HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2015 RegularCity of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 6, 2015 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Lauren King, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. May 18, 2015 — Regular Meeting Minutes
b. May 26, 2015 — Work Session Minutes
c. June 1, 2015 — Work Session Minutes
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-21 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 2015 TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY GRANT APPLICATION.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6339 —AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SOUTH 59TH
STREET NORTH OF MOUNTAINGATE DRIVE.
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
with Lane County to Act as an Agent for the City for Engineering and Materials Testing
Services.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
VANGORDON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — WYLIE).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 2
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at
both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others.
1. An Ordinance Amending the Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.703, 2.708, 2.709 and 2.710
Regarding Public Contracts.
ORDINANCE NO. 1 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD AMENDING SECTIONS 2.703, 2.708, 2.709, and 2.710 "PUBLIC
CONTRACTS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE (FIRST READING).
Jayne McMahan, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
The proposed amendments arose after a review of the Springfield Municipal Code with respect to the
State of Oregon Public Contracting Law as well as the need for process improvement.
The first requested change to Springfield Municipal Code, Exempt Contract 2.703(5), is to assure the
exemption for declaring an emergency is consistent with current public contracting law under the State
of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and the change clearly defines the circumstances of an emergency.
The second requested change to the Springfield Municipal Code, General Personal Services Contracts.
2.708(3)(e), is to add "health care professionals" to the class list of professionals that are exempt. This
will be a process improvement for Human Resources, Fire and Life Safety and the Municipal Jail by
giving them the latitude to directly appoint health care professionals to positions where locally there
aren't choices to fulfill the needed contractual services. This change will not diminish competition
and it will save staff time by not conducting a sourcing activity and only getting one response.
The third and fourth changes address housekeeping wording to ensure consistency with public
contracting law under ORS. The net result of the change is that for public improvement contracts not
exceeding $5,000, an informal quote process may be used.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
First reading only. No action requested.
2. Public Hearing on 2015 Justice Assistance Grant
Michael Harman, Services Bureau Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The Department is proposing to use the 2015 Justice Assistance Grant to augment the Department's
training budget.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 3
The City of Springfield is eligible to receive $14,517 from the Department of Justice 2015 Local
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). This is an annual, non-competitive grant award designated to support
public safety goals. The Department expects to receive these funds sometime in the Fall, and the grant
period will be for two years. Previous awards have been used to support specialized equipment
purchases, training for police and court staff, and support for community policing programs.
The Department is proposing that the entirety of this year's award be used to augment the
Department's FYI General Fund training budget, which is budgeted at $20,000.
The Department has requested this public hearing to inform the Council and the Public of the grant
opportunity, and to meet an application requirement for a public hearing.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the training.
Mr. Harman said the training has not been narrowed down to a specific topic.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
3. Moderate Visibility Cellular Tower Application — SmartLink PCS on Behalf of Verizon Wireless
LLC, Cases TYP315-00003 and TYP215-00012.
Mayor Lundberg asked Lauren King from the City Attorney's office to advise the Council and the
audience on the standards and procedural requirements of the quasi-judicial hearing process.
Ms. King said moderate visibility cell towers require a discretionary use approval from the Planning
Commission unless City Council on its own motion elevates the application to Council review. On
June 25, 2015, the City Council adopted a motion elevating the Verizon application to Council review.
Tonight's hearing is a quasi-judicial hearing. Quasi-judicial means that certain due process and
procedural rights are associated with these decision making processes. These rights include the right to
notice, to present evidence, to have a written decision based upon standards, and to an impartial
decision maker. The primary purpose of this hearing is to establish a record on which a decision can
be made.
Ms. King said the evidentiary rules associated with these hearings are less restrictive than those used
in Circuit Court. All relevant testimony, including heresy testimony, may be considered. It is
important to note that you must raise procedural and substantive issues at this hearing or you will be
prohibited from raising these issues subsequently on appeal before the Land Use Board of Appeals. A
person raising an issue must support raising the issue with statements or evidence sufficient so the
Council has an opportunity to respond to your question or concern. If you are an applicant, you must
raise concerns regarding any proposed condition of approval to preserve your right to appeal. Failure
to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed conditions of approval without sufficient
specificity to allow the City Council to respond to the issues precludes an action for damages in
Circuit Court.
