addition, there is no substantive error raised with regard to any of the applicable CUP or PUD approval <br />criteria under this assignment of error. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's seventh assignment of error. <br />Northgreen Property Eighth Assignment of Error <br />Metro Plan Policies <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 5-10 and 44-45 of his decision. The appellant <br />asserts that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that Metro Plan policies are not independent <br />review standards on which to judge an application. The appeal statement and, Micheal Reeder's <br />August 31, 2011 letter and testimony provided at the public hearing further elaborate the appellant's <br />position that the Hearings Official erred by concluding that several policies, including Environmental <br />Design Element Policy E.4 of the Metro Plan, were not independent approval criteria for the <br />applications. <br />The Planning Commission concludes that Metro Plan policies C.21, E.4 and E.6 are not independent, <br />mandatory approval criteria in this instance. In regards to policy E.4, the Hearings Official correctly <br />found the policy to provide broad direction and, as applied to a PUD and CUP, the policy is . <br />implemented by numerous criteria, including EC 9.8320(3), (4); (8), (12), (13) and EC 9.8090(2) and (3). <br />The Hearings Official correctly explains the proper use of this and other Metro Plan policies in his <br />decision, also specifically noting that several of the other relevant policies are implemented by other <br />approval criteria for the applications. To the extent the policies are relevant or could be interpreted.as <br />part of the approval criteria in this instance, the Planning Commission has considered them and finds <br />that the intent of the policies are met based on the Hearings Official's decision and the additional <br />findings and modified conditions of approval included elsewhere in this Final Order. The Planning <br />Commission hereby incorporates the.Hearings Official's related findings on pages 7-9 and 44-45 of his <br />decision, concerning policies C.21, E.4 and E.6. <br />. The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's eighth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Ninth Assignment of Error <br />Health and Safety - EC 9.8320(6) <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 20-21 of his decision. He <br />found that the proposal will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, as compliance with <br />FCC emission requirements were met. The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by not <br />considering the health and safety effects of excessive noise. While the Hearings Official did not <br />more specifically address noise as a health and safety issue under the discretionary PUD approval <br />criteria as the appellant suggests, is needed, the decision thoroughly addresses the issue of noise <br />impacts in context with other more specific governing standards and approval criteria for <br />telecommunication facilities, including federal standards. <br />With the additional findings and modified conditions of approval addressing noise impacts and <br />requirements for undergrounding ancillary equipment above, and to the extent that noise impacts <br />may also be relevant under EC 9.8320(6), the Planning Commission concludes that the PUD <br />.approval criterion is met. <br />Final Order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 11 <br />