be addressed by confirming that the proposed two-foot limitation will be
“measured from the inside edge of the antenna to the surface of the pole,” or the
City could avoid this and additional issues of infeasibility by deleting these
limitations.
Other Comments on Development Code Section 4.3-145
After discussions with Ms. Kraaz about the limited scope and expedited nature of the code
change before you now, AT&T is holding its detailed suggested changes for the
consistency of the remainder of the City’s wireless code with the FCC Order. In particular,
AT&T remains concerned about the code’s strict requirements that an applicant
demonstrate a significant gap in coverage, a legal test that the FCC Order now supersedes.
AT&T urges the City to revisit its wireless code soon to address this and other issues.
Attachment 3 - Page 2 of 6
January 2, 2019
Page 3
Macrocell facilities remain a critical part of wireless networks, and AT&T would be happy
to work with the City to update its code accordingly.
We appreciate your consideration of AT&T’s comments and for all of the efforts by
Springfield leaders and staff to establish workable policies for AT&T and the entire
industry.
Rich Roche will attend your January 7th meeting on AT&T’s behalf. Please let us know if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Meridee Pabst
meridee.pabst@wirelesspolicy.com
(425) 628-2660
cc: Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney’s Office
Rich Roche, AT&T External Affairs
Attachment 3 - Page 3 of 6
{00011066:1}
From: PITMAN Tamara <TamaraP@subutil.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:01 PM
To: KRAAZ Kristina <kskraaz@springfield-or.gov>
Cc: LEAHY Joe (HL) <jjl@emeraldlaw.com>; GREENE Kyle <kgreene@springfield-or.gov>; DONOVAN
James <jdonovan@springfield-or.gov>; AMANN Nick <NickA@subutil.com>; NELSON Jeff (SUB)
<jeffn@subutil.com>; KING Sanjeev <sanjeevk@subutil.com>
Subject: RE: proposed Development Code amendments for small cells
Kristina,
The 50 foot poles tend to be in areas with greater pole congestion, typically along Main Street and
industrial areas. As we move away from downtown, our poles are usually the tallest structures in the
area.
SUB is fine with a 50’ pole requiring a Type III review. I had read it to mean that there was a more strict
prohibition.
Tamara
From: KRAAZ Kristina [mailto:kskraaz@springfield-or.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:24 AM
To: PITMAN Tamara <TamaraP@subutil.com>
Cc: LEAHY Joe (HL) <jjl@emeraldlaw.com>; GREENE Kyle <kgreene@springfield-or.gov>; DONOVAN
James <jdonovan@springfield-or.gov>; AMANN Nick <NickA@subutil.com>; NELSON Jeff
<jeffn@subutil.com>; KING Sanjeev <sanjeevk@subutil.com>
Subject: RE: proposed Development Code amendments for small cells
Thank you, Tamara.
I will include your email in the public record for the City Council. That public hearing is
tentatively scheduled for January 7. In their recommendation to the City Council, the Planning
Commission did not make any changes to the code that I sent yesterday.
I did the math on the scenarios you described, and assuming I understand your description
correctly, this would allow an antenna up to 4’ tall on top of existing 45’ poles. Under the
updated recommended code, the height could be further increased with there are other
structures that are taller (for example, adjacent buildings, street lights, or traffic signals). Do
you generally have 50’ utility poles in commercial areas, or are these in residential districts
where other buildings and structures are likely to be shorter than 50’?
For your second question, SUB’s safety and NESC requirements are what is intended by the
language in subsection e that you noted below. To qualify for Type I review, the total pole and
antenna height would still need to fall within the 50’ or 10% height limitations, however.
I also wanted to clarify under the proposed code that if a pole extention or pole replacement
does not fit within the proposed 50 foot or 10% limit (whichever is greater), it does not mean
that the City could not approve a development application. It merely means that the City would
not use the Type I, staff-only review process. The reason that we are proposing the 50 foot or
Attachment 3 - Page 4 of 6
{00011066:1}
10% height limits is that these are the bounds set by the FCC for what the City must permit
without discretionary standards and within a shortened timeline. Facilities that fall outside
these limits could be approved through Discretionary Use approval, which allows the City to use
more discretion in reviewing the aesthetic attributes and impacts. It is the same process and
standards used to approve larger cell towers. In my knowledge, the City has not denied a
Discretionary Use application for wireless in the last ten years. The relevant height limit under
the Discretionary Use standards is the height allowed for buildings in the underlying zoning
district, or taller under additional discretionary standards. If SUB has concerns about using the
existing Discretionary Use approval process for the situations you described, please let me know
and I can also include that information in the public comment for the City Council.
Thank you again for your review and comment,
Kristina
Kristina Schmunk Kraaz
Assistant City Attorney
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street, Springfield OR 97477
541-744-4061 (Relay 711)
kskraaz@springfield-or.gov
Please contact me to request this email or its attachments in an accessible format.
This email may be subject to attorney-client privilege or contain attorney work product. Do not copy or
forward this message without first checking with me. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply
to me immediately and keep the contents of this email confidential.
From: PITMAN Tamara <TamaraP@subutil.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 10:00 AM
To: KRAAZ Kristina <kskraaz@springfield-or.gov>
Cc: LEAHY Joe (HL) <jjl@emeraldlaw.com>; GREENE Kyle <kgreene@springfield-or.gov>; DONOVAN
James <jdonovan@springfield-or.gov>; AMANN Nick <NickA@subutil.com>; NELSON Jeff (SUB)
<jeffn@subutil.com>; KING Sanjeev <sanjeevk@subutil.com>
Subject: RE: proposed Development Code amendments for small cells
Kristina,
Thank you for giving us the updated edits. I know that you have already gone through the planning
commission, but there are a couple of aspects that I need to comment on.
If the antenna ends up being placed above the primary lines, SUB is requiring that there be a minimum
of 7.5 feet of clearance (from the wires to the bottom of the antenna) so we can fit a bucket above the
wires when performing work on the antenna. This can be accomplished by either replacing the pole with
a taller one, or can be done with a pole top extension.
A standard distribution pole is 45’ in total length, which would have 6.5’ in the ground and can comply
with both SUB requirements and the City restrictions, as long as the 10% adjacent clause does not apply.
Attachment 3 - Page 5 of 6
{00011066:1}
There are places where we have 50’ poles (43’ above ground) where the total height including the
antenna will be greater than 50’ above ground, because of the 7.5’ extension + the antenna height. In
addition, the combined installation will greatly exceed the 10% allowance. It appears that the small cell
installations would be prohibited for these locations.
Would the SUB requirements for clearance fall under the ”required safety clearance”? The SUB
requirement is far more than is required by the NESC (11 inches).
Tamara
Attachment 3 - Page 6 of 6