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
moratorium. As noted above, the existing conditional use permit process does not allow the CiJ''l~~~^~f1] <br />• ~ + v <br />tune to develop a coordinated and consistent approach that ensures all similarly situated providers <br />are treated in exactly the same manner, and to ensure that no more wireless facilities are <br />constructed than necessary to serve all providers desiring access to the City. <br />16. The public harm which would be caused by failure to impose a moratorium <br />outweighs the adverse effects another affected local governments, including shifts in demand far <br />housing or economic development, public facilities and services and buildable lands, and the <br />overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution. 1n fact, the imposition of the <br />moratorium should have no adverse effect on other local governments. Nor will the moratorium <br />cause any shift in the demand for housing or economic development, public facilities ar buildable <br />lands. The moratorium will not result in any impact an population distribution. Given the weight <br />of public harm caused by the failure to impose a moratorium, and the absence of adverse effects, <br />the public harm clearly outweighs adverse effects. <br />17. Sufficient resources are available to complete the development of needed interim <br />or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures within the period of effectiveness of the <br />moratorium. The Council already has appointed the CCT to develop policies and ordinances. <br />The CCT has conducted its first set of meetings, and has more meetings scheduled throughout the <br />fall. The City has already contracted with LC4G, a Washington, D.C. law firm and Seattle <br />engineering firm to assist with the development of the policies and ordinances, and to provide the <br />technological information such as siting analyses, co-location capabilities, etc. At least $85,000 <br />has been earmarked to contract with the D.C. and Seattle consultants. A staff team is assigned <br />and has been working on the issues. The City also has contracted with LCDG to assist in the <br />development of the Plan, The City Council believes that 120 days is a sufficient amount of time <br />to complete the necessary analyses, adopt a telecommunications plan, and develop any needed <br />code changes. Testimony suggested that the City cannot, in good faith, assert that the 120-day <br />time period is sufftcient. The Council disagrees. This time period is sufficient to adapt the plan. <br />It also is sufficient to complete the needed analyses on siting and technology issues. That <br />information on this new technology -- information presently lacking -- is needed in order to act <br />on a CUP application to determine whether the tower's height, design and location will result in <br />muumal impact and reasonable compatibility. <br />1 S . Based on the foregoing ftndings, a "compelling need" for a moratorium can be <br />justified under state law both for new applications, as well as pending applications. Nevertheless, <br />pending applications should be excluded from the moratorium. Such an exclusion is consistent <br />with the Council's previous practice of excluding pending applications from the moratorium on <br />tax exemptions for multi-unit rental housing. In addition, state law requires that pending <br />applications be processed according to the code language in effect at the time the completed <br />application was filed. Thus, with respect to pending applications, a moratorium would enable the <br />City to develop the information base, but would not permit the City to change the criteria for <br />approval. A moratorium, however, would enable the City to change those criteria for applications <br />not yet filed. These differences between pending and new applications justify applying the <br />moratorium to new applications only, and not to the pending applications. <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.