Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities ITEM TITLE: CELL TOWER SITING STANDARDS

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/26/2012 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Mark Metzger Staff Phone No: Estimated Time: 30 minutes 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: CELL TOWER SITING STANDARDS ACTION REQUESTED: ISSUE STATEMENT: Council is requested to review the attached briefing memorandum that summarizes Springfield s existing cell tower siting standards and the effectiveness these have had in managing their siting and appearance. The memorandum also compares Springfield s standards with four other communities in Oregon. Staff will make a brief presentation highlighting the memorandum and requests Council comments and direction. Existing standards in the Springfield Development Code are intended to use increasing levels of development review to steer the installation of cell towers to industrial and public lands which are viewed as having less visual impact than commercial and residential areas. At issue is whether the existing standards have succeeded in minimizing the impacts of cell towers on sensitive neighborhoods and whether these standards need to be revisited. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memorandum DISCUSSION/ At the December 5, 2011, Council requested that staff provide information about the FINANCIAL feasibility of having design standards for cell towers in the City limits. Staff has IMPACT: prepared a briefing memorandum responding to the Council s request. Springfield has 18 cell tower facilities within its Urban Growth Boundary. Seventeen of these were built between 1995 and Only two applications for tower facilities have been received since 2005 and only one of those two were built. Based on the trend towards the use of smaller antennas for WTS coverage, it is unlikely that there will be a significant new demand for imposing new tower facilities as was experienced in past years. For the most part, providers in Springfield have replaced and upgraded equipment on existing towers and related facilities to accommodate increased service demand. Springfield has used increasing levels of design review to encourage towers to be built in industrial areas and on public land. Design review for placing towers in industrial/public land may be built using a Type I review process (staff review without public notice) requiring just building permits. Locating towers in commercial areas requires review (staff review with public notice) and Site Plan Review. Placing towers in residential areas requires a I review process that brings the matter before the Planning Commission (or Hearings Official) in a public hearing. A Discretionary Use process is used which allows wide latitude on the part of the decision makers to require stealth design to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. This approach has been largely successful. Fifteen of the 18 towers in Springfield are located in industrial zoning districts or on land zoned Public Land and Open Space. Two towers are located in commercial areas. One tower was built at the SUB electric substation on Game Farm Rd., which is zoned Medium Density Residential.

2 M E M O R A N D U M Date: 3/26/2012 To: From: Subject: Gino Grimaldi Len Goodwin, Assistant Public Works Director Mark Metzger, Senior Planner CELL TOWER SITING STANDARDS City of Springfield COUNCIL BRIEFING MEMORANDUM ISSUE: Staff will make a brief presentation concerning Springfield s cell tower siting and development standards and requests comments and direction from Council. Council is requested to review the existing standards and the effectiveness these have had in managing the siting and appearance of local cell towers. This memorandum also compares Springfield s standards with four other Oregon communities. COUNCIL GOALS: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities At the December 5, 2011 meeting, Council requested that staff provide information about the feasibility of having design standards for cell towers in the City limits. Set out below is an overview of Springfield s existing Wireless Telecommunication Systems (WTS) standards as found in Section of the Springfield Development Code. WTS includes all of the facilities that we think of when we are speaking about cell towers, transmitters, receivers and related equipment. This memorandum also provides a brief comparison of the city s standards with those in Roseburg, Ashland, Albany and Medford. Executive Summary Springfield has 18 cell tower facilities within its Urban Growth Boundary. Seventeen of these were built between 1995 and Only two applications for tower facilities have been received since 2005 and only one of those two were built. Based on the trend towards the use of smaller antennas for WTS coverage, it is unlikely that there will be a significant new demand for imposing new tower facilities as was experienced in past years. For the most part, providers in Springfield have replaced and upgraded equipment on existing towers and related facilities to accommodate increased service demand. Cellular phone towers, which are defined in the Springfield Development Code as Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities, are governed by Section of the Development Code. That code, however, must operate within the framework of a body of federal law which has some constraints on local government regulatory activity. The Code first requires that applicants show that they cannot collocate on an existing structure, pole or tower. Second, if a tower is approved, the developer must allow potential competitors to collocate on the new tower. Springfield has used increasing levels of design review to encourage towers to be built in industrial areas and on public land. Design review for placing towers in industrial/public land may be built using a Type I review process (staff review without public notice) requiring just building permits. Locating towers in commercial areas requires review (staff review with public notice) and Site Plan Review. Placing towers in residential areas requires a I review process that brings the matter before the Planning Commission (or Hearings Official) in a public hearing. A Discretionary Use process is used Attachment 1-1

