Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2016 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY NOVEMBER 14,2016 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday November 14,2016 at S:30 p.m.,with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie,Moore,Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri.Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi,City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith,City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent(excused). 1. Wireless Telecommunications System Facilities Development Code Amendments. Jim.Donovan,Planning Supervisor, presented this item on behalf of Andy Limbird. Council requested a work session to discuss the suitability of Public Land/Open Space(PLO)sites to accommodate moderate visibility cell towers if a setback of 300 feet is required from neighboring residential property. Mr.Donovan said the current requirement is that the setback is the height of the pole,with a maximum height of 150 feet.The question was raised whether or not that setback amount was sufficient, or if a 300 foot setback would better serve the area. Staff has prepared a series of maps showing the location of PLO sites within the City limits and UGB. The sites include overlays showing the 2,000-foot exclusion zone between individual WTS towers, along with a 300-foot setback from adjacent residential districts. The 300-foot setback was determined based on feedback from the City Council at the recent public hearing meetings and it represents a distance that is twice the maximum allowable tower height(150 feet). Staff observes that significantly increasing the setback distance from adjacent residential districts eliminates many PLO sites from eligibility and would require more centralized placement of WTS facilities in close proximity to existing buildings and structures on larger sites. About one-third of the 47 PLO sites shown would not be able to have a cell tower. Councilor Woodrow asked how many sites would be left if they went with a 300 foot setback. Mr. Donovan said approxi irately 20. Councilor Moore said it looked like increasing the setback to 300 feet would move towers closer to buildings on school properties that would be allowed to site a tower. Mr. Donovan said that is correct.He referred to the map showing Yolanda and Briggs sites, in which the larger setback would move them closer to the buildings. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14,2016 Page 2 Mayor Lundberg said even with the limitations,approval is still discretionary. Mr. Donovan said it is a discretionary use and the decision can be trade by the Council. The Code states that 150 is an `at least' figure(at least the height of the tower).Council has the discretion of going further than 150 feet on a site by site basis. Mayor Lundberg said the other criteria is where cell phone companies want to place their towers. Mr.Donovan said there are a lot of factors involved when choosing a site that the wireless company would consider.He explained several of those factors. Councilor Pishioneri asked if other jurisdictions that have co-located WTS's on billboards,and whether or not our code would.allow that to occur. A current request is 200 yards from a large billboard structure. He asked if they could co-locate with that billboard. Mr. Donovan said that depends on their technology and there are stealth antennas on buildings,etc. They may need to consider that in the near future. Councilor Pishioneri asked if it was appealable if the Council wanted more of a setback than the required amount. Mr. Donovan said all decisions are appealable.Generally,the Land Use Board of Appeal(LUBA) gives deference to local policy makers. Councilor Pishioneri said statutes seem to be written to favor local rule.He wanted to snake sure our Code is written to allow co-locating on these other sites. Mr. Donovan said he is not aware of a pre-emption that wouldn't allow a local jurisdiction to make that decision. Councilor Moore referred to the current code amendment,and noted this was a different amendment. She clarified that the Council had the discretion to require a further setback than the required 150 feet. Because of that,by placing a 300 foot setback,they could be eliminating some locations that might be considered. Councilor Pishioneri on the other hand, if the code says 150 feet,and the Council says it must be 300 feet,the applicant does not get their money back. It is a substantial cost to apply. If the City has the higher buffer,there is more certainty for the applicant when they apply. Councilor Ralston said he wants to prevent being too restrictive. Mr. Donovan said when a company comes in and is deciding what technology they want to employ, a development issues meeting is held where everything is weighed in and public notice is provided. They can hold a public meeting to see if there could be resistance. They always have an idea of what obstacles may face them. Mayor Lundberg said the Council still has the discretion if the code is less restrictive,and the company has the ability to test the waters to see what they want to do, including where they want to locate.Council has input on the type of cell tower installed such as a faux tree. She asked if the Council would still have discretion to lessen the setback if they had it set at 300 feet as the minimum. