erecting barriers to a provider's entry into a local market. Federal law expressly prohibits any local or <br />state municipality from making decision based upon RF emissions and in fact it is the FCC that tests <br />and governs approvals for cellular providers along those lines. As noted below, the <br />telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750(6)(b)(3) require documentation demonstrating <br />compliance with non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (VIER) emissions standards as set forth by the <br />Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City retains a consultant, Environalysis, LLC to review <br />proposals for FCC compliance. The consultant confirmed that the emissions from this proposal are <br />well below FCC standards. <br />An Erosion Prevention Permit will be required before any ground disturbing activities may begin, the <br />subject property is not located within a special flood hazard area and the proposed development is in <br />compliance with the applicable stormwater development standards at EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797. <br />Given the available information, and based on the findings as set forth above, it is concluded that the <br />proposed development will comply with this criterion. <br />Y <br />EC 9.8320(7) Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site, or if public <br />services and facilities are not presently available, the applicant demonstrates that the services <br />and facilities will be available prior to need. Demonstration of future availability requires <br />evidence of at least one of the following: <br />(a) Prior written commitment of public funds by the appropriate public agencies. <br />(b) Prior acceptance by the appropriate public agency of a written commitment by <br />the applicant or other party to provide private services and facilities. <br />(c) A written commitment by the applicant or other party to provide for offsetting all <br />added public costs or early commitment of public funds made necessary by <br />development, submitted on a form acceptable to the city manager. <br />Public Works staff confirms that although no public improvements are proposed, the existing street <br />system and public utilities can adequately serve the proposed development per the findings provided <br />at EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.8320(il)(b) and (j). <br />EC 9.8320(8) Residents of the PUD will have sufficient usable recreation area and open space <br />that is convenient and safely accessible. <br />As this PUD is proposed for a cellular transmission tower, which does not have residents, this criterion is <br />not applicable. <br />EC 9.8320(9) Stormwater runoff from the PUD will not create significant negative impacts'on <br />natural drainage courses either on-site or downstream, including, but not limited to, erosion, <br />scouring, turbidity, or transport of sediment due to increased peak flows or velocity. <br />As discussed below at criterion (11)(j), which is incorporated by reference, runoff from the 8-foot <br />wide concrete path will sheet flow to the surrounding lawn where it will.infiltrate into the ground and <br />runoff from the equipment cabinets and footings will be directed to the existing private storm <br />drainage system. Since the proposed development will not result in Stormwater discharge to on-site <br />or downstream drainage courses, this criterion is not applicable. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 13 <br />HO Agenda - Page1 <br />