Ms. King said the record on this matter consists of the application and any supporting information, any
staff report and supporting documents, and any testimony and documentary evidence submitted during
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 4
this hearing. If you want an item entered into the record, please present that item to the City Recorder
orally or in writing. If there is any question in your mind whether material is in the record, make a
point of asking that it be accepted into the record. By statute, anyone has the right to request that the
record be held open for 7 days. No reason for the request is needed, but the request must be made
before the hearing is closed. If new evidence is introduced during that time, the record may be held
open for an additional period of time to allow other parties an opportunity to respond. The applicant
always gets the last word. Anyone can also request a continuance of the public hearing, but
discontinuance is discretionary with the City Council.
This hearing is recorded so those wishing to testify should step up to the podium and begin testimony
by stating their name and address. The City Recorder will receive any request to speak cards and will
keep the transcript of the hearing. If anyone wants a copy of the written decision, they need to provide
their name and address to the City Recorder. The City Council will issue a written decision after the
record is closed. The City Council's decision is final. Any person who participated in the hearing may
appeal the City Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She recommended
people wishing to appeal consult with an attorney regarding the deadline for the appeal and the form of
appeal.
Oregon Land Use Law requires that the City Council disclose any ex parte contacts of conflicts of
interest related to this matter, and allow a person to challenge the City Council for bias. Generally a
conflict of interest involves a situation where the decision maker, his or her family business would
benefit or suffer by his or her decision. Ex parte contact is a communication by the decision maker or
to the decision maker that includes substantive issues regarding the application and occurs outside this
public venue.
Mayor Lundberg asked that everyone here tonight who'd like to testify on this matter fill out a request
to speak form located on the table by the entry door and then give it to the City Recorder when
finished. Please indicate on the form if you support, oppose or are taking no position on this
application.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing on this application and asked the Council to declare any
potential conflicts of interest and to disclose any ex parte contact that may have occurred since the
submittal of this application with the City on May 1, 2015. A conflict of interest arises from any
possible financial gain that might accrue to an individual Councilor or family member as a result of
the Council's decision on the application. Ex parte contact includes any conversations or written
communication between a Councilor and the public or anyone connected with the application. She
asked Council to disclose any ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had ex parte contact with Kelly Sutherland from the Relief Nursery
today. She was listed in a document he read for this item as a neutral party and had a question for her
about the location of the cell tower. During the conversation, he determined that she was not neutral.
Their conversation was limited to location of the cell tower in relation to where children were at the
Relief Nursery. The location is near her building. Ms. Sutherland's response was that she was
opposed to the location of the cell tower in relation to the Relief Nursery, and had concerns about the
noise. She expressed relief that the applicant had changed the automatic generator start-up time. He
feels he can make an unbiased decision.
Councilor Ralston said he had no ex parte contact.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 5
Councilor Woodrow said she also had a conversation with Kelly Sutherland telling her she could not
have a meeting with her because of the public hearing. During part of that conversation, Ms.
Sutherland mentioned that she was concerned about the location of the tower. Councilor Woodrow
said she could make a decision without bias.
Councilor VanGordon said he had no ex parte contact.
Councilor Moore said she had no ex parte contact and had no bias.
Mayor Lundberg said she had no ex parte contact and had no bias.
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner presented the staff report on this item. He provided a map showing the
location of the proposed cell tower location. The proposed location is west of 42nd Street, north of
Jasper Road, and north of an extension of Horace Street which has not yet been developed. The
location as shown on the aerial photo is just southwest of the parcel that has the Relief Nursery, and
west of an existing vacant commercial building that fronts 42nd Street. The specific tower location is
about 54 feet from the north property line, which would abut the Relief Nursery property. He included
a copy of the site plan for specificity of the location and dimensions of the tower. The location of the
proposed tower is central to a
band of Community Commercial zoning which fronts 42nd Street and Jasper Road. There was a
commercial development planned for the northwest quadrant of Jasper Road and South 42nd, but only
got as far on one building and the dedication of right-of-way for Horace Street, but nothing has been
constructed there. With the zoning and designation, it is anticipated that at some point in the future, it
will develop with commercial enterprise; therefore, the applicant has used the Community
Commercial provisions such as setbacks for siting the cell tower at this location. He referred to the
applicants proposed site plan upon which staff based the recommendations and recommended
conditions. The 40' x 40' compound was shown on the map, as well as the property line. The tower is
identified as an 85' high monopine, but staff considers it to be 90 feet high because of the five foot
topper. The proposed cell tower is just under 54' from the north property line which is shared with the
Relief Nursery property. Staff used air photo measurement to estimate the distance from the Relief
Nursery building and came up with about 130 feet, which is beyond the tower height. Staff notes that
the applicant has identified a requirement to set back towers equivalent to the tower height from any
residentially zoned property. Staff identified a 90'setback zone on the west boundary where a cell
tower could not be sited because it abuts the Mt. Vernon Elementary property.
