Stormwater-As noted *above at EC 9.8320(11)(j) which is incorporated herein by reference, the <br />development will not have any stormwater impacts on adjacent properties. <br />Environmental Quality-As noted above at EC 9.8320(4), as conditioned, the proposal complies <br />with the natural resource and tree protection criteria in regards to environmental quality. <br />RF Emissions - As noted above, City requirements regarding RF emissions from the project are <br />consistent with the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act <br />prohibits cities and states from discriminating among telecommunications providers and from <br />erecting barriers to a provider's entry into a local market. Federal law expressly prohibits any <br />local or state municipality from making decision based upon ERF emissions. Federal regulations <br />govern such emissions. <br />As noted above, the telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750(6)(b)(3) require <br />documentation to be provided by the applicant demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing <br />electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards as set forth by the Federal <br />Communications Commission (FCC). The City retains a consultant, Environalysis, LLC to review <br />proposals for FCC compliance. The consultant has confirmed that the emissions from this <br />proposal are well below FCC standards. <br />Aesthetic Impacts - Numerous emails and letters of testimony have been received and have <br />been included in the record regarding the negative aesthetic off-site impacts of having a 75- <br />foot cell tower located on the golf course in close proximity to residences. This is a valid <br />concern given the proposed height of the monopole, which is the maximum allowed in the R-1 <br />zone, in a location that, while zoned for Low-Density Residential, is designated for Parks and <br />Open Space in the Metro Plan. Aesthetics are addressed above in response to EC 9.8320(3) <br />regarding screening, and below in response to EC 9.8320(13) concerning compatibility with <br />adjacent and nearby land uses. The findings and conclusions in those sections are incorporated <br />here. <br />Several letters of testimony also noted that a stealth design such as a pole disguised as a fir tree <br />would have less negative visual impact. The applicant stated that a stealth design would require <br />a taller tower height and restrict load and future co-location opportunities. Staff forwarded this <br />letter to the City's telecommunications consultant who confirmed that the applicant was <br />representing these limitations fairly. <br />EC 9.8320(13): The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br />The vast majority of the public testimony (letters, emails, a petition, and oral comment at the <br />public hearing) stated that the proposed cell tower is not compatible with the adjacent and <br />nearby residential uses, and would impact views from established neighborhoods adjacent to <br />the existing golf course. Compatibility is a subjective standard. What one person believes is <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 43 <br />