HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-07-09 Planning MIN
Planning CommissionMinutes
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you
have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the
public testimony may be limited by the Chair.
July 9, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
Minutes
I.CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E.
Main Street. She noted that Commissioners Perkinson and MacCracken were attending the meeting
via Zoom.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager
Kerry KenCairn Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner
Susan MacCracken Jain Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Gregory Perkinson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Eric Herron Paula Hyatt
Russell Phillips
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.Staff Announcements
Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements:
The City Council will have a study session on July 15, 2024 to discuss Climate Friendly Areas
(CFAs).
The Council will review the Building Lands Inventory Resolution and two right-of-way
vacations on Fern Street and Mountain Meadow Drive on July 16, 2024. All three of these items
received recommendations for approval by the Commission.
On August 6, 2024 The Council will review a City limits map correction at 375 East Nevada
Street, where an inconsistency is shown between City and County maps. The Commission
initially reviewed this item on February 8, 2022, and found that there was no error per City
records, but the inconsistency remains and the Commission at the time was supportive of an
amendment to change the line in the event that the Council found it was warranted.
A sub-committee of the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee developed a
homeless services masterplan which will be reviewed by the Council on August 5, 2024.
Page 1 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
2.Advisory Committee Liaison Announcements
Commissioner MacCracken Jain gave the following announcements:
A new crosswalk, which was sponsored by the Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC),
was installed the evening of July 1st in the Plaza across from Lithia Park. The artist was
inspired by and used imagery from the indigenous Shasta people.
The PAAC approved a conceptual plan for a Playwright’s Walk in May, 2024. It is a
privately funded, philanthropic endeavor inspired by an Iowa City project highlighting
writers. The first phase is currently underway as a private enterprise but will be come
into City ownership at a later date.
The PAAC will provide its annual update to the Council on July 16, 2024.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
1.Approval of Minutes
a.May 14, 2024 Regular Meeting
b.May 28, 2024 Study Session
Commissioners Perkinson/Knauer m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None
V.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2024-00233
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1250 Ashland Street (SOU Science Building)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University/Verizon Wireless
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review Permit to install wireless
communication facilities (antennas and associated equipment) on the roof of the Science
Building at 1250 Ashland Street on the Southern Oregon University Campus. The application
also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit because with the installation of panels
proposed to screen the wireless communication facility installation, the building height will
exceed 40 feet. (The proposal is the same as one previously approved by the city in PA-2017-
01486 but which subsequently expired, and the applicant proposes to comply with the
conditions of the prior approval.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon
University District; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 15BB; TAX LOT #: 100
Chair Verner noted that the Commission received a public comment requesting that the meeting be
postponed in order to provide the public an opportunity to thoroughly review the packet materials.
Page 2 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Planning Manager Derek Severson explained that a continuance of the meeting would violate the
federal ninety-day time limit in which the City must make a decision regarding appeals.
Chair Verner stated that three public comments had been submitted to staff since the packet was
published. These public comments were forwarded to the Commission and are included in the
Public Record.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was disclosed, though Commissioners KenCairn, Knauer, and Verner disclosed
site visits. Commissioner Perkinson recused himself from this portion of the meeting due to a past
association with SOU.
Chair Verner opened the Public Hearing and Public Record at 7:13.
Staff presentation
Mr. Severson stated that William Johnson would be participating as part of staff’s presentation. Mr.
Johnson is a third-party consultant who reviewed the applicant’s initial analysis on behalf of the City
and found the application to lack several components, including no trend metrics, scale of
propagation plots, and a comprehensive alternate site analysis and collocation study. The lack of
these key materials resulted in staff’s denial of the application and the applicant’s subsequent
appeal (see attachment #1).
Mr. Severson described the Telecommunications Action of 1996 that include various guidelines that
cities must adhere to when reviewing wireless communication facility (WCF) applications. These
guidelines include:
No discrimination among providers.
No passing laws or taking actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless
service.
No regulating of wireless based on environmental concerns about radio frequency emissions
if the facility will operate within FCC standards.
Must act on siting requests in a reasonable period of time (90 days from submittal for
existing structures – i.e. by July 14, 2024 with extension here).
Must issue zoning denials in writing, supported by substantial evidence and findings
contained in a written record.
