Laserfiche WebLink
overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution. ~n 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 <br />buildable lands. The moratorium will not result in any impact on population distribution. Given <br />the weight of public harm caused by the failure to impose a moratorium, and the absence of <br />adverse effects, the public harm clearly outweighs adverse effects. ~ ~~ <br />~7. 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 <br />the moratorium. The Council already has appointed the CCT to develop policies and <br />ordinances. The CCT has conducted its first set of meetings, and has more meetings scheduled <br />throughout the fall. The City has already contracted with LC~G, a Washington, D.C. law firm <br />and Seattle engineering firm to assist with the development of the policies and ordinances, and <br />to provide the technological information such as siting analyses, co-location capabilities, etc. <br />At Least $85,000 has been earmarked to contract with the D. C. and Seattle consultants. A staff <br />team is assigned and has been working on the issues, The City also has contracted with LC(~G <br />to assist in the development of the Plan. The City Council believes that ~ZO days is a sufficient <br />amount of time to complete the necessary analyses, adopt a telecommunications plan, and <br />develop any needed code changes. Testimony suggested that the City cannot, in good faith, <br />assert that the X20-day time period is sufficient. The Council disagrees. This tune period is <br />sufficient to adapt the plan. ~t also is sufficient to complete the needed analyses on siting and <br />technology issues. That information on this new technology -- information presently lacking -- <br />is needed in order to act on a CUP application to determine whether the tower's height, design <br />and location will result in minimal impact and reasonable compatibility. <br />~$. Based on the foregoing findings, a "compelling need" for a moratorium can be <br />justified under state law both for new applications, as well as pending applications. <br />Nevertheless, pending applications should be excluded from die moratorium. Such an exclusion <br />is consistent with the Council's previous practice of excluding pending applications from the <br />moratorium on tax exemptions for multi-unit rental housing. ~n addition, state law requires that <br />pending applications be processed according to the code Language in effect at the time the <br />completed application was filed. Thus, with respect to pending applications, a moratorium <br />would enable the City to develop the information base, but would not permit the City to change <br />the criteria for approval. A moratorium, however, would enable the City to change those <br />criteria for applications not yet filed. These differences between pending and new applications <br />justify applying the moratorium to new applications only, and not to the pending applications. <br />gblglccitylteiecam mlmora-fig. new <br /> <br />