HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06 Proposed Text Amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the Springfield Development Code AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/3/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird/DPW
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time: S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals:
x3784 minutes Maintain and Improve Infrastructure
and Facilities ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.3-145, TABLE 4.3-1 OF THE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and first reading on the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.3-
145—WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FACILITIES, TABLE 4.3-1; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The applicant has submitted a request for a Development Code text amendment to expand the
type of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District. The requested text amendment
proposes to add the Public Land and Open Space District to the list of zoning districts where stealth, low visibility, and moderate visibility WTS facilities are allowable.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report
2. Proposed SDC Text Amendment
3. Citywide Map of PLO Zoned Properties4. Ordinance
5.Application and Exhibits6.Planning Commission Order and Recommendation
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The proposed Development Code text amendment would expand the provisions for WTS facilities
within the PLO District. Currently, only stealth and low visibility WTS facilities are allowable
within PLO zoned properties. The requested amendment affects Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the SDC and would move the PLO District from the third (bottom) tier to the second (middle) tier
of zoning districts listed in Table 4.3-1 (see Attachment 2). A footnote also would be added to
Table 4.3-1 specifying that the provisions for moderate visibility WTS facilities within the PLO District are limited to properties within the City limits only.
The applicant is requesting the expanded list of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District because these properties are usually adjacent to residentially-zoned land and are well-distributed
throughout the city. A map showing the location of PLO zoned properties within the city has been provided for context (Attachment 3). Increasingly, cellular and wireless service providers are improving the coverage and capacity of their networks to meet modern demands. As a result
of these infrastructure upgrades, WTS facilities are sited within the developed fabric of urban areas with the intent to minimize their visibility and potential conflicts with other land uses. If the Development Code text amendment is adopted, moderate visibility WTS facilities proposed
within the PLO District would be subject to standard Type III Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review proceedings in accordance with SDC 4.3-145.H. The height of WTS facilities in the PLO
District would be limited to 150 feet high, or not greater than the horizontal distance between the
base of the tower and the nearest residential district, whichever is less.
At the regular meeting on September 6, 2016, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and unanimously adopted an order and recommendation of approval for the requested Development Code text amendment.
Staff Report and Findings Springfield City Council Type IV Amendment to the Springfield Development Code
Hearing Date: October 3, 2016
Case Number: TYP416-00001 Applicant: Kelly Lea, Verizon Wireless
Project Location: City-wide legislative action
Request The City has received a request for a Development Code text amendment from a private party on behalf
of Verizon Wireless. The proposed text amendment to the Wireless Telecommunications System
Facilities section would apply to all properties that are zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO) within the City limits (Attachment 3). In accordance with SDC 5.6-105.B & C, an amendment to the City’s
Development Code can be initiated by a citizen, and such amendments are only allowed twice each
calendar year: on or before January 5th and July 5th. The application was submitted on July 1, 2016 and is
the only citizen-initiated application proposing to amend the City’s Development Code filed since January
5, 2016. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) on September 7, 2016. At the conclusion of the public hearing and deliberation, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted an order and recommendation of approval
for the requested Development Code text amendment.
Overview of Proposed Text Amendment The applicant is proposing to amend Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the SDC to move Public Land and Open Space from the list of zoning districts where stealth and low visibility wireless telecommunications
system (WTS) facilities are allowable to the list of zoning districts where stealth, low visibility, and
moderate visibility WTS facilities are allowable. The proposed text amendment would move Public Land
and Open Space from the third (bottom) tier of Table 4.3-1 to the second (middle) tier of the table (Attachment 2). A footnote to Table 4.3-1 also would be added to specify that moderate visibility WTS facilities within the PLO District would be allowable only inside the City limits.
In accordance with SDC 5.6-110, amendment of the Development Code text is reviewed under Type IV
procedure as a legislative action. Notification and Written Comments In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to
an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to the DLCD on July 26, 2016, which is
more than 35 days prior to the initial public hearing on the matter conducted by the Planning Commission
on September 7, 2016.
