A. Locations requiring an exception. Major WTFPs are strongly disfavored in certain areas and on certain support structures. Therefore the following locations are permitted only when an exception has been granted pursuant to subsection B hereof:
1. PROW within those zones as identified in the general plan as residential zones;
2. PROW within or immediately adjacent to the following historically significant properties and areas as identified in the general plan;
a. The Crescent Heights Historic District Specific Plan (SP-4) zoning district.
b. Any existing historically significant structures as referenced in the Historic Resources section of the Environmental Resources Element of the General Plan and illustrated in Figure 3, the “Windshield Survey of Historic Resources” dated January 1985.
3. PROW if mounted to a new pole that is not replacing an existing pole in an otherwise permitted location.
B. Required findings for an exception on Major WTFPs. For any Major WTFP requiring an exception under this chapter, no such exception shall be granted unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence all the following requirements are satisfied:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a “personal wireless services facility” as defined in United States Code, Title 47, § 332(c)(7)(C)(ii).
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined significant gap (as established under state and federal law) and a clearly defined potential site search area.
a. In the event the applicant seeks to install a wireless telecommunications facility to address service coverage concerns, the applicant shall provide the city with full color signal propagation maps with objective units of signal strength measurement that show the applicant’s current service coverage levels from all adjacent wireless telecommunications facilities without the proposed facility, predicted service coverage levels from all adjacent facilities serving applicant with the proposed facility, and predicted service coverage levels from the proposed facility without all adjacent facilities.
b. In the event the applicant seeks to address service capacity concerns, the applicant shall provide city with a written explanation and propagation maps identifying the existing facilities with service capacity issues together with competent evidence to demonstrate the inability of those facilities to meet capacity demands.
3. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why any alternative location(s) or design(s) suggested 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 reasonably available.
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviates is the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant’s reasonable objectives of covering an established significant gap (as established under state and federal law).
5. The applicant has demonstrated that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter for a Major WTFP would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services.
C. Scope. The public works director shall limit an exemption for a Major WTFP to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its objectives of covering an established significant gap (as established under state and federal law). The public works director may adopt conditions of approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 2019-04-1504 § 6)