Loading...
Ordinance 30750006.150.016(A) PAO /bj s 09/08/95 R:03/14/96PAO ORDINANCE NO. 3075 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY RCW 36.70A.390, A SIX -MONTH EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING MORATORIUM DUE TO EXPIRE ON APRIL 4, 1996 ON THE PERMITTING OR APPROVAL OF ANY ANTENNA OR TOWER STRUCTURE FOR THE USE IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE ACTIVITIES, EXEMPTING ANY RECEIVING OR TRANSMITTING ANTENNA STRUCTURE REGULATED BY THE FCC AND WHICH THE CITY IS PREEMPTED FROM REGULATING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 3017 on April 4, 1995 declaring a six -month moratorium, due to expire on October 10, 1995, on the permitting or approval of any antenna or tower structure for use in cellular telephone activities, exempting any receiving or transmitting antenna structure regulated by the FCC and which the City is preempted from regulating, and WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 3043 on September 26, 1995 and thereby extended the moratorium an additional six months to April 4, 1996, and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an ad hoc advisory commission regarding cellular tower transmission under Section 2 of Ordinance 3017 to make a report to the Council on the subject of this moratorium by the 6th of June, 1995, and 126801.1 -1- WHEREAS, said ad hoc advisory commission had not been able to formulate recommended regulations by the 6th of June, 1995 due to the complexity of the issues involved and the controversial nature of the subject despite having diligently met on a weekly or bi- weekly basis, and WHEREAS, the City Council found, as expressed in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the first moratorium extension, that an additional six - months was necessary to adequately prepare an ordinance regulating the subject of this moratorium, and WHEREAS, the ad hoc committee has completed a recommended ordinance concerning the subject matter of this moratorium and said ordinance is currently under review by the Edmonds Planning Board, and WHEREAS, despite substantial efforts by the ad hoc committee and the Planning Board to expeditiously complete their review of the ordinance, it will not be possible for the Planning Board to complete its review, and the Council to adopt the ordinance, prior to the expiration of the moratorium extension enacted by Ordinance No. 3043, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Under the terms of RCW 36.70A.390, Edmonds Ordinance No. 3043 is to expire on April 4, 1996. Said expiration date is hereby extended to October 4, 1996 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, 126901.1 -2- such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR ROME BtARBMATAHEYn� ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 03/15/96 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 03/19/96 PUBLISHED: 03/24/96 EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/29/96 ORDINANCE NO. 3075 126801.1 `3- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RE: EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON CELLULAR TOWER FACILITIES On March 19, 1996, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing regarding a proposed extension of a six-month moratorium on the issuance of conditional use and /or building permits for antennas for the receipt or transmission of cellular telephones and similar radio transmissions. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based upon. the evidence submitted at that hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On April 4, 1995, the Edmonds City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3017, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. This Ordinance was adopted as an emergency ordinance with an effective date of April 4, 1995. The Ordinance imposed a six -month moratorium on the issuance of conditional use and /or building permits for antennas for the receipt or transmission of cellular telephones and similar radio transmissions for a period of six months from the effective date of the Ordinance. 2. On June 6, 1995, the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 3017. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were subsequently issued in support of Ordinance No. 3017, based upon the evidence submitted at the June 6, 1995 hearing. BE A copy of said Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The Findings of Fact of Exhibit B are specifically adopted by this reference as if set forth in full and constitute a part of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 3. Pursuant to Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3017, an ad hoc advisory commission regarding cellular tower transmissions was appointed by the City Council. This commission has spent considerable time formulating proposed regulations for the placement of the antennas subject to this moratorium and commenced by meeting on a weekly basis and are currently meeting every other week. 4. Despite having spent considerable time on its mandate, the ad hoc advisory commission was not able to complete a final recommendation by the expiration of the moratorium, which was October 4, 1995. The information that has been subject to consideration by the ad hoc advisory commission has been voluminous and complicated, and in order to properly respond to all the concerns raised by the citizens of the City of Edmonds, the ad hoc commission needs considerable time to complete its mandate. Also, a new requirement under the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that the City of Edmonds submit all of its proposed regulations to the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development at least sixty (60) days before final adoption. This significantly reduces the amount of time available to complete a proper analysis. -2- 5. In light of the factors identified in Findings No. 1 -4, the Edmonds City Council extended the moratorium an additional six months from October 4, 1995 to April 4, 1996 through the adoption of Ordinance No. 3043. 