Mr. Severson stated that staff included two sets of findings, one for approval and one for denial, in
the meeting packet for the Commission’s consideration in order meet the July 14, 2024 deadline. He
displayed the proposed location of the WCF on the SOU science building, which is located to the east
of South Mountain Avenue and Ashland Street, and described how the applicants propose extending
Page 3 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
an existing screen wall in order to screen the installation from view. He noted that extending the wall
would largely conceal existing mechanical equipment on the roof that is currently visible.
Mr. Severson outlined the appellant’s six points of appeal, which included:
1.The Director erred by denying a proposal that is identical to the proposal approved in 2018.
2.The Director erred by denying the Application based exclusively on comments from the City
RF consultant which the Applicant was never provided an opportunity to respond to or
address.
3.The Director erred by denying the Application based on the City RF consultant’s request for
specific technical information that is not required under the City’s application submittal or
approval standards.
4.The Director erred by denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
demonstrate a “service gap” in the coverage area.
5.The Director erred in denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
demonstrate “that collocation or placement on an existing structure are not feasible.”
6.The Applicant reserves the right to raise additional appeal issues since AMC
18.5.010.050(G)(3) does not limit the appeal to the specific grounds listed in the notice of
appeal.
Mr. Severson described how the City’s standards for a wireless facility are considered in a “stepped
hierarchy” method, with the following installation options ranging from most preferred to the least
preferred method: collocation on an existing WCF; attached to an existing structure; an alternative,
concealed structure; or a free-standing support structure. He noted that the applicant would need to
explore the option of collocating at an existing WCF at the Raider Stadium before the option of
attaching the proposed WCF to an existing structure could be considered.
Mr. Johnson introduced himself as a former professor of telecommunications engineering at the
Rochester Institute of Technology. He stated that the possibility for other viable sites for this project to
be located were not easily ascertainable from the initial application that he reviewed on April 24,
2024. He elaborated that the mid-band spectrum and how it would propagate the area was omitted
from the application, stating that these radio signals would propagate differently in an urban
environment versus a rural one. Mr. Johnson explained that the location of this mid-band spectrum
is important to draw off customers from neighboring cells that have become too saturated, and that
staff could not properly evaluate the feasibility of alternative sites without this spectrum. Mr. Johnson
noted that this information is not explicitly required by Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), but that this
information is necessary for applications involving zoning considerations as a way to justify the
necessity for the proposal and show that the chosen location is the least intrusive to the
neighborhood. He stated that this information was subsequently supplied by the appellant with their
appeal application, but it did not specify which sector was designated as being over-saturated and
Page 4 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
requested that the applicant provide that information at the meeting. Mr. Johnson remarked that
four alternative sites were considered for the proposal, but all were too far to get maximum
coverage, and therefore the applicants justified the proposed location.
Mr. Severson stated the applicant had attempted to negotiate with the owner of the existing tower at
the Raider Stadium, AT&T, but found that the structure was not built to accommodate additional
buildings per conditions placed upon the structure by the Commission when it was approved. Mr.
Severson concluded that the applicant’s burden of proof has now been met and recommended that
the Commission uphold the appeal, reverse the original staff denial, and approve the request with
the conditions detailed in the staff report. He noted that these conditions are consistent with the 2018,
the exception being a condition requiring a signed copy of the lease as one was provided after the
2018 approval. Staff also recommended that the Commission adopt findings at the meeting in order
to comply with the ninety-day federal timeframe to render a decision, and that the findings supplied
in the packet could be revised to match the Commission’s verdict as needed.
Questions of Staff
Chair Verner asked if the screening wall would cover the entire length of the building. Mr. Severson
responded that it was his understanding that the proposed screening wall would only cover certain
portions of the roof but that the applicant could address that.
Commissioner Knauer requested clarification regarding the total height of the installation. Mr.
Severson responded that the total height of the building is 61ft with the existing mechanical
equipment, but that the proposed WCF installation would be obscured by the screening wall that
would reach 49ft. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if the proposed screening wall extension
would only encompass the newer portion of the Science Building and not the connected buildings.
Mr. Severson responded that he did not believe it would but that the applicant could confirm that.
Appellant Presentation
Mike Connors introduced himself as a land use attorney for Hathaway Larson and the representative
for the applicant, Verizon Wireless, and also introduced Steve Kennedy, a third-party RF engineering
consultant who prepared the supplemental materials submitted with the appeal. Mr. Connors stated
that the application is identical to the original application, PA-2017-01486, which was approved and
subsequently appealed in 2018 before being affirmed by the Commission. He described how
mitigating factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, caused this land use approval to expire in 2020
and result in the new application.
Mr. Connors reiterated that the installation would be screened from view by extending the existing
wall and showed a map displaying the existing and proposed coverage, stating that the adjacent
WCFs are currently overloaded and require the new installation to increase capacity and alleviate
this data traffic buildup.
Page 5 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Mr. Connors pointed out that the preferred design standards under AMC 18.4.10.040(B) referenced by
staff are the crux of the application, and provided an alternative site analysis detailing why the
chosen site was most suitable for the installation (see attachment #2). He stated that AT&T was
unable to allow collocation on its installation at the Raider Stadium due to the approved height and
structural considerations, a decision that neither SOU nor the City could impact.
Mr. Connors explained that staff found the application satisfied all applicable approval criteria, with
the exception of the preferred design requirement, and that the sole basis for denial was insufficient
RF information related to the need for the new WCF and the alternative site analysis. He stated that
the appellant’s grounds for appeal is that the application and approval criteria were identical to the
one approved in 2018, the appellant was not given the opportunity to the letter from the City’s RF
consultant, and that the RF consultant requested technical information that is not required for the
application.
Mr. Connor’s concluded that the appellant complied with the City’s request for additional information
and requested that the Commission uphold the appeal and approve the application.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if Mr. Johnson and staff agreed with the new materials shown
during the appellant’s presentation. Mr. Johnson requested clarification from the appellant on the
capacity information for forward data volume and average scheduled eligible users from
neighboring sites. Mr. Kennedy referred to the RF design analysis within the appellant’s submittal that
evaluated the current best servers available, and stated that the site to the northwest of the
proposed installation would be the one most likely to be offloaded. Mr. Goldman responded that
staff’s denial of the application contained a caveat that approval could be granted if the application
approval criteria were met, and that staff recommended approval of the application with the
supplemental materials provided.
Commissioner Knauer remarked that the Science Building’s façade would be significant with the new
screening wall and suggested that it be setback at that height. Mr. Connors responded he could not
consent to that on SOU’s behalf, and that a setback would be inconsistent with the existing wall and
require additional engineering.
Public Comments
Kelly Marcotulli/Ms. Marcotulli remarked that the Fire Department will not extinguish a fire unless
there is a power shutoff available onsite, and asked what the City’s plan was for a shutoff point in the
event of a fire. She recited the definition of radiation, stating that it is “the process of emitting radiant
energy in the form of waves or particles,” and that radiation sickness is “sickness that results from
exposure to radiation and is commonly marked by fatigue, nausea, vomiting, loss of teeth and hair,
Page 6 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
and in more severe cases by damage to blood-forming systems.” She requested information
regarding the City’s, SOU’s, and Verizon’s plan for people and animals who contract radiation
sickness from the installation. She cited how seventeen people became ill when Verizon installed a
WCF near their homes in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. She referred to one of the aforementioned public
comments submitted to staff by Martin Pall which detailed the potential negative health effects EMF
radiation could have on the brain. Ms. Marcotulli requested that the decision be delayed until it is
ascertained how the facility would be shut off in the event of a fire (see attachment #3).
Ms. Marcotulli inquired about the appeal process for this application if approved. Mr. Severson
responded that any appeal go to the Land use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
Larry and Susan Graves/Mr. Graves remarked that the FCC claims preemptive authority over radio
frequency airwaves and that their regulations state that environmental concerns over the
installation of WCFs cannot be used to deny their application. He stated that there is a growing body
of evidence that RF radiation can be harmful, adding that telecommunications providers are unable
to obtain liability insurance against potential health and property damages. Mrs. Graves suggested
that the City coordinate with neighboring municipalities to sue the FCC into updating their safety
standards (see attachment #4).
Alan Rathsam/Mr. Rathsam pointed out that the City disregarded City codes when it permitted AT&T
to construct a WCF without the capability of accommodating for collocation in the future, stating
that the application violated AMC 18.4.19.040. This provision states that “all new wireless
communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on
the facility,” which was violated when the Commission upheld the City’s decision to allow the AT&T
tower to be installed at a reduced height, eliminating future collocation potential (see attachment
#5).
Will Wilkinson/Mr. Wilkinson expressed concern that the City did not enforce its collocation code
when it permitted the installation of the AT&T WCF at Raider Stadium. He requested that the
Commission require staff to consider three potential options: enforcing the collocation code; not
enforcing the collocation code; or modifying the code, particularly if it is unable to be enforced.
Elain Sayre/Ms. Sayre stated that she lives near the Science Building and expressed concern over
the proposed location of the WCF due to health reasons, but appreciated that the Commission
cannot consider those concerns due to federal regulations.
Jasmine Lyons/Ms. Lyons stated that she would have to relocate if the WCF was installed at this
location due to health concerns, and requested that the Commission consider the health impact.
Appellant Rebuttal
Mr. Connors addressed health concerns due to RF emissions, stating that he appreciates those
Page 7 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
concerns but that federal law dictates emission standards and that WCFs are a national utility that
must be standardized. He added that the Commission should not need to make health decisions
when they are not public officials or scientists.
Regarding the Raider Stadium installation, Mr. Connors stated that the Commission had found that
AT&T did not satisfy the minimum height standard and its proposed installation was reduced from
95ft to 85ft. He added that the City does not require WCFs to be built to accommodate future
collocation, merely that they should provide for it when possible.
Questions of the Appellant
Commissioner KenCairn remarked that many of the public comments referred to 5G and clarified
that the proposed installation was 4G. Mr. Connors stated that the proposal is for a 4G tower.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Record at 8:24.
Discussion and Decision
Commissioner Knauer expressed appreciation to the arguments regarding collocation. He stated
that chosen location did not visually appeal to him, but that he understood the reasons it was
chosen. He added that SOU requires adequate coverage and requested that the structure be built in
such a way as to allow for future collocation. Mr. Goldman stated that collocation is available at the
Ashland Hills Hotel, which contains multiple carriers on its roof and is smaller than the proposed
location, and therefore the SOU site would be able to accommodate future collocation.
Commissioners KenCairn/Knauer m/s to uphold the appeal and reverse staff’s decision to deny
the application with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Roll Call Vote: All AYES.
Motion passed 4-0.
V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Approval of Draft Findings for PA-APPEAL-2024-00019, 1250 Ashland Street
Commissioners Knauer/KenCairn m/s to approve the findings as presented by staff. Roll Call Vote:
All AYES. Motion passed 4-0.
VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2024-00009
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2228 East Main Street
APPLICANT/OWNER: Ashland Parks & Recreation/City of Ashland
Page 8 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
DESCRIPTION: A request to annex the 6.51-acre property at 2228 East Main Street and the adjacent
0.97 acres of East Main Street right-of-way into the City of Ashland with Suburban Residential (R-1-
3.5) zoning. The application also includes a request for Site Design Review approval to develop the
annexed property as a new public park to include restrooms, a bike park with pump track & skills
course, fenced dog park, play area, and a community garden. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Suburban Residential; ZONING: Existing – RR-5 (County); Proposed – R-1-3.5 (City); ASSESSOR’S MAP:
39 1E 11CB; TAX LOT #’s: 200
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners KenCairn, Knauer, and Perkinson conducted site visits. Chair Verner stated that she is
familiar with the site. No ex parte contact was disclosed.
Staff Presentation
Senior Planner Aaron Anderson gave a brief timeline of this project, stating that the Parks &
Recreation Department held multiple meetings between 2019-2022, with the Parks Commission
approving a final design on November 8, 2023. He detailed the application’s request for annexation
and for Site Design Review of the property, stating that the proposed park would include restrooms, a
bike park with pump track and skills course, a fenced dog park, play area, and community garden
(see attachment #6).
Regarding the annexation approval criteria, Mr. Anderson stated that items A and C were met, while
D and E need to be addressed. Item B will be found to have been met provided that the application is
approved for Site Design Review for a park, which is an approved use in the requested zone. He noted
that items F, G, and H of the annexation approval criteria do not apply to this application. He stated
that the Site Design Review standards have largely been met, exceeded, or do not apply to the
application. He pointed out that the application included full frontage improvements along the
extent of East Main Street, as well as storm water detention on the north side of the property.
Mr. Anderson stated that findings would be adopted by the Commission on August 13, 2024
presuming it votes to recommend approval. The application would then go to the City Council for a
first reading on September 17, 2024, and a second reading on October 1, 2024.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if staff had received any public comments in opposition to
the dog park, to which Mr. Anderson responded that staff had not.
Applicant Presentation
Clark Stevens of Richard, Stevens, and Associates introduced his firm as the land use consultants for
the project, along with Piper von Chamier of Terrain Landscape Architecture to discuss site design
standards. Also in attendance was Rachel Dials, deputy Director of the Parks & Recreation
Page 9 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
Department to answer any operational inquiries.
Mr. Stevens described how the application met the applicable approval criteria, stating that the site
is within the City limits, that adequate City facilities are available, sufficient street capacity exists to
serve the project, and that the application is in compliance with state annexation procedures.
Ms. von Chamier provided a brief background on the project, which started in 2017 and culminated
with the proposal before the Commission. She emphasized the amount of community outreach
associated with the project and displayed the site plan showing the amenities of the park as shown
in the staff presentation. She pointed out that a 6ft tall fence would be installed on the east and west
side of the park to provide privacy to local residences, and a 36in tall fence around the play area to
prevent children from accessing the parking lot. A deer fence would also be installed around the
community garden, with an existing fence along Abbott Avenue to be retained.
Ms. von Chamier explained that the park would include shade structures and restrooms, as well as
path-lighting and an area for a future RVTD bus stop along East Main Street. She mentioned that
there would also be vehicular and bike access off of East Main Street, as well as bike access along
Abbott Avenue and Brooks Lane.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Knauer remarked that some public comments received expressed concern over
parking and asked if there would be sufficient parking for the expected usage. Mr. Stevens
responded that peak visitor hours during the week would largely be from the local community, such
as children visiting after school. He stated that the application’s traffic study determined that peak
park usage would not conflict with peak work traffic in mornings and evenings. He elaborated that
the park is expected to see more bicycle traffic, which would not require significant parking space.
Ms. von Chamier added that the applicants analyzed average parking usage from the existing dog
park, community garden, and the city of Redmond’s pump track to determine the number of parking
spaces required.
Commissioner Knauer expressed concern that the Parks & Recreation Department would be unable
to adequately maintain the proposed park due to the difficulty in maintaining current City parks. He
proposed allowing the new department Director, Rocky Houston, adequate time to acclimate to his
new position before moving forward with the proposal. Ms. Dials responded that the park was
designed for low maintenance and that she was confident it could be adequately maintained,
particularly once the department has a full staff. She added that the park may be a phased
development depending on budget considerations, especially since the state is still reviewing the
City’s grant application for the pump track. Chair Verner pointed out that the subject application is
only for the annexation of the property, the approval of which would allow the project to continue.
Commissioner KenCairn stated that the development of the park would be a lengthy process, which
Page 10 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Planning CommissionMinutes
would allow the Parks Department ample time to hire additional maintenance staff. She commented
that the proposal includes amenities currently lacking in the City that would benefit the community.
Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 9:12 p.m.
Discussion and Decision
The Commission discussed the timing of the project and whether it would be prudent to delay
development. It was reiterated that this approval was merely for annexation and that maintenance
of the park would not be necessary for some time. Commissioner MacCracken Jain remarked that
the Commission’s decision regards land use, not the design of the park. Commissioner Knauer
agreed, and asked if this park would complete the City’s goal of having all residences within a half-
mile of a park. Ms. Dials responded that it would.
Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to recommend that this item be forwarded to City
Council for consideration based on staff’s recommendation and inclusive of staff’s recommended
conditions. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
VII.OPEN DISCUSSION - None
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant
Page 11 of 11
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email
planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
Appeal Hearing
Planning Commission
July 9, 2024
Verizon Wireless
˒˵˶˿̂˵ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾ ̄˿˾˹˷˸̄Ѕ
Appeal Hearing of StaffϽs Administrative Denial
l
a
Site Design Review for rooftop WCF installation & Conditional Use Permit for
e
screening panels to exceed 40-foot height.
p
p
Staff Denial
A
found initial analysis silent to mid-band RF, which is 90%
n
of licensed spectrum; no trend metrics; scale of propagation plots;
o
alternate site analysis & collocation study were lacking.
z
i
r
On that basis, staff found that gap analysis and collocation study were
e
V
insufficient and denied the application.
Applicant Verizon Wireless Timely Filed an Appeal
Six points noted in appeal request
2
ˤ˵˼˵˳˿˽˽̅˾˹˳˱̄˹˿˾̃ ˑ˳̄˹˿˾ ˿˶ ˁˉˉˆЅ
No discrimination among providers.
No passing laws or taking actions that prohibit or have the effect of
Verizon Appeal
prohibiting wireless service.
Must act on siting requests in a reasonable period of time (
).
Must issue zoning denials in writing, supported by substantial evidence
and findings contained in a written record.
3
Notice Map
SOU Science Building
1250 Ashland Street
6
7
8
Points of Appeal
l
1.The Director erred by denying a proposal that is identical to the proposal approved in 2018.
a
2.The Director erred by denying the Application based exclusively on comments from the
e
City RF consultant which the Applicant was never provided an opportunity to respond to or
p
address.
p
3.The Director erred by denying the Application bas˵˴ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉ ˢ˖ ˳˿˾̃̅˼̄˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ ˶˿̂
A
specific technical information that is not ̂˵́̅˹̂˵˴ ̅˾˴˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱̄˹˿˾ ̃̅˲˽˹̄̄˱˼ ˿̂
approval standards.
f
4.The Director erred by denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
o
˴˵˽˿˾̃̄̂˱̄˵ ˱ Ͽ̃˵̂̆˹˳˵ ˷˱̀Ѐ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˳˿̆˵̂˱˷˵ ˱̂˵˱ʾ
s
5.The Director erred in denying the Application on the grounds that the Applicant failed to
t
˴˵˽˿˾̃̄̂˱̄˵ Ͽ̄˸˱̄ ˳˿˼˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˿̂ ̀˼˱˳˵˽˵˾̄ ˿˾ ˱˾ ˵̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ̃̄̂̅˳̄̅̂˵ ˱̂˵ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵ʾЀ
n
i
6.The Applicant reserves the right to raise additional appeal issues since AMC
o
18.5.010.050(G)(3) does not limit the appeal to the specific grounds listed in the notice of
P
appeal.
9
AMC 18.4.10
ˑ̃˸˼˱˾˴Ͻ̃ ˧˓˖ ˢ˵˷̅˼˱̄˹˿˾̃
Regulates the placement, appearance and visual impacts of WCFϽs
while providing residents the ability to utilize wireless services.
Preferred Designs
˓˿˾̃˹˴˵̂˵˴ ˹˾ ˱ Ͽ̃̄˵̀̀˵˴ ˸˹˵̂˱̂˳˸̉Ѐʾ
#2 Attached
#1. Collocation
#4 Free-Standing
#3 Alternative
Support Structure
Structure
ˤ˿ ˱˾ ˕̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˣ̄̂̅˳̄̅̂˵
˟˾ ˱˾ ˕̈˹̃̄˹˾˷ ˧˓˖
˞˿ ˜˱̄̄˹˳˵ ˤ˿̇˵̂̃
˙˶ ʳˁ ˹̃ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
˓˿˾˳˵˱˼ʼ ˓˱˽˿̅˶˼˱˷˵
ˠ̂˵˶˵̂̂˵˴ ˟̀̄˹˿˾
˙˶ ʳˁʽ˃ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
˙˶ ʳˁ ʶ ʳ˂ ˾˿̄ ˶˵˱̃˹˲˼˵
10
Elsewhere in the Valley
Typical WCF Installations
11
Ashland
Typical WCF Installations
12
13
Third Party Review of Technical Submittals
1.Target area currently served by existing sites between one- and two-miles away. Sites at that distance
might provide some low-band RF coverage, but it is often unreliable and service quality depends on
̃̅˲̃˳̂˹˲˵̂ ˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˱˾˴ ˼˿˳˱˼ ˢ˖ Ͽ˳˼̅̄̄˵̂ʾЀ
Verizon Appeal
2.Existing spotty low-band (700/850MHz) RF coverage from existing neighbor sites provides about ten
̀˵̂˳˵˾̄ ˿˶ ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˲˱˾dwidth. Mid-band spectrum, which accounts for about 90 percent of
ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ̃̅˲̃˳̂˹˲˵̂ ˲˱˾˴̇˹˴̄˸ʼ ˹̃ ˼˹˻˵̇˹̃˵ ̃̀˿̄̄̉ ˱˾d served from existing neighbor sites at or below
the outdoor service level. Third Party Reviewer concluded that Appellant has shown an RF service
coverage gap in the vicinity of the proposed site that could be remedied by a new WCF.