3 which allows wide latitude on the part of the decision makers to require stealth design to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities. This approach has been largely successful. Fifteen of the 18 towers in Springfield are located in industrial zoning districts or on land zoned Public Land and Open Space. Two towers are located in commercial areas. One tower was built at the SUB electric substation on Game Farm Rd., which is zoned Medium Density Residential. Springfield s Code is similar in most regards to the policies applied by Ashland, Roseburg, Albany and Medford. Not all of these communities use increasing levels of design review to channel where towers are built. All communities seek to encourage tower installation in industrial areas first, then commercial. Unlike Springfield, some of these communities do not allow new towers in residential zoning districts, but these communities do allow WTS equipment to be located on existing structures. All of the communities have the ability to require stealth design to be applied, particularly in visually sensitive areas. Springfield is geographically large enough to require WTS facilities both inside and outside of the city to provide needed coverage. Ashland and Roseburg are largely served from forested hill tops or from the fringes of their communities with a small number of WTS facilities in core areas. Appendix A includes a gallery of maps, aerial photos and pictures of existing stealth design used in Ashland and Roseburg. It is possible that a review of the existing policies found in the Development Code and proposing new policies could provide some benefits with respect to the location and appearance of future tower construction. The current practice of encouraging the location of towers on public land (school district property) creates the most visible conflict with neighboring residential properties. Some towers in industrial and commercial zones are located in front of the primary buildings on the site, near the street. Placing towers behind primary buildings may protect streetscapes in commercial and industrial areas. Such policy adjustments as suggested above are not recommendations, but are the type of adjustments that could be considered if staff were directed to review existing WTS policies. Given, however, that the industry is now transitioning to collocation of facilities, and to advanced designs which are much less obtrusive (such as whip antennas on utility poles) the benefit to be achieved might prove to be minimal. Background As mentioned, the placement of WTS facilities is initially governed by federal law. In general, those provisions (particularly Section 322(c)(7) of the Communications Act, support broad general authority of local governments to govern siting of cell towers and antennas, and related facilities. One specific exception to that general grant is that local governments may not regulate the emission of radio frequency radiation beyond requiring that a proposed facility comply with FCC rules on emissions. Other restrictions include that local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, and may prohibit, or effectively prohibit provision of wireless services. Recently, the FCC has established time limits within which local governments must act on requests: 150 days in the case of new siting applications, and 90 days in the case of requests to locate additional facilities on existing towers or antennas. The ability of the FCC to establish firm time limits is now under judicial review. Finally, last week Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation which mandates approval of collocation requests if the request does not substantially change the physical dimensions of a tower or antenna. It is likely that this most recent change will be subjected to judicial review. The late 1990 s saw the rapid expansion of WTS facilities to serve an equally rapid expansion of cell phone and wireless data use. CTIA, an international association for the wireless telecommunications industry, reports that the number of wireless subscribers has grown from 38.2 million in 1996 to Attachment 1-2

4 322.8 million in The number of wireless connections as a percentage of the U.S population in 1996 was about 14%. In 2011, that percentage had grown to 102%. About 32% of households no longer have land lines. Wireless Subscribers in the U.S Wireless Subscriber Connections 322.8M 219.6M 118.4M 38.2M Wireless Penetration (equals # of active units divided by total U.S. population) Wireless-Only Households (no land line) 102% 73% 41% 14% 32% 11% N/A N/A Growth in WTS use has evidenced itself in the proliferation of cell towers. Springfield has 18 towers within its UGB. The initial influx of tower construction has slowed. Only two applications for new towers have been submitted since 2005, both were reviewed in 2009 and only one of those two towers was built. Companies continue to upgrade their facilities on existing poles and structures. Companies are not required to seek planning approvals to replace or upgrade their equipment on existing facilities. While the demand for new towers has slowed, the type of equipment required for WTS is changing. The latest technology is replacing towers with small whip type antennas that can be mounted on the top of existing street light and telephone poles. While the towers are not likely to go away any time soon, the construction of new towers is not likely to grow significantly. Regulation of WTS Facility Placement Section of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) details the city s approach to managing the placement and appearance of WTS facilities. The Code first encourages co-location of new cell facilities on existing towers or to integrate facilities with existing structures. All applications for WTS facilities must include an engineer s statement stating why proposed new equipment cannot be installed on existing towers. Where new towers are needed, the owner of the proposed new facility must sign an agreement allowing other companies to collocate on the same pole. The Development Code identifies preferred sites, acceptable sites and conditionally suitable sites, based on the zoning districts in which the towers are to be located. Preferred sites are deemed to be the zoning districts that are least sensitive to the visual impacts of WTS (generally industrial and public lands and open space districts). Acceptable sites are zoning districts that may be moderately impacted by WTS facilities (generally commercial and campus industrial zoning districts). Conditionally suitable sites are those deemed to be most sensitive to these facilities (generally residential districts). Springfield s WTS standards seek to direct the placement of tower facilities to Preferred Sites by lowering the level of review required to approve them. Preferred sites are those located in the following zoning districts: which includes the Special Heavy Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Light-Medium Industrial, Quarry Mining and Operations or Public Land and Open Space. Generally WTS facilities placed in these zoning districts require only building and electrical permits (Type I review). 1 Source: CTIA, Attachment 1-3