6. Since the enactment of Ordinance No. 3043, the ad hoc commission created by Ordinance No. 3017 has met on a regular basis and has prepared an ordinance that is currently under review by the Edmonds Planning Board. Despite the substantial efforts by the ad hoc commission, City staff and the Planning Board, it will not be possible for the Planning Board to complete review and the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance before the expiration of the moratorium extended by Ordinance No. 3043. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Edmonds City . Council concludes that the ad hoc advisory commission established under Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3017, has been diligently worldng towards its mandate, that additional time is necessary for it to adequately complete its mandate and for its recommended ordinance to be adopted by'the City, and that it would be contrary to the public health, safety and welfare to allow the moratorium to expire without having appropriate regulations in place for the placement of cellular towers. DECISION The City Council concludes that a six-month extension of the moratorium imposed under Ordinance No. 3017 and extended by Ordinance No. 3043 is justified for the reasons enumerated - 3 - above. The Edmonds Planning Board is directed to submit a final recommendation for regulation on the placement of cellular towers to the Edmonds City Council by July 4, 1996. DATED this day of , 1996. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE PAOI11194.0/0005.150.016 -4- CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR BARBARA S. FAHEY 0006.150.016A WSS /are 04/06/95 ORDINANCE NO. 3017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, _ WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY RCW 36.70A.390 A MORATORIUM ON THE PERMITTING OR APPROVAL OF ANY ANTENNA OR TOWER STRUCTURE FOR THE USE IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE ACTIVITIES, EXEMPTING ANY RECEIVING OR TRANSMITTING ANTENNA STRUCTURE REGULATED BY THE FCC AND WHICH THE CITY IS PREEMPTED FROM REGULATING, PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MORATORIUM, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the technological requirements of antenna structures for the transmission and receipt of cellular telephone services are not adequately permitted nor regulated under the existing provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that some of the most effective sites for the transmission and receipt of such line of sight radio signals lie within residential neighborhoods or are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods of the City in areas incompatible with such use, and WHEREAS, the City wishes to review the regulatory efforts of other communities to strike a proper balance between the needs of its citizens and the industry which provides for effective service without unduly impacting the essentially residential character of the City of Edmonds, and 98456.1 -1- WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the enactment of this,ordinance constitutes an emergency due to the failure of the current Edmonds codes to consider the scientific and health impacts, if any, from such facilities as well as the unnecessary burden on the industry of attempting to process applications under a structure ill- suited to review of the technological issues involved, the City Council finds that a potential public health emergency and impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the City justify the declaration of an emergency, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A zoning moratorium is hereby declared with respect to the issuance of conditional use and /or building permits for antennas for the receipt or transmission of cellular telephone and similar radio transmissions for a period of six months from the effective date of this ordinance. This moratorium specifically exempts any radio transmission or receiving antenna or device preempted from regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under PRB -1 or any other federal rule, law or regulation and shall be interpreted to exempt federally regulated facilities preempted from local regulation to the full extent required by federal law. Section 2. The City Council hereby establishes an ad hoc advisory commission regarding cellular tower transmission and directs the members of the committee, appointed by contemporaneous action of the City Council, to make a report to the City Council on or before the 6th day of June, 1995. Such date is within 60 days of the date of passage of this ordinance. 98456.1 -2- The City Clerk is directed to provide notice of a public hearing as required by RCW 36.70A.390. Section 3. Emergency Effective Date. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by unanimous vote of the members of the City Council. APPROVED: MA , LAURA ALL ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: R146NDA J. MARCH .APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: I: `I FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 03/30/95 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 04/04/95 PUBLISHED: 04/09/95 EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/04/95 ORDINANCE NO. -im 7 98456.1 -3- STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOZVISH, t the 4th day of April, 1995 N, the -City Council of the City of onds, passed Ordinance o. 3017. A summary of the ant of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as )ADINANCE OF'THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, FECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 5th day of April, 1995. RHONDA J. MARCH, City Clerk Published: April 9, 1995. B -2 -1 Affidavit of Publication RECEivED MAY 23IM EDMONDS CITY CLERK The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ......... ............................... Summary of Ordinance No. 3017 .C-t o- f Edmonds ...................