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14,2016 Page 3 Mr. Donovan said it could add a layer in the process. Council could also require a shorter tower height. Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they wanted to move forward. Councilor Woodrow said she likes having the discretion of how they decide,and she didn't see a benefit to be more restrictive. Mr. Donovan said staff will endeavor to bring as many options to the Council when these applications come forward. Councilor Wylie said getting this infonmation was helpful. It serves the public well to have the Council more educated. Councilor Pishioneri asked for clarification on the minimum setback in the current code. Mr. Donovan said it is at least the height of tower,and 150 feet is the maximum height in any zone. Councilor Pishioneri said that means a 60 foot tower could be 60 feet from a home. 2. Stormwater Permit Renewal Update. Matt Stouder,Environmental Services Manager,presented this item. Staff will update Council on the status of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater permit renewal and provide information about the potential impacts of the proposed permit requirements. He referenced the City's 14 page system stormwater permit which was issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)under the oversite of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). That permit was issued in 2007 and expired in 2012. The City applied for renewal and was put on an administrative extension allowing the permit to remain in effect.The permit contains the minimum control measures the Federal govermnent imposes on us for stormwater quality and stormwater management and lays the framework for our water quality programs, capital programs, Development codes and standards,stormwater related maintenance and operations practices, as well as our Municipal Code requirements. In 2010, Council adopted the Springfield Stormwater Management Manual which details how the City will meet those requirements. The City reports ani-►ually to DEQ on how we are doing on those requirements. In 2012,DEQ commenced a process to issue a new Stormwater permit to Springfield and other Phase 11 communities. They determined that rather than doing individual permits,they were going to do a general permit process for all Phase 11 communities(those with populations between 50,000 and 100,000,or a city next to that size of city). DEQ convened a technical advisory committee made up of stakeholders with municipal(including Springfield staff)and environmental interests. Due to a number of staff changes in DEQ,the process was stalled.The draft Phase U General Permit was released this summer for public comment. Staff expected the new permit to be more stringent than the current regulations,but did not realize it would be quite as stringent as it is. The proposed draft permit contains language that is not implementable,is unclear,that takes away flexibility from local jurisdictions to make decisions with respect to stormwater management, and that extends well beyond City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14,2016 Page 4 the Federal six minimum control measures without a scientific or technical basis. The draft permit contains language which,if implemented,would place significant financial and administrative burden on the City with little to no benefit to water quality. The majority of the concerns regarding the permit came from small communities or other communities that don't currently have a stormwater permit. Springfield is in a better position than most of those other communities. Given the level of concern with the draft permit, Springfield partnered with other affected Phase I1 communities(Albany, Corvallis and Turner)to retain Cable Huston(a legal firm from Portland specializing in the Clean Water Act)to assist in providing review of the draft permit. After consulting with Cable Huston,the City submitted a public comment package to DEQ,which included Attachments 2 and 3 of the agenda packet,as well as detailed comments on the draft permit. Additionally,staff provided public testimony to DEQ during a public hearing in August. He reviewed the concerns addressed. Some of the requirement would require code amendments.A lot in the permit would provide little water quality benefit,with a lot of administrative work and time. Mr. Stouder said the good news is that Springfieldis in good position with our programs and staff resources compared to other communities that don't have those things in place. Springfield has a stable revenue source. The impact won't be as great since the City has been trying to position ourselves for this permit. The public comment period ended on September 2, 2016, and DEQ received 235 comment letters and testimony from 10 individuals at the public hearing. Many of the comments were from other cities, while many were from environmental groups asking for more stringent requirements.As a result of the significant public comment received,DEQ has revised the proposed issuance date of the Phase II General Permit from September 30,2016 to a date TBD in spring of 2017. DEQ is reviewing the public comments and looking