5 Figure 1: Springfield Cell Towers Figure 1 shows that 15 of Springfield s 18 WTS tower sites are located in preferred sites, that is industrial districts or on public lands. Towers located on public lands are primarily school district properties. School District 19 has three towers on publically zoned land, two at Thurston High School and one at Silke Field near Springfield High School. Springfield Memorial Gardens Cemetery has a tower on its property in South Thurston Hills. Cemeteries are zoned Public Land and Open Space in Springfield. Acceptable Sites are located in Community Commercial, Campus Industrial, and the Booth Kelly Mixed-Use zoning districts. Figure 1 shows that only 2 of Springfield s 18 WTS tower sites are located in one of these zoning districts. These sites are at the Gateway Mall and in front of the Elk s Club near the intersection of Centennial and Mohawk Blvds. WTS facilities proposed for acceptable sites generally require Site Plan Review ( review), including public notice and the opportunity for citizens to comment on the proposed installation. SDC Section (A)(1) encourages the installation of WTS equipment on existing poles and structures by allowing approval of installation with just a building permit, and not site plan review. Conditionally Suitable Sites are located in Neighborhood Commercial, Major Retail Commercial, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential zoning districts or Medical Services, Willamette Greenway, Floodplain, Hillside Development, and Hospital Support Overlay districts. Attachment 1-4

6 WTS facilities built on conditionally suitable sites require Discretionary Use (I) review by the Planning Commission or Hearing s Official. This review involves public notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission or Hearings Official. Conditions may be applied to the approval of WTS facilities in these zoning districts that address potential adverse effects. SDC Section (A) (2) encourages the use of stealth design by allowing facilities in conditionally suitable areas to be approved by site plan review instead of a public hearing. Figure 1 shows that 2 towers were approved for conditionally suitable sites in 2009 but only one was built. The first tower (zoned Medium Density Residential) was built on the grounds of SUB s electric substation located on Game Farm Rd. The second was approved for installation at 2095 Yolanda Ave. behind the former Albertson s store (zoned Neighborhood Commercial). The Yolanda site was opposed by staff but was approved by the Hearing s Official. The decision was appealed by neighbors to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). LUBA upheld the Hearing s Official s decision. The tower has never been built. Regulation of WTS Facility Appearance Regulation of visual impacts (appearance) is governed in part by location, and in part by the type of WTS facility that is allowed. As demonstrated above Springfield has been successful in steering installations to industrial areas and public lands that are less sensitive to the visual impact of WTS facilities. The second approach is to manage impacts by encouraging the use of attached facilities and stealth design. Attached facilities are defined by the Springfield Development Code as an existing pole, tower or other structure capable of accommodating a WTS facility antenna, whether originally intended for the use or not. Stealth designs include a variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate reduce visual impacts of WTS facilities by mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not limited to: light poles, church steeples and trees). Stealth can also include the installation of equipment on roof tops behind parapets or walls. As discussed above, SDC Section uses incentives related to the review process to encourage the use of attached facilities and stealth design. When cell towers are proposed for conditionally suitable sites, i.e. residential and sensitive locations, the mandated Discretionary Use review process allows the Planning Commission or Hearings Official to require the use of attached facilities or stealth design to mitigate the visual impacts of WTS facilities. SDC Section states, The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Discretionary Use approval to be granted. Attachment 1-5

