12.18.160 Exceptions.
A. The city council 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. The city council finds that, due to wide variation among wireless facilities, technical service objectives and changed circumstances over time, a limited exemption for proposals in which strict compliance with this chapter would effectively prohibit personal wireless services serves the public interest. The city council further finds that circumstances in which an effective prohibition may occur are extremely difficult to discern, and that specified findings to guide the analysis promote clarity and the city’s legitimate interest in well-planned wireless facilities deployment. Therefore, in the event that any applicant asserts that strict compliance with any provision in this chapter, as applied to a specific proposed personal wireless services facility, would effectively prohibit the provision of personal wireless services, the planning commission may grant a limited, one-time exemption from strict compliance subject to the provisions in this section.
B. Required Findings. The planning commission shall not grant any exception unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence all the following:
1. The proposed wireless facility qualifies as a "personal wireless services facility" as defined in United States Code, Title 47, Section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii);
2. The applicant has provided the city with a clearly defined technical service objective and a clearly defined potential site search area;
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 potentially available; and
4. The applicant has provided the city with a meaningful comparative analysis that includes the factual reasons why the proposed location and design deviations are the least noncompliant location and design necessary to reasonably achieve the applicant’s reasonable technical service objectives.
C. Scope. The planning commission shall limit its exemption to the extent to which the applicant demonstrates such exemption is necessary to reasonably achieve its reasonable technical service objectives. The planning commission may adopt conditions of approval as reasonably necessary to promote the purposes in this chapter and protect the public health, safety and welfare.
D. Independent Consultant. 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. 676 §1(15), 2016).