In accordance with SDC 5.2-110.B, Type IV legislative land use decisions require notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Notification of the September 7, 2016 Planning Commission public hearing was
published in the legal notices section of The Register-Guard on August 31, 2016. Notification of the
October 3, 2016 City Council public hearing was published in the legal notices section of The Register-
Guard on September 26, 2016. Additionally, the notices for the Planning Commission and City Council
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10
public hearings were posted in three public areas: the notice board in the City Hall main lobby, the Development & Public Works office electronic notice board, and on the City’s webpage.
Background
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and OARs provide minimal direction and oversight on how
communities can or should regulate the location and appearance of WTS facilities. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognizes the right of local governments to regulate the siting of WTS facilities to minimize the impact on residential neighborhoods and other potentially incompatible land uses.
In carrying out their mandate of promoting competition and reducing regulation in order to secure lower
prices and higher quality services for consumers, and encouraging the rapid deployment of new
technologies, the 1996 Telecommunications Act sets out three key principles:
The siting of wireless telecommunications system facilities must comply with local zoning and land
use regulations;
Local jurisdictions must not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, but may distinguish applications based upon differing visual, aesthetic and safety concerns;
and
The local regulations must not result in the actual or effective prohibition of the provision of
personal wireless services.
Consistent with the direction provided by the Telecommunications Act, and also in response to increasing
demand from the marketplace, the City adopted new Development Code language pertaining to the
review and siting of WTS facilities in June, 2013. The WTS facility provisions are codified in Section
4.3-145 of the SDC. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.C, WTS facilities that existed prior to adoption of the updated Development Code provisions are considered legally non-conforming uses that can remain
as-is and be maintained or replaced as necessary. Since adoption of the updated Development Code
provisions, the City has issued permits for modifications to existing WTS facilities and approved several
new WTS facilities.
Criteria of Approval Section 5.6-115 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review
of Development Code text amendments. The Criteria of Development Code text amendment approval are:
SDC 5.6-115 CRITERIA
A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the
City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance with the following:
1. The Metro Plan; 2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
A.1 Conformance with the Metro Plan
Finding 1: The adopted Metro Plan does not specifically address wireless telecommunications
system facilities in the same manner as it addresses water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
transportation facilities; however, communication facilities are included as an element of “the
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10
minimum level of key urban services” identified in the text of the Metro Plan. Improving and/or increasing siting opportunities for communication facilities is consistent with this Metro Plan text and the policies cited under this criteria (A.1).
Finding 2: In accordance with Metro Plan Policy G.1, the minimum level and full range of key
urban facilities and services are to be extended in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies of Chapter II-C and other relevant policies.
Finding 3: The Metro Plan – and, perhaps more importantly, a key tenet of the City of Springfield’s
governing philosophy – obligates the developer to pay the cost of extending facilities and services.
In accordance with Metro Plan Policy G.36, development is required to pay the cost of extending services and facilities as determined by the local jurisdiction.
Finding 4: A fundamental objective of the Metro Plan is designing and locating public and private
facilities such that adverse impacts on neighborhoods are avoided or minimized. Public and private
facilities are to be designed and located “in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity”. This amendment provides for a wider distribution of potential cell tower sites, but only as stealth or low-moderate visibility
facilities. This broader site access may result in fewer towers given the overall uniform distribution
of this zoning district across the city likely to eliminate “dark” areas.
Finding 5: The Metro Plan requires cities to address environmental design considerations in their development regulations, including aesthetics. In accordance with Metro Plan Policy E.6, local
jurisdictions are to carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure they address
environmental design considerations such as safety, crime prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility
with existing and anticipated adjacent land uses. The design standards for cell towers are specified in Section 4.3-145, and in particular, visual impact is an important underpinning of the regulation of cell towers: “All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest
extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and camouflage. All facilities
shall also be designed to be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials, and
other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to accomplish the coverage objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be sited in a manner to cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring
properties, and distant properties.” SDC 4.3-145F.13.
