The development of a proposed cell tower will not change the primary golf course use or <br />development on the remainder of the existing site. As the cell tower will not increase <br />pedestrian, bicycle or transit trips to the site, the City could not make findings to require any <br />further facilities. As such, this criterion is met. <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through <br />9.8680 where applicable. <br />With a projected increase in traffic limited to one maintenance visit per month, the proposed <br />cell tower facility does not meet any of the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680. <br />Accordingly, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, <br />including but not limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or <br />an impediment to emergency response. <br />Significant public testimony was received noting concern about the health risks posed by the <br />radio emissions from the cell transmission tower. City requirements regarding radio frequency <br />(RF) emissions from the project were written to be consistent with the requirements of the <br />Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expressly prohibits any local or state <br />municipality from making a decision based upon RF emissions. The FCC regulates such <br />emissions. For reference, 47 USC § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) states: <br />No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the <br />placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities <br />on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the <br />extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] <br />Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. <br />The telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750(6)(b)(3) require documentation demonstrating <br />compliance with non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards as set forth <br />by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City retains a consultant, Environalysis, <br />LLC to review proposals for FCC compliance. The consultant confirmed that the emissions from <br />this proposal do not exceed FCC standards. Because of the limited scope of a local <br />government's ability to consider health risk, the hearing official makes no judgment on any of <br />the health risk materials that were provided as public comment. <br />An Erosion Prevention Permit will be required before any ground disturbing activities may <br />begin, the subject property is not located within a special flood hazard area and the proposed <br />development is in compliance with the applicable stormwater development standards at EC <br />9.6791 through EC 9.6797. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 20 <br />