§ 69-9. Rules governing the grant or denial of CUP.

(a)

Factors considered by the city.

(1)

The following factors shall be considers in determining whether to issue a CUP regarding a telecommunication tower, antenna, or monopole. Other factors may also be considered by the city.

a.

Height of the proposed tower, antenna, or monopole;

b.

Proximity of the tower, antenna or monopole to residential structures and residential district boundaries, as measured from the base of the tower, monopole or structure on which the antenna is located to the boundary of a residentially zoned lot;

c.

Nature of uses on adjacent and surrounding properties;

d.

Surrounding topography;

e.

Whether the telecommunication facility has a solid opaque fence or solid vegetative buffer to screen the tower, antenna, monopole or telecommunication facility completely to a height of six feet from adjacent properties and rights-of-way;

f.

Design of the tower, antenna or monopole, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness;

g.

Proposed ingress and egress;

h.

Whether the applicant meets the standards of this chapter and has complied with the conditions to obtain a CUP; and

i.

Availability of suitable existing towers, monopoles and other structures for the placement of an antenna. No new tower or monopole shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the city that no existing telecommunication facility can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing facility can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1.

No existing towers, monopoles or structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's engineering requirements;

2.

Existing towers, monopoles or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements;

3.

Existing towers, monopoles or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment;

4.

The applicant's proposed antenna would cause RF or electromagnetic interference with antennas on the existing structures, or the antenna on the existing tower, monopole or structure would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; and

5.

The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing facility or to adapt an existing facility for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new tower or monopole development are presumed to be unreasonable.

(2)

In granting a CUP for the construction of a tower, antenna or monopole, additional zoning conditions may be imposed to the extent necessary to buffer or otherwise minimize adverse effects of the proposed tower, antenna or monopole on surrounding properties.

(b)

CUP review process.

(1)

The CUP application shall be submitted to the community development department for an initial determination whether to recommend the grant the CUP to the applicant. The community development department shall make its determination whether to recommend approval or rejection of the CUP within 45 days of the receipt of a complete application. The recommendation shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the record.

(2)

Once the community development department has issued its recommendation, the CUP application shall be submitted to the city's planning and zoning board for a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the planning and zoning board shall be provided the CUP application packet and the written recommendation of the community development department. The applicant shall attend the hearing and may present additional evidence to support the CUP application. The planning and zoning board shall vote on the CUP application at the conclusion of the hearing. The vote shall be recorded in the meeting minutes and supported by substantial evidence contained in the record.

(3)

Once the planning and zoning board has voted on the CUP application, the matter shall be submitted to the city council for a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the council shall be provided the CUP application packet, the written recommendation of the community development department and the written records of the planning and zoning board hearing. The applicant shall attend the hearing and may present additional evidence to support the CUP application. The council shall vote on the CUP application at the conclusion of the hearing. The vote shall be recorded in the meeting minutes and supported by substantial evidence contained in the record. The decision of the council shall be final.

(c)

Appeal. Appeals from any decision of the governing body shall be made to the county superior court within 30 days of the decision of the governing body.

(Ord. No. 10-2007, § 1, 8-13-07)