Ordinance No. 20072 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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