Environmental Quality-As noted above at EC 9.8320(4), as conditioned, the proposal complies with <br />the natural resource and tree protection criteria in regards to environmental quality. <br />RF Emissions - As noted above, City requirements regarding RF emissions from the project are <br />consistent with the requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act prohibits <br />cities and states from discriminating among telecommunications providers and from erecting barriers <br />to a provider's entry into a local market. Federal law expressly prohibits any local or state municipality <br />from making decision based upon ERF emissions and in fact it is the FCC that tests and governs <br />approvals for cellular providers along those lines. <br />As noted above, the telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750(6)(b)(3) require documentation to be <br />provided by the applicant demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation <br />(NIER) emissions standards as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The City <br />retains a consultant, Environalysis, LLC to review proposals for FCC compliance. The consultant has <br />confirmed that the emissions from this proposal are well below FCC standards. <br />Aesthetic Impacts - Numerous emails and letters of testimony have been received and have been <br />included in the record regarding the negative aesthetic off-site impacts of having a 75-foot cell tower <br />located on the golf course in close proximity to residences. This is a valid concern given the proposed <br />height of the monopole, which is the maximum allowed in the R-1 zone, in a location that, while <br />zoned for Low-Density Residential, is designated for Parks and Open Space in the Metro Plan. The <br />applicant will comply (as conditioned) with screening requirements which will help reduce the <br />negative aesthetic off-site impacts. Additionally, numerous standards in the telecommunications <br />standards have been met that specifically address aesthetics, such as lighting, height and color <br />standards. <br />Several letters of testimony also noted that a stealth design such as a pole disguised as a fir tree <br />would have less negative visual impact. During this process, City staff contacted the applicant to find <br />out what options were available to provide a facility that would have less negative aesthetic impacts. <br />This concern was specifically related to the proposed design of the facility which has the antennae at <br />the top (which if a future co-location occurred) would be twice as Iarge.'The applicant asserted in a <br />December 1, 2010 letter to staff that AT&T engineers reviewed the design and determined that <br />stealth design (mono-fir, mono-pole or flagpole) is not feasible at this site as'it would entail making <br />substantial changes to the network, increase tower height and restrict load and future co-location <br />opportunities. Staff forwarded this letter to the City's telecommunications consultant who confirmed <br />that the applicant was representing these limitations fairly. <br />EC 9.832001.311: The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and <br />harmonious with adjacent and nearby land uses. <br />Public testimony including letters, emails.and petitions were received stating that the proposed <br />development is not compatible as a cell tower will impact views from established neighborhoods " <br />adjacent to the existing golf course. This testimony has been provided to the Hearings Official under <br />separate cover. The subject lease site is surrounded by the golf course and a combination of multi- <br />family and single family residential land uses on the west, north and east. As described at EC <br />9.8320(3) which is incorporated here by reference, as conditioned the development will also be <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 30 <br />Ho Agenda - Page 1 <br />