--°----..........................----- ............................- -- .................. _.. ---...............-----........................... ............................... - ......-_..................... a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: Agri 1....9.... ....1.9.9.5 .................... . .. ... . . .. .................................................................................................................... and that sai `newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during a � aid period. .. --- .............. .. .. ....... ...... .. ... ..... Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this........2 2 ri d 1 dayf........... ..... ........ ... ay- .......... , 19..95. ... - -- Notary Public in and for the S too Washington, residing at Everett, Snohomis Co. y. Syr N. y t i �vF W A SN`� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Re: Moratorium on Cellular Tower Facilities On June 6, 1995 the Edmonds City Council held a public hearing regarding a previously imposed moratorium on cellular tower use. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are based upon the evidence submitted at that hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Cellular tower technology, and particularly the development of microcell transmission equipment is a relatively new technological development unanticipated by the Edmonds City Code. 2. A committee of citizens and other interested persons which includes a representative of the cellular industry, have reviewed the existing City ordinance and have made extensive suggestions regarding amendments to the City Code. 3. Pictures were presented indicating that certain types of cellular ( microcell) technology are far less intrusive on the neighborhood environment than lattice and monopole towers. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Edmonds City Council concludes that the City's current ordinance does not adequately provide a mechanism for the prompt and efficient review of cellular tower permit applications and does not have criteria reasonably tailored to provide for a thorough review of such applications in light of modern technology. 2. Without passing on the wisdom of any particular proposals, the City Council finds that the work of the Committee places before the public appropriate issues for future Planning Advisory Board- review and potential incorporation into the Community Development Code. DECISION The City Council concludes that continuation of the existing moratorium is appropriate in order to permit referral of the Committee's recommendation to the Edmonds Planning Advisory Board. As a part of the Planning Advisory Board's deliberation process and its 06/08/95 WSS.103917.1 X/0006.150.016A -1- recommendations to the City Council, the City Council reaffirms its desire for a workshop with industry representatives and residents to review the capabilities of new and existing technology and alternatives for siting. The recommendation of the Committee is forwarded to the Edmonds Planning Advisory Board. Such recommendation shall be returned to the City Council on or before the City Council's meeting in September. Failing its ability to comply with this state required time frame, the Planning Advisory Board is requested to inform the City Council so that a future moratorium or extension of moratorium may be considered. DATED this day of , 1995. CITY OF EDMONDS: Mayor Laura M. Hall ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED : Rhonda J. March, City Clerk 06/08/95 WSS. 103917. 1 X/0006.150.016A -2- SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3075 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 19tl-jday of March , 199 6 , the City Council of the City of Edmonds,. passed Ordinance No. 30 A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY RCW 36.70A.390, A SIX -MONTH EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING MORATORIUM DUE TO EXPIRE ON APRIL 4, 1996 ON THE PERMITTING OR APPROVAL OF ANY ANTENNA OR TOWER STRUCTURE FOR THE USE IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE ACTIVITIES, EXEMPTING ANY RECEIVING OR TRANSMITTING ANTENNA STRUCTURE REGULATED BY THE FCC AND WHICH THE CITY IS PREEMPTED FROM REGULATING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 20th day of March , 199 6 . CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE COUNTIES)f COUNTIES 36.70A.410 ised by government agencies shall be protected by attorney i othing in this section grants a private party the right to i requiring compliance with the provisions of this section.' J1, Sp.Sess., ch. 32, § 18, eff. July 16, 1991. j ension of designation date may extend the date by which a county or city is required 1' ultural lands, forest lands, mineral resource lands, and � RCW 36.70A.170; or the date by which a county or city isl such lands and critical areas under RCW 36.70A.060, if the onstrates that it is proceeding in an orderly fashion, and is_, i effort, to meet these requirements. An extension may be',' )nal one hundred eighty days. The length of an extension the difficulty of the effort to conform with these require !1, Sp.Sess., ch. 32, § 39, eff. July 16, 1991. r •ironmental planning pilot projects re intends to determine whether the environmental review under chapter 43.210 RCW may be enhanced and simpli -, on improved, when applied to comprehensive plans mandat -.'j, The department shall undertake pilot projects on environ - ; Aermine if the review process can be improved by fostering ; and eliminating duplicative environmental analysis which is i;' vision makers approving comprehensive plans pursuant to #.'' : i pilot projects should be designed and scoped to consider]., resulting from