at potential changes. They announced last week that they plan to hold a stakeholder meeting with high-level stakeholders in December to discuss some of the comments. Mr. Stouder said DEQ will issue a permit and jurisdictions will have to decide whether or not they accept the permit.He would recommend the City accept the permit, although some cities, such as Albany, may not since they don't have a revenue source or programs. By law,the DEQ has to offer the option of an individual permit,which will be the same permit as the general permit. Cities have to then take that permit,or find a reason to sue based on it being unlawful. If Springfield chooses to accept the permit,there will be a public comment period, followed by issuance of the permit.The City will then have the next couple of years to implement the requirements through Code updates, broadened educational outreach, and updating our Stormwater Management Plan. Councilor Ralston said we have a choice to accept or not. If we chose to accept it,there will be certain parts that will cost the City more money. He would like us to have a choice. He asked what things they didn't like in this proposed permit. Mayor Lundberg said in the letter from staff,a list of things was outlined that were overreaching such as no flexibility, runoff on site, code requirements,etc. Councilor Ralston said this is an example of an unfunded mandate. Springfield has been ahead of the curve on our water. He would prefer to barter and take only what fits Springfield. Mr. Stouder said at this time,they are not sure what changes may be made after the public comment and meetings being held by the DEQ. Some things will stay and others may be removed. They want to look at the final permit before deciding, and would bring it back to Council. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14,2016 Page 5 Councilor Moore asked how long this permit is good for. Mr. Stouder said 5 years,but it can be extended. Councilor Moore asked how this impacted the City of Eugene and Lane County. Mr. Stouder said Eugene will be indirectly impacted, but because they have a higher population they are a Phase I community and have a different permit.They are generally held to more stringent standards than Phase II communities. Lane County has a Phase 11 permit.The City of Eugene and the City of Springfield both have intergovernmental agreements with the County, and they are not sure how they will meet the requirements. Councilor Moore asked if City staff would be invited to participate in the high level stakeholder meeting in December. Mr. Stouder said he is hopeful that he can attend that meeting.The City does work with the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies(ACWA). Currently,DEQ indicates they will have representatives from ACWA,the Hornebuilder's Association, and an environmental organization. They want to keep it small,but he thinks more people are needed.He would like to be there representing a current permit holder,and someone else from a smaller community.They are working on that through ACWA,but he could also contract DEQ directly to ask. Councilor Moore asked if a letter from the Mayor and Council would be helpful, and if so she suggested they do that. She asked who oversaw DEQ. Mr. Stouder said the Environmental Protection Agency. Councilor Moore asked if because that is a Federal agency,the new administration might have an impact on the regulations. She does not want to eliminate environmental protections,but this seems unreasonable. Mr. Stouder said he is not sure there will be changes in water protection with the new administration. The Clean Water Act is pretty set, although it does need to be updated. There will likely be focus on other areas of the EPA.There may be a change in demeanor as the current regional administrator is very rigid. They are on a path with this permit,but he hoped the public comment would help. Councilor Moore said she would like the Council to do whatever they could do to help. Springfield has already gone through the expense and work to improve our water duality. Mayor Lundberg said it is often very difficult to get the attention of the State or Federal government. It took approaching several legislators, and speaking at State meetings to have them look at the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ)funds that have been due to the region for a number of years. These things take a ton of work.This is an issue of requirements that don't benefit the jurisdictions required to implement them. She would be interested in bringing some information to the United Front regarding what are real expectations of the Clean Water Act or how they are implemented.We bave worked hard and are doing a gaud job,and she would like to see some rewards,rather than just mandates.They need to start those conversations to try to look at those things that could be fixed in the permit and the permit process that were listed in the letter. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 14,2016 Page 6 Mr. Stouder said he will come back to Council when the permit is ready. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:19 pan. Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa 46JO14 Christine L.Lundberg Mayor Attest: st� G! Amy Soo a City Recorder