7 Figure 2. Types of WTS Facilities Typical monopole WTS facility located at Thurston High School Attached WTS facility Stadium lights at Silke Field at Springfield High School Stealth tree similar to one installed on the municipal golf course near the VA hospital in Roseburg Multiple roof-mounted WTS facilities built into the façade of the Ashland Springs Hotel. The building is about 9 stories high and is located in the heart of Ashland s sensitive historic district. Additional facilities are located in the elevator tower. Installing WTS equipment on the roof, behind the parapet is a stealth design strategy. The building height and central location of this site makes it work. How Do Springfield s WTS Policies Compare with Other Cities? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law ) allows local governments latitude in their siting requirements so long as those policies do not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, and do not prohibit, or effectively prohibit provision of wireless services. The table below compares key policy features that affect the placement and appearance of WTS facilities in Springfield, Ashland, Roseburg, Albany and Medford. Attachment 1-6

8 The comparison shows that there are many similarities between the communities. The differences relate to the use of increase levels of review to encourage the placement of towers in less sensitive zoning districts. Springfield, Ashland and Albany use this approach. Roseburg requires review (staff review with public notice) for all tower placements regardless of the location. Medford requires I review (Planning Commission, Approval Authority public hearing) for all towers. Ashland, Roseburg and Albany do not allow cell towers in most residential zoning districts, although they do allow equipment to be placed on existing structures. Springfield and Medford allow consideration of tower placement in residential areas. In Springfield, the applicant must show that a good faith effort was made to locate in a less sensitive area. Both Springfield and Medford require a I review of such applications to build in residential areas and may require stealth measures for approval. Comparison of Community WTS Placement and Appearance Standards Policy Strategy Uses increasing levels of review for increasingly sensitive sites? Requires collocation on existing poles or existing structures where possible? Requires others be allowed to collocate on new tower? Allows towers in most industrial districts? Allows towers in most commercial districts? Springfield SDC Type I Review Review I Review Ashland AMC I Roseburg Article 29 No for all Albany I Type I Review Review I Type I I Medford No I for all I I Allows towers in most residential districts?, but must prove less sensitive sites are not available. May require stealth measures. No, new equipment allowed on existing structures only. No towers. No, only on existing pole, mast or tower structure (e.g. stadium light tower). No new towers No, Requires stealth measures May require the, I Planning, I,, Type, Type Attachment 1-7

9 use of stealth design to mitigate the visual impact of WTS equipment? Commission or Hearings Official may require stealth designs to be used in conditionally suitable areas to mitigate visual impacts. CUP may require stealth designs CUP may require stealth designs III CUP may require stealth designs III CUP may require stealth designs Type I Review: Staff review, no public notice Review: Staff review, public notice and opportunity to comment I Review: Planning Commission or Approval Authority, public notice and public hearing Stealth Designs: A variety of techniques used to disguise or mitigate the visual presence of WTS support structures, including, but not limited to screening by mature trees (75 percent or more of pole beneath tree canopy), mimicking common features of the urban landscape (including, but not limited to: light poles, church steeples and trees), painting antennas to match the color of supporting building walls, or roof mounting behind parapets. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council provide direction for staff if changes to existing cell tower siting and development standards should be considered. Attachment 1-8

10 Appendix A: Gallery of Maps and Images Cell Tower Locations-Ashland, OR (CellReception.com, July 2011) Cell facilities (7-8 providers) have been placed on the roof of the Ashland Springs Hotel behind parapets. The building is on the Historic Registry in downtown Ashland. Attachment 1-9

11 Ashland Springs Hotel. WTS antennas are mounted on the roof behind the decorative parapet and in the elevator tower. The hotel is in central Ashland. Towers are mostly on the periphery of the town on hill tops and along I-5 and Highway 99. Attachment 1-10

12 Cell Tower Locations- Roseburg, OR (CellReception.com, July 2011) Stealth Tree at Stewart Park Golf Course Attachment 1-11

13 3/21/2012 Page 12 The City of Roseburg owns and operates a golf course on Stewart Parkway near the Veterans Administration Hospital. A stealth tree shown above was installed by the city in a corner of the course to blend in with the surrounding landscape. This is the only stealth installation of its type in Roseburg. Towers serve the city from hill tops on the periphery of the community and in industrial areas along I-5 and Hwy 99. Some WTS equipment is located on the roof of the Courthouse on the edge of the downtown area. Attachment 1-12