Mr. Limbird said access to the facility is by an existing gravel driveway onto South 42nd Street, which
was intended to serve the existing store building. The applicant plans to use that driveway for
maintenance access and extend a short driveway stub west of the circular driveway to serve the
compound facility. After construction period, there would be occasional maintenance access to the
facility, but is not considered an occupied facility. The equipment shelter proposed is 12' x 26' and
about 10 1/2' and the facility would be surrounded by a six-foot high chain link fence with a barbed
wire topper. There would be other equipment within the facility, including fiber optic lines and
dedicated conduit to serve the tower facility.
The applicant has shown the extension of utilities necessary to serve the facility. At the time of the
submittal, the applicant considered using natural gas, but has changed that to a diesel fire generator.
The applicant is proposing a two -branch per foot design, but staff is recommending a three -branch per
foot design to better match local landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the discretionary use
subject to the recommendation as outlined in the agenda packet, and the site plan subject to conditions
which include provisions of easements and access, and water protection. He noted that staff received
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 6
public comment from property owners on Horace Street. It was pointed out to staff that the location
was incorrectly listed as NW of Horace Street, when it is actually NE of Horace Street. Upon Council
decision, the final staff report and decision will be corrected to NE.
Mr. Limbird asked if the Council would allow the applicant more than 3 minutes for their presentation.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for the definition of a commercial building.
Mr. Limbird said anything requiring a building permit on commercial land. It may not necessarily be
occupied.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if it would be a commercial building if someone built a wood shed larger
than 12' x 12'.
Mr. Limbird said it would have to be reviewed.
Councilor Pishioneri said the building, which is more a pile of brick that is on the property has not
been used in decades. He asked if that is a commercial building or an attractive nuisance.
Mr. Limbird said it has been graffiti tagged, and probably trespassed which would make it a nuisance.
Until such time it is removed, it is the principal building on the property. Someone could build a
secondary structure. The building was permitted when originally constructed, although not necessarily
maintained well enough to be occupied.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if it considered a commercial building if there is no electricity, water or
sewer and it is inhabitable.
Mr. Limbird said he was not aware of the original purpose of the building when constructed. It was
considered an existing condition.
Lauren Russell, SmartLink Representing Verizon Wireless, 621 SW Alder Street, Suite 660,
Portland, OR. Ms. Russell said she would be giving a similar presentation to what she shared
with the Planning Commission on June 2. SmartLink was brought into this process early last
year by Verizon. The existing tower is located at the paper plant (IP) on top of one of their
towers. Every 5-10 years depending on the lease agreement, the landowner has the option of
asking the tenant to leave and IP has asked to have that tower decommissioned. Because of
that, Verizon needed to find a new location so Clearwater was proposed. The area is currently
served by one of the three antenna sectors of Springfield. Once the tower at IP is
decommissioned this year, there will be no antenna pointing towards the Clearwater area and
no good service in that area. She referred to a slide showing the current cell capacity in
Springfield and the level of service in each area.
Once they determined the area of issue, they created a search area by looking at the current
coverage provided by the site to be decommissioned, take into account the terrain, population
and density distribution. Following that search, they identified a preferred location which did
not end up working. They looked at the network traffic requirements for that area to see if
there were existing towers available within the search area, but found there were none. After
they determined that a new tower was needed, they looked at which properties could be
possible. All of the residential area was not feasible, so they had two community commercial
properties in which to approach, and only one had an interested landlord, the property at 4164
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 7
Jasper Road. She referred to an analysis of alternative sites and the reception in those areas.
