I decline to decide here whether the lack of any evidence in the record of this appeal to directly <br />2 support that presumption provides another basis for remand. We do not reach this portion of <br />3 the third assignment of error. <br />4 In a portion of its third assignment of error, petitioner also argues that the city erred in <br />5 determining that EC 9.8320(13), which requires the city to determine that "[t]he proposed <br />6 development [is] reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby land <br />7 uses," is met, where there is no noise study detailing the noise generated by the underground <br />8 equipment. We do not understand the hearings officer to have concluded that EC 9.8320(13) <br />9 requires the city to separately determine whether the noise from the facility is reasonably <br />10 compatible with the neighboring land uses. Rather, we understand the hearings officer to <br />11 have concluded that satisfaction of the noise standard set out at EC 9.5750(7)(f) will mean <br />12 that the telecommunications facility is "reasonably compatible and harmonious" with the <br />13 adjacent residential uses under EC 9.8320(13), as far as noise is concerned. Record 255. <br />14 Petitioner does not address that finding or otherwise explain why future satisfaction of EC <br />15 9.5750(7)(f) will not also satisfy EC 9.8320(13) with respect to noise from the facility. <br />16 Accordingly, petitioner's argument regarding EC 9.8320(13) provides no basis for reversal or <br />17 remand. <br />18 Finally, in its third assignment of error, petitioner also argues that without a noise <br />19 study for the underground equipment, there is not substantial evidence in the record to <br />20 support the city's determination that EC 9.8320(6), which requires the city to determine that <br />21 "[t]he PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited <br />22 to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />23 response" is satisfied with respect to the health and safety impacts of noise levels from the <br />24 underground equipment. Intervenor does not respond to petitioner's argument. <br />25 The planning commission found in relevant part: <br />Page 17 <br />