Laserfiche WebLink
development in affected geographical areas; <br />B. That the moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that a needed <br />supply of affected housing types and the supply of commercial and industrial <br />facilities within or in proximity to the city * * * are not unreasonably restricted by <br />the adoption of the moratorium; <br />C. Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives <br />of the moratorium are unsatisfactory; <br />D . That the city * * * has determined that the public harm which would <br />be caused by failure to impose a moratorium outweighs the adverse effects on other <br />affected local governments, including shifts in demand for housing or economic <br />development, public facilities and services and buildable lands, and the overall <br />impact of the moratorium on pppulation distribution; and <br />~. That the city * * * proposing the moratorium has determined that <br />sufficient resources are available to complete the development of needed interim <br />or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures within the period of <br />effectiveness of the moratorium. <br />12. Application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable <br />laws is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical <br />areas. For the reasons discussed in the general findings, it is likely that the City is facing a <br />proliferation of wireless facilities, with up to loo or more towers and antennas to serve the City's <br />4~+ square miles. The height of towers can exceed 154 feet, and have a significant and negative <br />visual and aesthetic impact on the land use environment. That harm is irrevocable, for once <br />permitted and constructed, the towers would remain for many years . Moreover, under the <br />Telecommunications Act, the City cannot discriminate among similarly situated providers. <br />Therefore, it is not possible to allow a few providers to build just 1 or Z facilities, without then <br />opening up the City to the proliferation which, the Council finds, would significantly and <br />negatively and irrevocably harm the public. This harm exists whether the number of towers and <br />antennas is loo, the 75 or so that one provider calculated see paragraph 4}, or even substantially <br />less than that number. With the current lack of knowledge about telecommunications technology, <br />these facilities could be more numerous than necessary, located on sites which cause greater <br />impact than other sites, and designed in a way which causes greater aesthetic impact than <br />necessary. Public testimony suggested that the City cannot base the moratorium on the possibility <br />of 144 or more towers, since not all of Chase will be constructed in the next 12o days. At this <br />point, it is unknown how many providers will file applications, and far how many sites . Absent <br />a moratorium, a number of other providers could file applications, which the City would have to <br />act upon based on the existing code, rather than on any new code language which the Council may <br />adopt. <br />13. Current ordinances are not adequate to prevent that irrevocable harm. This new <br />technology and these new telecommunications facilities were not contemplated at the time that the <br />-4- <br />