220 OLYMPIC BLVD NEXTEL ANTENNA 2018-01-01 MF Import

8. There would be no adverse traffic impacts generated by the proposal. The facility is unmanned, and the only generation of traffic would be approximately one vehicle trip per month for maintenance purposes. (exhibit 1) 9. Because the facility is unmanned, there would be no need for additional parkinc� on-site. (exhibit 1) 10. The existing cellular tower is a 70-foot high structure located on a commercially zoned property. The antennas would be approximately 60 feet above-grade or ten feet below the top of the tower. The tower blends into the surrounding neighborhood and appears to be a flag pole. With the flush mount of the antennas, there would be a slight projection of the tower, but the appearance would not be drastically changed. There should be no negative impacts to the surrounding lar : uses. Notice was given to property owners in the vianity. (exhibit 1) No opposition was submitted at the public hearing. 11. As part of the original review process, there were requirements for vegetation screening the subject property. A landscape plan must be submitte.7 to the C•ity for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan must address the screening of the site with regard to the pole and ground equipment so that it does not impact neighboring properties. (exhibit 1) 12. During construction there would be irritants, including noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare, and other impacts, but after construction these irritants would not.exist. Because the proposed facility would have air conditioning units within the cabinet, there is a possibility that the noise emanating from the site would create irritants. Prior to occupalion, the Applicant shall provide a noise study that indicates whether or not the noise standards are exceeded at the site. If the noise standards are exceeded, the Applicant will be required to provide shielding. (exhrbit 1, Fauver testimony, Conaxis testimony) 13. In the Comprehensive Plan, public facililies are projected to be sited compatible with adjoining land uses. The existing pole was designed in a manner to minimize potential adverse impacts on neighborhoods. The attachment of the antennas flush with the pole would not significantly deter this consistency and would allow for compatibility with other properties. (exhibit 1) 14. The proposal would comply with all provisions of the zoning code, as well a� other state and federal laws. (exhibit 1) 15. The proposed facility is unmanned and any issues relating to public transit are not applicable to this proposal. (exhibit 1) 16. In addition to the General Evaluation criteria, Specific Evaluation criteria must be satisfied for this project. Those criteria, which are set forth in EMC 19.41.150.D.1.b, are as follows: