Notes on the Withdrawal
of the Benchwood Lane Cell Tower Application
First off the zoning ordinances for Clackamas County may be, and more than likely are, different from other cities and counties. We were lucky to have 60 day lead time before the hearing. Our county needed to give us only 30 days notice. That extra time meant we could work through a lot of issues, build a base of interest, and find folks willing to take on specific tasks.
We found the original application provided poor answers and gave little explanatory information. We understand that the current approval process generally has: (1) either no opposition and gets approved easily, or (2) in a few cases generates lots of opposition and then it is 50-50 whether it gets approved. So the applicants have learned that they do not need to submit a good, complete application in the beginning. Without opposition all they have to do is satisfy the minimum requirements of a planning department. Remember the FCC has put great pressure on local planners to push these approvals on a timely manner. Indeed, FCC rules issued in Nov 09 give planners 150 days to rule on a new cell tower and 120 days for a cell antenna. On the other hand, if there is opposition, then there may be weak areas in the application to challenge.
The financial arrangements are not at all clear. Just one week before the Hearing we found out that the cell tower would be owned by the cell phone company. The firm that filed the application appears to be doing nothing more than "prospecting." We do have serious reservations about the cell phone company having a front man for the application process. We have serious reservations about an application for a cell phone company that was never signed by the principal – is this valid? We have serious reservations that the county accepted such an "incomplete" application. We have serious reservations about the process because it hinders the ability of timely, adequate citizen input.
Two significant pieces are supposed to be in place prior to the submission of an application to the planning department. The cell phone company should clear all hurdles for environmental and scenic/historic issues. So when a cell phone tower application is filed with the planning department, a determination of a need for an environmental review would have been made and, if needed, either completed or nearly so. We had no environmental hurdles, for two example, endangered species or migratory bird corridor. Also there is a process for review of potential impacts on scenic areas and historical sites within a narrow radius (ours was 1/2 mile radius). The scenic/historic review was completed about one month after our application was submitted. Even though the scenic/historic determination did not fully consider everything, we were unable to document anything significant enough to convince the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to change their assessment of "no impact". Note that part of the historic review includes the cell phone company contacting nearby Native America Reservations to find out about any sacred lands. In our case, the Clackamas Indians were "deported" to the Grande Ronde Reservation who may have little record of sacred sites of the Indian tribes of Clackamas County. So other tribes may not always be helpful. Nonetheless, the opposition should be aware of these pre-processes and make sure nothing is overlooked. Some folks believe the process is supposed to be more open to include public hearings.
The construction of cell phone towers and choosing best locations for coverage is a highly technical field. We were unable to find any RF engineer to openly assist us. All of their business is with the cell phone industry and they are afraid of being "blacklisted". We have a neighbor who is into ham radios so we did have someone who could help with the technology issues. Since the county relies on the applicant, challenging the cell phone company, by the opposition, on technical grounds may be very difficult or impossible.
The issue of existing coverage may be important. The applicant claimed that there were gaps in cell phone coverage along Highway 26 from Rhododendron to Sandy. We were able to show that there was complete coverage for the whole distance. The importance comes in when the application is for new coverage, the Hearings Officer may be more lenient. If the application is to “beef-up” existing coverage, the Hearings Office may push the applicant to consider alternative locations or make other limitations.
The opposition's task is to fight the given application. The "powers that be" have identified what is not to be a factor in the decision. These "non factors" include: health (direct edict from FCC); environment, scenic, and historic (remember, should have been taken care of); location (the chosen site is a business decision. another site would be a different application) and process (the contractor, phone company and landowner(s) all have an agreement - so none can pull out or change without violating the agreement and the existing process must go until it ends). We did keep making it clear that the Board of County Commissioners, our elected representatives DID have control over location, collocatable sites, height and camouflage.
Visual effects can be very important, especially to show impact on neighbors, scenic/historic areas and tourist trade. We ended up doing our own balloon tests. Due to our visual testimony, the applicant withdrew their variance request (for a 150’ tower - zoning limit is 100’). They had said no balloon test was necessary. The County could not force them.
In our rural environment, we expect the need for cell towers to be limited. With about one cell phone tower per 1600 people, our CPO estimated that we would need 2 or 3 towers for 4500 population plus tourists. Also like most rural area, we have topographical hurdles for good coverage so just one location will never do. This means that advanced planning with the county is preferred in order to identify good coverage locations in areas/zones that would work for the installation of a cell phone tower. In our case the original application noted the two cell towers that covered our area were 14 miles to the east (Frog Butte, near Mt. Hood) and 14 miles to the west (before the town of Sandy). However, near the end of the process we found out they also had a cell phone antenna site less than 5 miles from the proposed location and this site was not referenced in the filing. Why doesn’t the County know where the cell phone towers and antennas are?
One significant consideration for the applicant is to consider collocation sites - such as, other cell towers, tall buildings, water systems, and power lines. “Don't build a new tower when an existing site would do.” The applicant failed to take this step seriously and never submitted a listing of possible collocation sites and explain why they would not be satisfactory for their purposes. Some locations can be easily explained away. Other possible sites may require an engineer to determine if the antenna can be erected on that building or water tower or whatever. Then an RF engineer should review all of the potential sites to determine if any of them meets their coverage needs. We never saw any such review or analysis. Our CPO continues to seek a comprehensive review of communication needs with all stakeholders in order to improve all kinds of communication needs of our citizens, safety organizations, and businesses.
We consciously decided not to raise the issue of health. Some of our citizens felt that we should do so in order to educate the public even if it meant we lost. The majority of the group was not willing to risk losing. However we have seen the research and believe that the health risks, especially to children, are well documented. That Respect PDX, a Portland Oregon group opposing a cell tower, is using the movie Full Signal and working with Portland politicians and policy makers to challenge the FCC on the health issues is important.
We also had a media campaign, letters to the editor, a petition drive, and a remarkable DVD that showed, fact by fact, where the application misspoke or made false claims. The DVD included showing, via a topographical program similar to that used by cell companies, which co-locations would bring the most cell coverage to the broadest area and how the proposed location would not enhance coverage in the way the application claimed.
