The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's ninth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Tenth Assignment of Error <br />Alternative Site Analysis - EC 9.57S0(6)(c)(2) <br />The Hearings Official evaluated this issue on pages 29-31 of his decision. The appellant asserts that <br />the decision "did not adequately discuss the applicant's lack of substantial evidence in the record <br />concerning the ability of the applicant to meet this criterion" and. asserts that the required <br />alternative site analysis was deficient. <br />The Hearings Official correctly notes that the standard at EC 9.5750(7) does not address how many <br />alternative sites should be analyzed or provide further guidance. The Hearings Official addresses . <br />this issue and discusses an Oregon Court of Appeals case in relation to this issue. The Hearings <br />Official correctly concluded that while the evidence provided in regards to this analysis was <br />"minimal" there is no requirement that the applicant selects an alternative site and as such, in this <br />case the basic requirement had been met. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's tenth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Eleventh Assignment of Error <br />Minimal Off-Site Impacts - EC 9.8320(12) <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 42 - 43 of his decision. <br />The appellant asserts that this criterion was not met, particularly with.respect to noise and <br />aesthetic impacts. <br />The Hearings Official provides findings that address traffic, noise, stormwater, environmental <br />quality, RF emissions and aesthetic impacts. The Hearings Official incorporated his findings under <br />EC 9.5750(7)(f) by reference in regards to noise, and part of the Hearings Official's approach was to <br />require undergrounding of the ancillary facilities. With additional findings and modified conditions <br />of approval noted above, including the revised requirements to ensure adequate screening to <br />address visual impact, the Planning Commission concludes that the PUD approval.criterion at EC <br />9.8320(12) is also met. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's eleventh assignment of error. <br />Northareen_Property Twelfth Assignment of Error <br />Compatibility and Harmony with the Adjacent and Nearby Uses - EC 9.8320(13) <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 43-44 of his decision. He notes that <br />compatibility is a very subjective standard and what one person believes is compatible another <br />person might believe is very incompatible. Further, he notes that City Council has already <br />determined that telecommunications towers are permissible under the applicable R-1 zoning and <br />therefore inclose proximity to residences. What is essentially left for the Hearings Official to <br />decide is the impact of the tower at this location, in context with the applicable approval criteria, <br />Final Order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 12 <br />