3.In addition to the RF coverage gaps, Appellant provided Forward Data Volume (FDV) and Average
Scheduled Eligible Users (ASEU) metric plots. Those plots showtwo issues that will affect reliable service.
First, the FDV plot shows that the serving sector cannot support the number of users and their
bandwidth demands during the busiest times each day. Second, the ASEU plot likely reflects the make-
and-break connections subscribers experience while trying to hold voice and data sessions on the LTE
network from the un-named sector. Both metrics tend to support AppellantϽs claim of need for a WCF
in the vicinity of the proposed site.
4.Appellant has also supplemented their matê˹˱˼̃ ̇˹̄˸ Ͽ˓̂˿̇˴ʽ̃˿̅̂˳˵˴Ѐ ˴˱̄˱ ˶̂˿˽ ̄˸˵ Ͽ Ookla Verizon
4G Ѐ ˴˱̄˱˲˱̃˵ ̄˸˱̄ ̃˸˿̇ ̅̃˵̂ ˴˵̆˹˳˵̃ ̂˵porting less-than-reliable service levels in the vicinity of the
proposed site. That crowd-sourced data is consistent with the existing RF coverage levels shown for
low-band and mid-band ˱˾˴ ˹̃ ˳˿˾̃˹̃̄˵˾̄ ̇˹̄˸ ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˑˣ˕˥ metrics that show excessive sessions
held by the existing WCF sector in question.
14
Third Party Review of Technical Submittals
5.Due to the propagation characteristics of both low-band and mid-band signals, any prospective
alternate sites that are more distant than AppellantϽs existing WCF sites are likely to fail to provide
sufficient signal strength to the target coverage area.
Verizon Appeal
ˆʾ˔˿˳̅˽˵˾̄˱̄˹˿˾ ˙̄˵˽ ʳ˂ Ͽˑ˼̄˵̂˾˱̄˵ ˣ˹̄˵ ˑ˾˱˼̉̃˹̃Ѐ ˼˹̃̄̃ ̃˹̄˵ ˾̅˽˲˵̂̃ ˁ ̄˸̂˿ugh 4. Sites 1, 2 and 3 are either
located near existing sites operated by Appellant or are at comparable distances to existing sites.
These alternate sites would likely have the same signal level issues discussed above for existing low-
band and mid-band service that create the need for a WCF in the vicinity of the proposed site.
7.Appellant states that Site 4, the 85-foot light pole location, provides acceptable performance, but
ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄ ̃̄˱̄˵̃ ̄˸˱̄ ˼˿˳˱̄˹˿˾ ˹̃ Ͽ˾ot availableʾЀ \[Appellant has provided significant additional
information in support of this assertion.\]
8.Additional alternate sites identified by city staff or during public comment near the target area, if any,
that have lower antenna center line (ACL) elevation or that are located at other coordinates will require
additional propagation modeling by Appellant to assess performance should they be considered.
15
Uphold the appeal.
Reverse the original staff denial.
Approve the request with the conditions detailed in the staff report, which
are consistent with those attached to the 2018 approval.
Adopt findings tonight to comply with the federal 90-day shot clock which
runs to July 14 ().
th
Staff Recommendations
1250 Ashland Street
Any questions?...
Appeal Hearing
Planning Commission
July 9, 2024
Verizon Wireless
MDF Madrone-2
Application No. PA-T1-2024-00233
Wireless Communications Facility (WCF)
1250 Ashland Street, Ashland, OR
Verizon applied for the identical rooftop
proposal in 2018 -PA #2017-01486.
City Staff approved the Application ÏDecision
appealed.