Finding 6: The Metro Plan intends that planning standards will evolve over time to allow for flexibility and creative solutions to design problems. In accordance with Metro Plan Policy E.8, site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions are to allow for flexibility in design that will
achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems. See
finding immediately preceding.
Finding 7: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals and policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposed
amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 modifies the provisions for certain WTS facilities within
the PLO District. The Metro Plan does not specifically address the siting of WTS facilities, but it
does list “Communication Facilities” as a key urban service. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan goals and policies related to communication facilities,
and does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2
requirements.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10
Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.A, key elements of the City’s WTS facilities section include: providing a uniform set of standards and requirements for the placement, operation, alteration and removal of WTS facilities; encouraging the siting of new WTS facilities in preferred
locations; minimizing the impact of WTS facilities on surrounding residential areas; and minimizing
visual impacts of WTS facilities through careful design, configuration, screening or camouflaging
techniques. The proposed amendment does not amend, modify or diminish any of the preceding standards and requirements.
Finding 9: The focus of the proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 is to address WTS
siting issues by allowing for an expanded range of facilities within the PLO District. Because
“moderate visibility” WTS facilities are subject to a Type III Discretionary Use process, the burden would remain on the applicant to demonstrate that potential visual and aesthetic impacts to neighborhoods are appropriately mitigated. Low visibility and stealth requirements exceed the
visual mitigation standards for all other cell tower types.
Finding 10: In accordance with SDC 3.2-705.A, the PLO District applies primarily to government uses (including public offices and facilities); educational uses (including high schools and colleges); and parks and open space uses (including public parks and publicly or privately owned golf courses
and cemeteries).
Finding 11: The applicant has expressed an interest in siting new WTS facilities in strategic locations within the City, but has encountered conflicts between the provisions of the City’s Development Code, the location and distribution of suitable zoning districts within the City, current
technology and facility design, and physical site constraints such as topography and tree cover.
Based on the uniform distribution of PLO zoning across the City the applicant has proposed an
amendment to the text of the Development Code that would allow an expanded range of WTS facilities to be considered in the PLO district.
Finding 12: The proposed text amendment would allow for moderate visibility WTS facilities to be
considered on PLO properties, subject to Discretionary Use proceedings. The effect of the proposed
text amendment would make the provisions of SDC 4.3-145 somewhat more permissive than the current Code provisions. Staff is of the view that the proposed text amendment would result in an expansion – as opposed to a reduction – in the affected properties’ development potential.
Therefore, a Measure 56 notification to property owners is not warranted with this application.
Conclusion: Communication facilities are an element of the Metro Plan, although wireless telecommunications system facilities are not specifically addressed – possibly because the Metro Plan pre-dates modern wireless systems providing voice, data, and internet services. However, the
Metro Plan does contemplate locational and design considerations for minimizing the impact of
facilities on residential neighborhoods and other potentially incompatible land uses. Therefore, as
proposed, the Development Code text amendment is consistent with provisions and applicable policies of the Metro Plan as noted in the preceding findings under Criteria A.1.
A.2 Conformance with Applicable State Statutes
Finding 13: ORS Chapter 759 covers the regulation of telecommunication utilities within the State of Oregon. However, ORS 759 pertains to regulatory oversight of utility providers and how they
conduct business within Oregon. This Chapter does not provide guidance or limitations for local
jurisdictions responsible for reviewing and approving WTS facilities in accordance with adopted
zoning and Development Code standards.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10
Finding 14: In accordance with ORS 759.015, it is the goal of the State of Oregon to “secure and maintain high-quality universal telecommunications service at just and reasonable rates for all classes of customers and to encourage innovation within the industry by a balanced program of
regulation and competition”. The state Public Utility Commission is responsible for administering
the statutes with respect to telecommunications rates and services.
Finding 15: In accordance with ORS 759.016, it is the goal of the state of Oregon to promote access to broadband services in order to improve the economy, improve the quality of life in communities
throughout the state, and to reduce the economic gap between communities that have access to
broadband digital services and those that do not. This goal is to be achieved by:
Expanding broadband and other telecommunications services;
Creating incentives to establish and expand broadband and other telecommunications
services;
Undertaking telecommunications planning at the local, regional and state levels that includes
participants from both the public and the private sectors;
Removing barriers to the full deployment of broadband digital applications and services and
providing incentives for the removal of those barriers; and
Removing barriers to public-private partnerships in areas where the private sector cannot
justify investments.
