to meet all the setback requirements. The setbacks, however, may also be considered in addressing <br />visual impacts of the proposed tower.' <br />A second area of concern identified by staff is radio frequency exposure. A number <br />opponents testified that they were concerned about potential health effects from exposure. Federal <br />standards control what levels of radio frequency exposure are permissible. The City utilizes an <br />outside consulting firm to review applicants' evidence regarding such exposure. The staff report <br />explains that the applicable requirements are met. I adopt and incorporate the staff findings on this <br />issue in this decision. <br />A third area of concern identified by staff is lighting and glare. The staff report explains <br />that there will be no impact to neighboring properties from lighting or glare. I adopt and <br />incorporate the staff findings on this issue in this decision. <br />A fourth area of concern identified by staff is the noise from ancillary facilities. The staff <br />report was addressing the earlier version of the proposal that included the emergency generator. <br />As discussed under the variance request, the elimination of the emergency generator from the <br />proposal ensures that there will be no noise impacts on the neighbors. <br />The fifth area of concern identified by staff, which is the crux of this case, is visual impacts. <br />The visual impact on surrounding properties was also the overwhelming basis for opposition from <br />opponents. In order to satisfy EC 9.8090(2)(b), the applicant must demonstrate that the visual <br />impacts from the proposed mono-pine are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact <br />on the livability of surrounding property. This is generally referred to as the "reasonably <br />compatible" standard. Previous cases have addressed the reasonably compatible standard. <br />In Northgreen, the applicant sought to install a 75-foot standard cell tower in an R-I zone <br />with a planned unit development (PUD) overlay. Because the cell tower was proposed for an R-I <br />zone with a PUD overlay, the PUD approval criteria of EC 9.8320 were applicable. EC 9.8320(3) <br />requires that "the PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but <br />not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height." EC 9.8320(13) requires that "[t]he <br />proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and harmonious with adjacent and nearby <br />land uses." Another city hearings official found that landscaping would screen the lower 50 feet <br />5 Opponents argue that the proposed mono-pine is a potential fire hazard and that if it catches on fire and falls down <br />it would be very close to the property line. I believe the setback requirements of EC 9.5750(7)(d) implement any safety <br />concerns. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 9 <br />254