Ordinance No. 20063 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

by the adoption of the moratorium; C. Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are unsatisfactory; D. That the city * * * has determined that the public harm which would be caused by failure to impose a moratorium outweighs the adverse effects on other affected local governments, including shifts in demand for housing or economic development, public facilities and services and buildable lands, and the overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution; and E. That the city * * * proposing the moratorium has determined that sufficient resources are available to complete the ~.eveloprnent of needed interim or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures within the period of effectiveness of the morato~~ium. I2. Application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable laws is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical areas. For the reasons discussed in the general findings, it is likely that the City is facing a proliferation of wireless facilities, with up to 140 or more towers and antennas to serve the City's 40+ square miles. The height of towers can exceed 150 feet, and have a significant and negative visual and aesthetic impact an the land use environment. That harm is irrevocable, for once permitted and constructed, the towers would remain for many years. Moreover, under the Telecommunications Act, the City cannot discriminate among similarly situated providers. Therefore, it is not possible to allow a few providers to build just 1 or 2 facilities, without then opening up the City to the proliferation which, the Council finds, would significantly and negatively and irrevocably harm the public. This harm exists whether the number of towers and antennas is 100, the 75 or so that one provider calculated see paragraph 4}, or even substantially less than that number. With the current lack of knowledge about telecommunications technology, these facilities could be more numerous than necessary, located on sites which cause greater impact than other sites, and designed in a way which causes greater aesthetic impact than necessary. Public testimony suggested that the City cannot base the moratorium on the possibility of 100 or more towers, since not all of those will be constructed in the next 120 days. At this point, it is unknown how many providers will file applications, and for how many sites. Absent a moratorium, a number of other providers could file applications, which the City would have to act upon based on the existing code, rather than on any new code language which the Council may adopt. 13. Current ordinances are not adequate to prevent that irrevocable harm. This new technology and these new telecommunications facilities were not contemplated at the time that the Council adopted the current ordinances. Currently, wireless communications facilities such as towers, antennas, etc. } can be permitted only through the conditional use permit process, which can authorize uses not otherwise permitted such as uses resulting from new technologies and therefore not contemplated at the time the code was adopted}. Section 9.492 of the Eu ene g Code ~"EC "} provides that uses not otherwise authorized by the Eugene Code, or for which there is ambiguity concerning the appropriate procedure, may be permitted only through the conditional use permit process. wireless communications facilities such as towers and antennas _q,_