Planning Commission affirmed the Staff
decision and approved the Application.
Land use approval expired in 2020.
Proposed WCF
Southern Oregon University ÏScience
Building.
Rooftop site ÏAntennas and equipment on
rooftop (no ground equipment).
Extend the existing mechanical screening wall
to fully screen the WCF Ïmatch screening
wall.
SOU zone ÏWCF allowed subject to Site
Design Review.
Conditional Use Permit ÏExtending existing
screening wall that exceeds 40 ft. (49.1 ft.)
Coverage and capacity site.
Lack of reliable coverage for indoor and in-
vehicle users.
Surrounding WCFs are overloaded and
beyond capacity.
Problem will only get worse over time -
wireless data traffic increasing exponentially.
Current Coverage
Coverage With Proposed WCF
AMC 18.4.10.040(B) -Preferred Design
1.Collocation. Collocate new WCFs on pre-
existing structures with WCFs in place or on pre-
existing towers.
2.Attached to Existing Structure. If (1) above is
not feasible, WCFs shall be attached to pre-
existing structures.
3.Alternative Structure. If (1) or (2) above are not
feasible, alternative structures shall be used with
design features that conceal, camouflage, or
mitigate the visual impacts.
4.Freestanding Support Structure. If (1), (2), or
(3) above are not feasible, a monopole design
with vertical attached antennas or if not feasible
a platform design.
Alternative Sites Analysis
Alt No.1(Towerco120Ô wireless tower) ÏNot
within search ring, not satisfy coverage and
capacity objectives & too close to existing site
(Lithia).
Alt No. 2 (25Ô Rooftop -2290 Ashland St.) Ï
No existing WCFs (evaluated 2018), not
satisfy coverage and capacity objectives & too
close to existing site (Lithia).
Alt No. 3 (25Ô Rooftop -30 W. Hershey St.) Ï
No existing WCFs (evaluated 2018), not
satisfy coverage and capacity objectives & too
close to existing site (Ashland).
Alternative Sites Analysis
Alt No. 4 (AT&T 85Ô stadium light standard).
Applicant made repeated attempts over a one-
year period to explore this alternative before it
was constructed.
AT&T was unwilling and unable to allow
collocation due to the lower approved height
(original proposal 95Ô) and structural issues.
Southern Oregon University was unable or
unwilling to assist Verizon in facilitating
collocation discussions with AT&T.
The City was unable or unwilling to assist
Verizon in facilitating collocation discussions
with AT&T.
City Staff Decision
Staff decision concluded the Application satisfied
all the applicable approval criteria except the
preferred design requirement.
Sole basis for denial Ïlack of sufficient RF
information related to the need for the WCF and
the alternative sites analysis.
Staff position based exclusively on the City RF
consultantÔs 4/24/24 letter.
City RF consultantÔs letter merely requested
additional technical information and clarification.
The Applicant was not provided a copy of the City
RF consultantÔs letter or an opportunity to
respond.
Grounds for Appeal
The City approved the identical proposal in
2018 Ïsame proposal and approval criteria.
The Applicant was denied an opportunity to
respond to the City RF consultantÔs letter.
The City RF consultant requested technical
information that is not required to be
provided under AMC Chapter 18.4.10.
The Applicant already submitted substantial
evidence demonstrating a need for the WCF
and the lack of preferred alternatives.
The Applicant Submitted
Requested RF Information
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested information demonstrating
a need for the WCF -RF Design Analysis.
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested information demonstrating
the lack of preferred alternatives-Alternative Site
Analysis.
The CityÔs RF consultant reviewed this additional
information and agrees with the ApplicantÔs
analysis.
The City Staff agrees there are no preferred
alternative sites that are available.
The City approved the identical proposal in 2018
Ïsame proposal and approval criteria.
The ApplicantÔs RF engineer submitted the
additional requested RF information.
The City RF consultant agrees that the Applicant
demonstrated a need for the WCF and the lack of
preferred alternative sites.
The City staff agrees the Application satisfies the
applicable approval criteria.
The Applicant requests the Planning Commission
approve the Application subject to the conditions
of approval.
PLANNING
COMMISSION
East Main Park
JULY09, 2024
ˡ̅˵̃̄˹˿˾̃ˏ