EC 9.8090(3) provides: <br />The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a convenient <br />and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as <br />attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant." <br />The staff report states that: <br />for reasons discussed elsewhere in this evaluation in regards to negative <br />visual impacts on the surrounding area, as well as non-compliance with related <br />standards for approval of a facility (i.e. the sound emanating from the above <br />ground ancillary equipment not located within a structure), the applicant has not <br />met its burden of showing how this proposal is as attractive as the nature of the <br />use and its location and setting warrant." <br />As discussed, I find that the visual impacts of the proposed mono-pine would be reasonably <br />compatible with the surrounding properties, and as already explained the emergency generators <br />have been removed from the proposal. Thus, the reasons in the staff report for finding this approval <br />criterion unsatisfied no longer apply. As the staff report also states, the location and design of the <br />proposed mono-pine is such that it will have minimal impact on the rest of the site and should have <br />no direct impact on day-to-day operations of the church. As the applicant explained, the proposed <br />mono-pine is the top of the line model. The mono-pine has the densest branches available, <br />camouflage socks over the antennas, and every possible upgrade. The mono-pine is as attractive <br />as it can be and is warranted by the nature of its use and location. EC 9.8090(3) is satisfied. <br />The staff report does a thorough job of analyzing EC 9.8090(4) through EC 9.8090(9) and <br />explaining why those approval criteria are satisfied. Opponents do not challenge the proposal <br />under those approval criteria. Therefore, I adopt and incorporate those findings in this decision. <br />Thus, the applicant has satisfied all the approval criteria for a CUP under EC 9.8090. <br />3. Other Arguments <br />Linstromberg argues that the hearings official is biased in favor of the applicant. <br />Linstromberg's allegation appears to be based on the line of questioning that I employed at the <br />public hearing in this matter and at another public hearing regarding a cell tower application. <br />According to Linstromberg, I quizzed staff about whether they had changed their minds about their <br />recommendation of denial based on certain approval criteria. Apparently that demonstrated that I <br />wanted staff to change their minds and that I was biased in favor of the applications. At the <br />beginning of both hearings, I explained why I was not biased in favor or against the applications, <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 15 <br />260