The standards at EC 9.6815(2) Street Connectivity Standards require, at a minimum, developments to <br />include street extensions to complete the existing street network and to serve undeveloped or partially <br />developed adjacent lands. <br />in this case, the development site is comprised of a 25 x 35-foot lease area located adjacent to the existing <br />golf course building. The surrounding area is developed as the Oakway Golf Course. As such, the <br />development qualifies for an exception to connectivity requirements at EC 9.6815(2)(g)(2)(b) because land <br />adjacent to the lease site is already fully developed as a golf course. <br />Even if the applicant did not qualify for this exception, as access to the cell tower lease site will be via an <br />existing driveway which currently provides access to the Oakway Golf Course, and as increases in traffic <br />resulting from the facility will be negligible (i.e. limited to one maintenance visit per month) the proposal <br />does not create the need for any new public street connections. As such, the City could not require such a <br />connection based on constitutional requirements. <br />Referral comments from Public Works staff further confirm that the remaining standards of EC 9.6800 <br />through EC 9.6875 are either inapplicable or have been met. <br />(b) Pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation, including related facilities, as needed <br />among buildings and related uses on the development site, as well as to adjacent <br />and nearby residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office <br />parks, and industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate <br />consistency with constitutional requirements. "Nearby" means uses within <br />mile that can reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within <br />2 miles that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists. <br />The development of a proposed cell tower will not change the primary golf course use or development on <br />the remainder of the existing site. As the cell tower will not increase pedestrian, bicycle or transit trips to <br />the site, the City could not make findings to require any further facilities. As such, this criterion is met: <br />(c) The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.8680 <br />where applicable. <br />With a projected increase in traffic limited to one maintenance visit per month, the proposed cell <br />tower facility does not meet any of the thresholds established in EC 9.8650 through 9.8680. <br />Accordingly, there is no requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis. <br />EC 9.8320(6) The PUD will not be a significant risk to puhiic health and safety, including but not <br />limited to soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater or flood hazard, or an impediment to <br />emergency response. <br />Significant public testimony was received noting concern about the health risks posed by the radio <br />emissions from the cell transmission tower and has been included in the record of materials provided <br />to the Hearings Official. City requirements regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions from the project <br />are 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 />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 12 <br />HO Agenda -Page 1 <br />