Finding 16: The proposed text amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 does not conflict with the stated goals in ORS 759.015 and 759.016. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment is
requested to remove a potential barrier to the provision of wireless telecommunications services.
Finding 17: Criterion 2 addresses the conformity of proposed Development Code amendments with state laws, which do not limit local governments from establishing review and siting standards for WTS facilities. However, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes some limitations
on siting standards for local jurisdictions: [The Act] does not “limit or affect the authority of a State
or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service facilities”, except for the following limitations: (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof--
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for
authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request
to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an
expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.
Finding 18: Section 4.3-145 of the SDC was amended in 2013 to be consistent with the provisions
of the Federal Telecommunications Act, including a set of standards and review procedures for the
placement, operation, modification, and removal of WTS facilities.
Finding 19: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F, the Federal Telecommunications Act establishes
limitations on the siting standards that local governments can place on WTS facilities. Section 704
of the Act states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services;
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in [Section 4.3-145] to the extent that
they do not violate Federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the standards found in [Section 4.3-145] constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for providing
coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
Conclusion: ORS Chapter 759 regulates telecommunications utilities and their business operations
within Oregon. However, the adopted statutes do not govern the review and siting of WTS facilities by local jurisdictions. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable
sections of ORS Chapter 759. In addition to applicable state statutes, the proposed text amendment
defers to the regulatory limitations placed on local jurisdictions for the siting standards found in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. In furtherance of ORS 759 as well as the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the proposed amendment to the SDC providing for the siting of certain WTS in the PLO zone: (1) Complies with the requirements of ORS 227.178 with respect to
final action on permits and limited land use decisions occurring with 120 days; (2) Requires notice
and adoption of final action in writing, whether for an approval, an approval with conditions, or a
denial; and (3) Does not establish radio frequency emissions as a basis for a denial if all other
standards applicable to such a decision have been satisfied. A.3 Conformance with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules
Finding 20: OAR 860, Division 60 contains administrative rules that govern telecommunications as
regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission. This division implements ORS 759, but does not provide oversight for local jurisdictions responsible for reviewing and siting WTS facilities.
Therefore, the proposed text amendment does not conflict with OAR 860, Division 60.
Finding 21: Of the 19 statewide goals, staff has determined that only four have direct or indirect
applicability to the proposed Development Code text amendment: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement; Goal 2 – Land Use Planning; Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources; and Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. The list of statewide goals and their
applicability to the requested text amendment are outlined below.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10
Finding 22: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process”. The proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 are the subject of a legislative decision-making process with multiple public hearings before the City’s
Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
proposed amendment on September 7, 2016. The Planning Commission public hearing was
advertised in the legal notices section of The Register-Guard on August 31, 2016. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted an order and recommendation of approval for the requested text amendment (Attachment 6). Notification of the City Council public hearing was published in the
legal notices section of The Register-Guard newspaper on September 26, 2016, which is one week
prior to the meeting date. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Goal 1
requirements. Finding 23: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide
planning program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with
a comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the
plan’s policies into force and effect. Finding 24: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (“Metro Plan”) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has
adopted other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such as Refinement Plans) that provide more
detailed direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The findings under Criteria A.1 demonstrate compliance with the Metro Plan; a land use regulation (development code) is by state law a part of the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city (ORS 197.015
Definitions) and therefore subject to the same public hearing process used for amendment of the
Metro Plan; the process for such amendments and to which this amendment complies, is specified in
Chapter IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements. Finding 25: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals
and policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposed
amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 modifies the provisions for certain WTS facilities within
the PLO District. The Metro Plan does not specifically address the siting of WTS facilities, but it does list “Communication Facilities” as a key urban service. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan goals and policies related to communication facilities,
and does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2
requirements.