The closest tower is 0.8 miles north, just south of the decommissioned site and too far to cover
the study area. The next closest tower is 1.27 miles to the northwest which is a Verizon co -
location. Adding an additional facility at that site would duplicate coverage. Another tower
site is located 1.64 miles away, but again is too close to another Verizon site and would
duplicate service rather than address the coverage objectives of Clearwater. She noted a
comparison of coverage before and after the decommissioning of the tower at IP and the start-
up of the new tower.
Ms. Russell said they had originally proposed the two -branch design, but based on condition
of approval in the staff report, they were now looking at the three -branch design. If the
application is approve, they will choose Larson as the manufacturer of the tower as they
design the most realistic trees on the market. She provided examples of the bark and the
branches. She explained the design to make it look most like a tree. She displayed photo
simulations of the tower and landscaping. She said Larson has one 100 -foot monopine in
Central Point which was built behind the Boy Scouts of America building and near a baseball
field. She noted the setbacks and that they are proposing setbacks much further than those
required. The landlord is willing to locate this tower in the proposed location as it would not
impeded future development.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the branches would be maintained and would withstand weather and
birds.
Ms. Russell said the branches are wind tested and Larson provides resurfacing if needed.
Verizon would take care of any repairs or branch replacement if needed.
Councilor VanGordon asked about tower placements and why one of the non -Verizon towers
was ruled out.
Ms. Russell said it was too far north to provide coverage in the Clearwater area. The current
need is capacity, but once the cell tower is decommissioned, coverage will also be needed.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to the before and after pictures and said it looked like moving
the tower created more of a coverage issue.
Ms. Russell said her company was only asked to assist with the current Clearwater issue. She
was not sure if Verizon will be addressing that coverage issue at a later date. The current issue
at the existing site is coverage.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the ambient decibel ratings for the noise of the cooling
systems and generator.
Ms. Russell said when they did the noise study, the background noise was found to be 48
decibels. The limit is 50 decibels at night and 60 decibels during the day. For the air
conditioning units which can run up to 24 -hours a day, they had to make sure they stayed
under 50 decibels. For the generator, they needed to stay below 60 decibels during the day
hours. The actual noise to the northern property was 55 decibels during their 15 -minute cycles.
The construction manager suggested only one air conditioner unit run at a time to keep them
below the noise level. They will abide by the hours required.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 8
Councilor Pishioneri said based on the proposed location of the tower on that lot, it would
significantly impact those ratings based on the location of the service building. If they moved
the site west, those ratings would drop. Springfield invested heavily in the Relief Nursery
property to the north of the proposed tower site. He asked where they took the decibel
measurements.
Ms. Russell said the measurements were taken from the shelter to the northern property line.
The path is north of that location, as is the Relief Nursery.
Councilor Pishioneri said he doesn't oppose having a tower in that area, but opposes the exact
location that was chosen. He said it is not clear if the building on the property is a commercial
building. The property hasn't been used for commercial for decades and he would hate to see
the cell tower degrade the potential for that property. He discussed the RF emissions for
inhabited buildings and asked if there is a different standard for playgrounds. He feels the
residential standards should be applied there since kids are there throughout the entire day. He
wants to be sure they comply with the standards and location based on the path.
Ms. Russell said the proposed location is in an area so the property owner could still develop
the rest of that property. She spoke regarding the non -ionizing electric magnetic radiation. She
can't do a calculation on people walking by, but they often work on rooftop structures with a
ten -foot distance between the antennae and habitable space. They are mostly looking at
emissions at the same level as the antenna (90 feet).
Rohn Roberts, Eugene, OR. Mr. Roberts said he was an attorney and co-chair of the Board for
the Relief Nursery. The Relief Nursery owns and operates a facility at 850 South 42nd Street in
Springfield. The facility abuts the northeast portion of the property owned by Jasper Junction.
This facility was built on property bought from the City of Springfield and he expressed their
appreciation of the support from the City for the facility and the children and families. They
are not opposed to a cell tower on this property per se, but are concerned about the location in
proximity to the Relief Nursery as proposed. According to the site plan in the application, the
north boundary of leased premises will be only 21 feet from the Relief Nursery property. The
90 foot tower will be within 50 feet of the southern boundary of the Relief Nursery property.
The site plan has the measurements from the center of the base, so should be moved another
20 feet to see how close in proximity. He noted that on the southern portion of the Relief
Nursery property are the early child therapeutic classrooms and to the west are the
playgrounds. The playground is within 50 feet of the proposed tower. Section 8 of Section 4.3-
145(f) of the Springfield Development Code provides that in order to ensure public safety, all
towers located or adjacent to any residential zoning districts shall be set back from all
residential property lines. He discussed briefly the Council's charge.