plan decisions, plan impacts on environmen on adjacent jurisdictions, and similar factors in sufficientj' ie analysis of subsequent specific projects being carried outln proved plan. re hereby authorizes the department to establish, in cooper-3 i industry, cities, .counties, and other interested parties, atlR. nore than four pilot projects, one of which shall be with as,, -ed draft and final nonproject environmental analysis off; ns prepared pursuant to this chapter, for the purposes.' ion (1) of this section. The department may select appro .ubareas within a comprehensive plan if that will best serve ; its section and meet the requirements of chapter 43.21C 3; draft and final nonproject environmental analysis prepared ection shall follow the rules adopted pursuant to chapter, : i an December 31, 1993, the department shall evaluate the: .s of the pilot projects under this section regarding prepar= rroject environmental analysis for the approval process of ns and shall: nterim report of its findings to the legislature with such: is may be appropriate, including the need, if any, for further option of any further rules or guidelines as may be appropri- i ies and cities in meeting requirements of chapter 43.21C Bring comprehensive plans; and (c) Prepare and circulate to counties and cities such instructional manuals or other information derived from the pilot projects as will assist all counties and cities in meeting the requirements and objectives of chapter 43.21C RCW in the most expeditious and efficient manner in the process of considering comprehensive plans pursuant to this chapter. (5) The department shall submit a final report to the legislature no later than December 31, 1995. Enacted by Laws. 1991, Sp.Sess., ch. 32, § 20, eff. July 16, 1991. Amended by Laws 1995, ch. 399, §, 43. 36.70A.390. Moratoria; interim zoning controls — Public hearing— Limitation on length— Exceptions A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption, ,whether or not the governing body received .a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department. If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed.for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. This section does not apply to the designation of critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands, under RCW 36.70A.170, and the conservation of these lands and protection of these areas under RCW 36.70A.060,' prior to such actions being taken in a comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070 and implementing development regulations adopted under _RCW 36.70A.120, if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions. Enacted by Laws 1992,. ,ch. 207, § 6. 36.70A.400. Accessory apartments Any local government, as defined in RCW 43.63A.215, that is planning under this chapter shall comply with RCW 43.63A.215(3). Enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 478, § 11. 36.70A.410. Treatment of residential structures occupied by per - sons -with ;handicaps No county or city that plans or elects to plan under this chapter may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation or official control, policy, or administrative practice which .treats a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, "handicaps" are as defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3602). Enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 478, § 23. 38 39 RECEIVED Affidavit of Publication MAR 2 7 °9ro EDMONDS CITY CLERK STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss COUNTY OF SNOHO1v1ISH, SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3075 of the City of Edmonds. Washinpton 96 the 19111 day ci March, 1996, the City Council of the '�� The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3075. A sum. that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper mary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, AN ORDINANCE OF THE EO INGTON ESTABLISHING and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of PURSUA, NT TO THAI AUTHORITY GRANTED BY RCW 36.70A.390 A SIX- general circulation in said Count and State; that said newspaper g y OF AN ESNXTE MO TRIM A has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior DUE TO EXPIRE ON APRIL 4, 1996 ON THE PERMITTING OR APPROVAL OF ANY Court of Snohomish County and that the notice ......... ............................... ANTENNA OR TOWER I STRUCTURE FOR THE USE IN CELLULAR TELEPHONE' ACTIVITIES, EXEMPTING ANY Summary of Ordinance No. 3075 RECEIVINGna ............................................ ............— °----...----- °---- REGULATINGAND FIXING A - -°•--°---------°°°-----•---°—...---------°--°--°---------------°--°..............-----------............-----•---------- TIME WHER THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full test of this Ordi- nance reG a will be mailed upon ............................... reDATED this 20th da' of °-----°------------------•-•---°--°.....--•---....-.....----.............-------- March, SANDRA y a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said SANDRA S: CHASE Publ d: Clerk March 24, 1996. newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: March 24, 1996 ........................................................... ........................ .... . .. .......................................... ....... .... :.\-----------•-••------................................................................... ...........---------- .......... d hat said newspaper was regula ly distributed to its subscribers t fall of said period. \.......... ...... .......... Principal Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ........... -5th dayo Aotary ........... March .......... .. .. ...................... . . ... 19...9b .. -- -- - -.. ---- - ------ ------ -- ----- --- -------- Public in and for th Sta a of Washington, residing at Everett, Snoho County. Np'f ARJ- N� �j. 5 -19 98 " 0 � � ©F SNAS��� B -2 -1