Finding 26: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land applies to areas subject to farm zoning that are outside acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs): “Agricultural land does not include land within
acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4.”
(Text of Goal 3). The City has an acknowledged UGB and therefore consistent with the express
language of the Goal, does not have farm land zoning within its jurisdictional boundary. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 3 is not applicable.
Finding 27: Goal 4 – Forest Land applies to timber lands zoned for that use that are outside
acknowledged UGBs with the intent to conserve forest lands for forest uses: “Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-006-0020: Plan Designation Within an Urban Growth Boundary. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the designation of forest lands is not
required.” The City has an acknowledged UGB and does not have forest zoning within its
incorporated area. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 4 is not applicable.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10
Finding 28: Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources applies to more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated. The proposed Development
Code text amendment would expand the types of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District.
However, the proposed amendment would not circumvent the requirement for all WTS facilities in
the PLO District to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and, for moderate visibility facilities, in a public hearing forum for Discretionary Use and Site Plan approval. Additionally, the city does not have a specific zoning district which it applies to inventoried Goal 5 natural resources; the presence
of these resources is completely independent of the process used to zone land. Protective measures
for all of the city’s inventoried Goal 5 resources are applicable to the resource and not unique,
circumscribed or altered based on zoning classification. The proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 does not modify existing Development Code or Metro Plan policies relating to identified natural resources. The proposed text amendment does not make any changes to adopted
Goal 5 natural resources development standards or protective measures adopted to comply with
Goal 5 requirements. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with
Goal 5. Finding 29: Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality applies to local comprehensive plans
and the implementation of measures consistently with state and Federal regulations on matters such
as clean air, clean water, and preventing groundwater pollution. The proposed text amendment does
not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 6 requirements Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 6.
Finding 30: Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards applies to development in
areas subject to natural hazards such as floodplains and potential landslide areas. Local
jurisdictions are required to apply “appropriate safeguards” when planning for development in hazard areas. The City has inventoried areas subject to natural hazards such as the McKenzie and Willamette River flood plains and potential landslide areas on steeply sloping hillsides. The
proposed text amendment has no effect on City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to
comply with Goal 7 requirements; siting standards for WTS facilities are not exempted from
conformance in these hazard areas therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 7.
Finding 31: Goal 8 – Recreational Needs requires communities to evaluate their recreation areas
and facilities and to develop plans to address current and projected demand. The provision of
recreation services within Springfield is the responsibility of Willamalane Park & Recreation District. Willamalane has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for the provision of park, open space and recreation services for Springfield. The proposed text amendment would not affect
Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or other ordinances, policies, plans, and studies
adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Willamalane owns several properties zoned PLO
therefore these proposed amendments would allow Willamalane the option to offer areas on these properties for the siting of WTS facilities; however, such an offer is at the discretion of Willamalane and subject to the standards contained in these amendments. Therefore, this action has no effect on
the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8.
Finding 32: Goal 9 – Economic Development addresses diversification and improvement of the economy. It requires local jurisdictions to conduct an inventory of commercial and industrial lands,
anticipate future needs for such lands, and provide enough appropriately-zoned land to meet the
projected demand. The proposed text amendment would not affect City ordinances, policies, plans,
and studies – such as the Commercial-Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) Survey – adopted to
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10
comply with Goal 9 requirements. All of the city’s economic development policies related to zoning classifications rely on commercial, industrial and mixed use land inventories. This proposed amendment applies only to PLO zones; therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s
acknowledged compliance with Goal 9.
Finding 33: Goal 10 – Housing applies to the planning for – and provision of – needed housing types, including multi-family and manufactured housing. The proposed text amendment would not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 10 requirements,
nor are any of the City’s residential zoning districts impacted by this proposed amendment.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 10.
Finding 34: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. In accordance with
OAR 660-011-0005(5), public facilities include water, sewer and transportation facilities, but do not
include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the operation of those facilities.
