_ Planning Commission <br />August 15, 2D11 <br />Page 5 <br />erroneously concluded that these were not independent approval criteria. In addition, the HC <br />Decision erroneously dismissed the many oral and written comments from neighbors who testified to . <br />the negative impacts that the cell tower~wvuld impose on the neighborhood and vicinity. <br />9. Health and Safe EC 9.8320 6 <br />The HD Decision erroneously concluded that the Application will not be a significant risk to <br />public health and safety. The HO Decision focused only on the issues raised regarding radio <br />emissions. The HO Decision made no mention of the health and safety effects raised by Northgreen - <br />and others caused by excessive noise. Regardless of the fact that federal law may prohibit a local <br />government from regulating the placement of a cell tower based on the effects of radio frequency <br />emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC's regulations, the Ha Decision <br />. ~should.not have ignored the other health and safety effects caused by noise, Decision at 20-21.' <br />'lo. Alternative Sites Anal sis EC 9.5750 6 c 2 <br />The HD Decision did not adequately discuss the applicant's lack of substantial evidence in <br />..the record concerning the ability of the applicant to meet this criterion. The applicant's alternative's <br />analysts was deficient. Decision at 31. <br />.11. Minimal Off-SiteImpacts EC 9.832012} <br />The HC Decision, at 42-43, erroneously concluded that EC 9.8320(12} was met. The <br />HO Decision was in error, especially in regards to the noise impacts, as discussed above, and <br />aesthetic impacts. <br />12. Compatibility and HarrnQn.~with the Adjacent and Nearby Uses - EC 9,532013,} <br />This is perhaps one the most striking errors in the HO Decision. EC 9.5320(13} requires the <br />application to be "reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. , <br />Decision at 43-44. The HO Decision discussed very briefly the "compatibility" standard, but <br />completely ignored the "harmony" standard. The HO Decision seems to conclude that because a <br />telecom tower may besited inthe R-1 zone in some circumstances, if the Application meets other <br />objective standards such as height, setbacks, color, ~ and lighting}, then it must be de facto <br />"compatible." However, this is in error and sucks all meaning out of the standard. The Planning <br />Commission should reverse this error and conclude that merely meeting the measurable, objective <br />EC standards for a telcom tower is not enough to satisfy EC 9.$32013}. More is required, The <br />Application cannot meet this high standard. <br />PC Agenda -Page 23 <br />