My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Ordinance No. 20072
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Ordinances
>
1990s No. 19660-20183
>
Ordinance No. 20072
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 3:48:52 PM
Creation date
1/12/2009 12:31:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Ordinances
CMO_Document_Number
20072
Document_Title
Ordinance extending the moratorium on building and land use permits for telecommunication towers and antennas within the City as imposed by Ordinance No. 20063; and declaring an emergency.
Adopted_Date
12/2/1996
Approved Date
12/2/1996
CMO_Effective_Date
12/2/1996
Signer
Ruth F. Bascom
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Council adopted the current ordinances. Currently, wireless communications facilities such as <br />towers, antennas, etc.} can be permitted only through the conditional use permit process, which <br />can authorize uses not otherwise permitted such as uses resulting from new technologies and <br />therefore not contemplated at the time the code was adopted}. Section 9.492 of the Eugene Cade <br />~"EC "} provides that uses not otherwise authorized by the Eugene Code, or for which there is <br />ambiguity concerning the appropriate procedure, may be permitted only through the conditional <br />use permit process. Wireless communications facilities such as towers and antennas fall within <br />this category. Testimony by telecommunications providers asserted that the City's requirement <br />that providers obtain a conditional use permit SCUP} fully protects the City, thereby obviating any <br />need for the moratorium. The providers supported their assertion by acknowledging that through <br />the CUP process, the City can require co-location and the use of tower designs and technology <br />which makes co-location possible. At present, the criteria contained in EC 9.702~a} related to <br />compatibility and minimization of impact will a11ow consideration of some of the issues related <br />to siting, design, height and ca-location. It will a11ow the City to require co-location where <br />technologically possible. However, the conditional use permit process SEC 9.69 - 9.722} could <br />not possibly enable the City to fu11y protect against the proliferation of wireless communications <br />facilities at this time. Absent the City-wide siting analysis covering the various forms of wireless <br />communications providers including cellular, PCS, SMR and paging services}, it will not be <br />possible to determine whether a proposed site is the best site in terms of serving other providers <br />as well. In addition, absent a study of the various technologies related to tower construction, it <br />will not be possible to evaluate in a comprehensive manner whether the proposed design is the one <br />best able to accommodate the maximum number of wireless communications providers. 4rily with <br />the gathering of additional information, and possibly a change in the zoning code, can the City <br />ensure that all providers are able to construct the facilities they seek in locations and on towers <br />that minimize the number and impact of those facilities on the public. At least one provider has <br />suggested that the City Council is adopting a moratorium in order to require providers to locate <br />on City-owned sites. Any such suggestion is false. Neither the Council nor the CCT has made <br />any decisions, or even had any discussion, about limiting tower locations to City-owned sites. <br />14. The moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that a needed supply of affected <br />housing types and the supply of commercial and industrial facilities within or in proximity to the <br />City are not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the moratorium. Indeed, the moratorium <br />is limited to permitting and construction of towers and antennas for wireless telecommunications. <br />The moratorium does not affect in any manner the supply of housing types, or the supply of other <br />commercial or industrial facilities, one provider testified that PCS wireless communications <br />facilities are "needed commercial" facilities that must be allowed to be constructed, since there <br />are no such facilities today. There are, however, cellular facilities already located within, and in <br />proximity to, the City. There is no evidence of an immediate need for PCS services. A 120-day <br />delay in the construction of towers or antennas to provide their new technology will not <br />unreasonably restrict commercial facilities. The City cannot, consistent with the <br />Telecommunications Act, exempt from the moratorium towers far one PCS provider, without also <br />exempting towers for other similarly situated telecommunications providers; to do so would <br />violate the non-discrimination requirement of that Act. <br />15. There are no satisfactory alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the <br />_5_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.