3. Kelly Sutherland, Relief Nursery Executive Director, Eugene, OR. Ms. Sutherland said she
agrees with the remarks from Mr. Roberts. They are grateful to the City of Springfield for
their investment in the Relief Nursery. This has been a collaborative effort of the City to bring
nursery services to the children and families in Springfield. The Relief Nursery works with the
City of Springfield, Rotary Clubs, Springfield Chamber of Commerce and the Council.
Approving the tower at this location would be at odds with the investment the City has already
made in these children. To ensure public safety is part of the Code and this should be
considered a medium residential zone in regards to the setbacks. There is ample room to move
the tower west or south. The picture displayed did not show the playground so was not
reflective of how the property exists today. She referred to the samples of the bark and leaves,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 9
but said they did not see samples of the chain link fence or barbed wire. The tower itself is 130
feet from the Relief Nursery building, but that doesn't include the playground. Children are
out there every day at the playgrounds and in the classrooms. She asked the Council to
consider approving this with the location of the tower modified to a different place on the
property.
4. Dennis Konrady, Goshen, OR. Mr. Konrady said he is supportive of cell phone connections.
He does not want to get rid of the cell tower on that property, but to take a common sense
approach in regards to the Relief Nursery. He is on the Board for the Relief Nursery and also
involved with the Twin Rivers Rotary Club who has worked on this project. They would like
Council to give consideration that this is too close to the playgrounds. They don't feel the
setbacks noted are true numbers and that the tower could be better suited at another site on the
property and still allow room for development. The Relief Nursery has tried to reach out to the
property owner, but had not heard their plans.
Nori Hemphill, Eugene, OR. Ms. Hemphill said she had served as a principal and
administrator for the Eugene School District, and is currently employed by the University of
Oregon as a supervisor of administrator practicum students. She thanked the Council for their
support of children of all ages. She served on the Relief Nursery Board and as an advocate for
children is always concerned about safety. She would like to support what has been said about
moving the location of the tower.
6. Jean Phelps, Eugene OR. Ms. Phelps said the road that goes through the property does not
have vehicle traffic, but it does have children walking to and from the elementary school. She
also noted that the children are not only at the Relief Nursery during the day, but also in the
evening during evening classes for parents and children.
Robert Laney, Pleasant Hill, OR. Mr. Laney said he had been a board member of the Relief
Nursery for 30 years. Subsection 8 of the Development Code provides that in order to insure
public safety, all towers adjacent to residential zoning districts shall be set back from all
residential property lines by a distance at least equal to the height of the facility, closest to the
neighboring property line. They acknowledge that the Relief Nursery is not zoned residential,
however the approval criteria for the pending application provides that if the approving
authority determines there is any impact with the proposed facility on adjacent properties and
on the public, they can be mitigated through the application of other Springfield Development
Code standards. They would submit that the sense it makes to require the 90 foot setback from
a residentially owned area would apply with equal or greater force to the condition that there
is a therapeutic pre-school sited on the adjacent property. That could be mitigated by moving
the tower further from the property line, and would address the safety concerns in the Code.
8. Susan Roberts, Eugene OR. Ms. Roberts said she was a Board Member of the Relief Nursery.
The road referred to by Ms. Phelps is the pathway used by the children to get to school. She
just wants the tower moved a little farther way away from the school.
9. Jean Vinson, Eugene, OR. Ms. Vinson said she was formerly a high school teacher at
Springfield Public Schools and was now fortunate to work at the Relief Nursery. The Relief
Nursery is supported by the Department of Education for early childhood education. She is
here in support of this group that is concerned about children and their safety, and proposes
that the cell tower be relocated to a safer place.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 10
Mayor Lundberg asked if there was anyone wishing to speak under the neutral category.