Communications services are identified in Goal 11, but within the definition of urban facilities and services that are provided at the appropriate type and level to support planned development. Wireless telecommunications systems are not listed among the public facilities that must be
included in local public facilities plans. However, the proposed amendment will, at the property
owner’s discretion, provide opportunities for enhanced reception and broadcast coverage by WTS
providers and in so doing ensure the City’s continued acknowledged compliance with Goal 11 as a result of this proposed amendment.
Finding 35: The proposed text amendment does not change the obligation of the WTS provider to
comply with the City’s existing standards as outlined in the Springfield Development Code.
Proposed moderate and high visibility WTS facilities continue to be subject to the standards found in Section 4.3-145, including but not limited to the requirement for Discretionary Use proceedings before the Springfield Planning Commission or Hearings Official, as appropriate.
Finding 36: Goal 12 – Transportation applies to the provision of a “safe, convenient and economic
transportation system”. OAR 660-012-0060 requires that proposed amendments to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation shall consider potential impacts to existing or planned transportation facilities. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies, plans, or
studies adopted to comply with Goal 12 requirements, therefore this action has no effect on the
City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 12.
Finding 37: Goal 13 – Energy Conservation states that “land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles”. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances,
policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. While increasing the
distribution of eligible sites for moderate-visibility WTS facilities arguably results in no measurable energy conservation, increasing the distribution of available sites does not demonstrate an increase in energy consumption. Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance
with Goal 13.
Finding 38: Goal 14 – Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and to incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The proposed
amendment does not affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to
comply with Goal 14 requirements.
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10
Finding 39: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits and UGB. The provisions of the City’s Willamette River Greenway Overlay District (SDC
3.3-300) and SDC 4.3-145 allow for the placement of WTS facilities within the Willamette
Greenway if measures are implemented to minimize the visual impact of such facilities (ie. “stealth”
or “low visibility” facilities). The proposed text amendment does not change or nullify the requirement for development proposals to comply with the City’s existing Willamette River Greenway regulations regardless of the underlying zoning, and to demonstrate compliance with
Goal 15 requirements. Staff notes that this proposed amendment applies only to PLO zoned land
inside the Springfield City limits. Any new tower facilities proposed on PLO zoned land within the
Willamette Greenway Overlay District would be subject to a separate Type III land use approval process requiring a public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission, therefore this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 15.
Finding 40: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and
Ocean Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield. Therefore, in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16-19 do not apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: Staff has determined and concluded that the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145,
Table 4.3-1 is consistent with the Metro Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules and the Statewide Planning Goals.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the findings above and the criteria of SDC 5.6-115 for approving amendments to the Springfield
Development Code, staff finds the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 is consistent with these criteria, and staff recommends that the City Council give first reading to the adopting
Ordinance.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10
TYP416-00001 – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.3-145, TABLE 4.3-1
OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Proposed amendment to Table 4.3-1 would move Public Land and Open Space from the list of zoning
districts where Stealth and Low Visibility Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facilities are
allowable to the list where Stealth, Low Visibility, and Moderate Visibility WTS facilities are allowable.
A footnote would be added to Table 4.3-1 specifying that Moderate Visibility WTS facilities within the
PLO District are only allowable within the City limits.
The proposed amendment to Table 4.3-1 is depicted on the following page.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
PROPOSED TABLE 4.3-1 AS AMENDED
Table 4.3-1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Light-Medium Industrial
Quarry Mining Operations
High visibility
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Community Commercial
Campus Industrial
Booth Kelly Mixed Use
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Public Land and Open Space (1)
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Neighborhood Commercial
General Office
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
Low visibility
Stealth
(1) Moderate visibility WTS facilities in the Public Land and Open Space District are allowed only within the
City limits.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
Geogra
phic Informa ti o n ServicesInformatio n Technology De
ptAug2016
McKenzie R .W il lamette R.
Springfield, OR
Public Lands and Open Space Zoning
5
126
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Users assume all responsibility forany loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Public Lands & Open SpaceOutside City Limits
Public Lands & Open Space
Inside City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Springfield City Limits
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 11
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 11
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 1