(A) Required findings for approval. The approval authority may approve or conditionally approve any application for a wireless telecommunications facility conditional use permit or administrative wireless telecommunications facility permit when the approval authority finds that:
(1) The proposed wireless telecommunications facility will not be detrimental to persons or property in the immediate vicinity and will not adversely affect the city in general.
(2) The proposed wireless telecommunications facility has been designed to achieve compatibility with the community to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.
(3) The location of the wireless telecommunications facility on alternative sites will not increase community compatibility or is not reasonably feasible.
(4) The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is necessary to close a significant gap in coverage, increase network capacity, or maintain service quality, and is the least intrusive means of doing so.
(B) Limited exception. The city recognizes that federal law prohibits a permit denial when it would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services and the applicant proposes the least intrusive means to provide such services. In the event that an applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a specific proposed wireless facility, would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the approval authority may grant a limited, one-time exception from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this chapter. The approval authority shall not grant any exception unless the applicant demonstrates all of the following with clear and convincing evidence:
(1) The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a “personal wireless services facility” as defined by the 47 U.S.C. § 332(C)(7)(C)(ii), as may be amended or superseded;
(2) The applicant has provided the city with a reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless telecommunications facility;
(3) The applicant has provided the city with a written statement that contains a detailed and fact-specific explanation as to why the proposed wireless telecommunications facility cannot be deployed in compliance with the applicable provisions in this chapter;
(4) The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis with the factual reasons why all alternative location(s) and/or design(s) identified by the city or otherwise identified in the administrative record, including but not limited to potential alternatives identified at any public meeting or hearing, are not technically feasible or potentially available to reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless telecommunications facility; and
(5) The applicant has demonstrated to the city that the proposed location and design is the least non-compliant configuration that will reasonably achieve the applicant's reasonable and clearly defined technical service objective to be achieved by the proposed wireless telecommunications facility, which includes without limitation a meaningful comparative analysis into multiple smaller or less intrusive wireless telecommunications facilities dispersed throughout the intended service area.
(C) Independent consultant for limited exceptions. The city shall have the right to hire, at the applicant's expense, an independent consultant to evaluate issues raised by the exception and to submit recommendations and evidence in response to the application.
(Ord. 1090, passed 9-28-17)