Mr. Limbird addressed the question about the existing building on the property and said the same
application would be before Council even without the existing building because of the zoning. Other
than the fact that the driveway on the property does provide access from South 42nd Street, the existing
building has no bearing on this application. Tonight they are looking specifically at the lease area
which is delineated by the applicant as the tower location and utilities to the facility. The issue of
public safety would apply if the tower is moved towards the public street away from the Relief
Nursery. The testimony is correct in pointing out that the provision for a 90 -foot setback is specific to
residential zoning and not applicable to other zoning. In a residential district, educational facilities
such as the Relief Nursery and nearby elementary school are discretionary uses and also had to go
through the site review process.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to Finding # 19 on page 12 of Attachment 1 regarding accessory
structures. He said that would indicate that the facility on the property was used in staff's findings.
Mr. Limbird said it was part of their findings, but did not change that this application would be
reviewed.
Ms. King said staff considered the relevance of the property being zoned as Community Commercial
(CC). Whether or not the building was used for commercial purposes at any point in time was not part
of the criteria of approval.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the educational facilities were also exempt from some of the
requirements as a discretionary use.
Mr. Limbird said the requirements were specific to the zoning, not the structure. The CC zoning is the
most permissible zoning in the City. The applicant's submittal is predicated on the provisions of the
City's Development Code regarding wireless transmission facilities and the CC district. There is
provision for the tower to be sited in that zoning, but not in all zoning areas, so this location was
chosen. Staff would echo Ms. Russell's observation that the applicant is basing the site of the tower in
the rear of the property so as not to limit future aspirations for development. At present, the site is a
vacant field with a shuttered masonry building. The aspiration is to have it develop as a viable
commercial center.
Councilor Woodrow asked for clarification on the difference in safety if the tower is moved.
Mr. Limbird said the safety aspect in this case would be limited to the tower falling. That is assuming
there is a catastrophic failure and the tower falls. That is why there is that provision in residential
zoning. It has nothing to do with federally regulated emission frequencies as federal mandate has
determined that local jurisdictions are responsible for debating whether or not those pose a risk to the
public.
Councilor Woodrow said based on the safety premise as described, they would require 90 feet of
clearance in all directions in a residential zone.
Mr. Limbird said that is what the City used when they developed the provisions of the Code.
Councilor Moore asked if commercial development could occur closer to cell towers than residential.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 11
Mr. Limbird said the commercial property could be developed with the leased area as proposed as an
exclusion zone. There is also buffering landscaping proposed by the applicant. The site could be
developed to encompass that area up to the north property line. The applicant would also be within
their rights to fence the property line with chain link fence, but at this time they are only proposing to
fence the enclosure.
Councilor Moore asked if the rental from the cell tower at this location would be very lucrative for the
property owner. She asked if there was discussion with the owner by staff about moving the tower.
Mr. Limbird said staff was only going through the applicant as they have had no reason or cause to
contact the owner. They are reviewing the application based on information presented. Staff doesn't
typically get involved in private transactions. The site was selected as part of the property owner's
plans.
Ms. King said a letter from the Relief Nursery was presented to the Mayor and Council at their seats to
be entered into the record.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the applicant had a rebuttal.
Ms. Russell said that as a representative of Verizon, they agree with the staff report for the
discretionary use, as well as the site plan review and conditions. They have made a change from the
two -branch per foot to the three -branch per foot design, and would support approving the application
with those conditions.
Mayor Lundberg asked if there were any requests to keep the record open.
Ms. King said Council could also leave the record open to get further information.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was a reason why the cell tower couldn't be moved to the west
other than the property owner wanting the tower sited on that location for future commercial purposes.
Ms. King said Council has to make a decision based on the criteria. The applicant submitted this
location, so Council needs to make a decision based on the criteria at this location.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the noise standards would be more applicable if the tower was moved to
the west.
Mayor Lundberg said they have to make a decision based on the location presented based on the
criteria.
Ms. King said if what they have heard from the applicant or the public shows that the application as
presented meets the criteria, the Council could deny. If they do meet the criteria, she would
recommend approval.
Mr. Roberts asked that the record remain open for seven days. He also noted that Council has the right
to approve the application with conditions. He would like to explore that possibility.
Ms. King said with this request, Council must leave the record open, although they can close the
public hearing. This would allow seven days for those requesting the record remain open to submit
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 12
testimony, seven days for the applicant to rebut and typically seven days for staff respond. Staff or the
applicant may be willing to accommodate schedules to tighten that timeline. The Council could then
reconvene to deliberate and vote.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
VANGORDON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT — WYLIE).
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing, but noted the public record would stay open.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were time constraints so staff and the applicant were discussing timelines.
Ms. King said the record will remain open for seven days, and then staff and the applicant would
respond in following seven days, for a total of fourteen days. Council could reconvene on July 20.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
10
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
Councilor Moore said she attended the Housing Policy Board meeting today and would share
information with the Council in written form.
b. City Manager Compensation.
Greta Utecht, Human Resources Director, presented the staff report on this item.
According to City Manager Gino Grimaldi's employment contract, each February the City's Human
Resources Department will average the percentages from four different index sources to determine
what, if any, amount of salary or cost of living adjustment to recommend to the City Council. In
addition, Human Resources staff completed a survey of comparable agencies. Results of the survey
and the average of the indices were presented to the Finance & Judiciary Committee on June 12015,
during which the committee voted to approve and forward on to Council staff's proposal that Mr.
Grimaldi's salary be adjusted by 2%.
The following table lists the indices used, and their overall average.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 13
Portland -Salem CPI -W for 2014
2.3
Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment 2014
1.7
Public Administrators National Index 2014
2.5
Western & Oregon Officers/Executives 2014
2.5
Average:
2.25%
Currently, Mr. Grimaldi's total compensation package is 3.24% below the average of comparable
agencies with no geographic differential calculations applied. (Geographic differential factors help us
compare the cost of labor in another community or region and have been used in other recent market
surveys, specifically those prepared for non -Union, SEIU, IAFF and AFSCME employee groups.)
When the geographic differential factors are applied, Mr. Grimaldi's total compensation package is
approximately 1.20% below average. If a 2.0% adjustment were made to his salary, it would result in
a base salary of $153,349 and an overall increase of $3437. Based on the attached compensation
survey, that adjustment would put his total compensation approximately 1.29% below average without
geographic factoring and .72% above average with the geographic factors applied. Assuming any
adjustment would be implemented July 1, retroactive costs to November 1, 2014 would be $2290 for a
2% adjustment.
Councilor Moore asked if there would be increases in the comparator agencies sometime soon.
Ms. Utecht said the comparison was done in April. At that time, some of those agencies noted that
they would give an increase on July 1. City Manager and County Administrator salaries don't always
fall in line in terms of timing with fiscal years and occur at different times throughout the year.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
VANGORDON TO APPROVE FINANCE & JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO ADJUST SALARY OF CITY MANAGER BY 2% EFFECTIVE
NOVEMBER 1, 2014. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Mayor Lundberg confirmed it was retroactive to 2014.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Council Operating Policies and Procedures Amendment.
Amy Sowa, City Recorder, presented the staff report on this item.
The Springfield Charter states "Section 12. Operating Procedures and Policies. The Council shall
approve and maintain operating procedures and policies annually. " Amendments to the Council's
operating policies and procedures document require approval by a two-thirds vote of the members of
Council present.
On January 21, 2014, Council amended the Council Operating Policies and Procedures, Section IX, by
adding subsections 3.10 and 3.11 regarding appointment to Council boards, commissions, committees
and task forces.
Since adoption of that section in the Council Operating Policies, there was confusion about application
of the amended sections. Council reviewed the section again on November 3, 2014 and June 15, 2015
and asked that the following changes be made to clarify that section.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 6, 2015
Page 14
• Section IX (3) — Appointing Board, Commission, Committee and Task Force Members (per
Council direction at the June 15, 2015 Work Session) :
✓ Add to Section 3.10) "to the Planning Commission and Budget Committee".
✓ Insert the proposed Section 3.9) between 3.10) and 3.11) clarifying that Council will
take into account if an applicant currently serves on another governing body or
another city board, commission or committee, when appointing people to the other
boards, commissions, and committees (besides the Planning Commission and Budget
Committee) — rename to 3.11).
✓ Keep Section 3.11) - rename to 3.12)
Another change was made to clarify Section VIII (4) regarding notification to the City Manager's
office and Mayor when Council members are asked to do an interview.
Finally, Section III (5) (5.2. 1) and (5.2.2) was added to formally outline the process for proclamations.
Other minor housekeeping amendments are also being proposed.
Staff is asking for formal approval of the proposed amendments.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
VANGORDON TO APPROVE THE AMENDED COUNCIL OPERATING POLICIIES AND
PROCEDURES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT — WYLIE).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 8:35 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa '
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
&nf 04�—
City Reco er