The Eugene Code requiresthatthe Planning Commission'sdecision onthis appeal be made <br />within 15 days of the close of the record following the public hearing. However, staff <br />emphasizesthat a decision will be required no laterthan Septemberl6, 2011to meetthe 120- <br />day statutory time limit and to comply with local code procedures. The Planning Commission's <br />decision must otherwise be made in accordance with the provisions for appeal decisions see <br />EC 9.7680},and more specifically, consistent with the applicable PUD and CUP approval criteria <br />from EC 9.8090 and EC 9.8320. <br />The Planning Commission is urged to articulate any specific questions of staff following the <br />public hearingorvia email tofacilitate response at deliberations. Final deliberation and action <br />by the Planning Commission will be scheduled at a future date, based upon when the record <br />closes followingthe public hearing. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW ROLE <br />Planning Commission's review should be focused entirely an the question of whether or not the <br />Hearings Official failed to properlyevaluatetheapplication ormake adecision consistentwith <br />the applicable criteria. The only questions at issue in this request relate to whether or not the <br />Hearings Official erred in approving the applications based on the approval criteria of EC 9.8094 <br />and EC 9.8320. The Planning Commission may modify the Hearings Official's decision with <br />supplementalfindings; or inthe eventthatthe Planning Commission findsthe Hearings Official <br />erred in approvingthe requestand choosesto reversethe decision the PlanningCommission is <br />required to provide specific findings of fact as to why the decision was in error. The Planning <br />Commission cannot reverse the decision without such findings. <br />APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE <br />The New Cingular wireless appeal is comprised of 2 assignments of error and the Northgreen . <br />Property appeal consists of 13 assignments of error see attached}. Staff's preliminary <br />responsesto each of the assignments of error are provided below, followed by staff's <br />recommendation to the Planning Commission. To differentiate the appeals, staff refers to the <br />numbered appeal issues below under the heading of "New Cingular" or "Northgreen Property". <br />When referring to the "the decision" below, staff is referring to the Hearings Official's written <br />decision approving the applications PDT 10-2 and CU 11-1},dated Aug~~st 2, 2011. For <br />additional information on the subject request, please also refer to the attached appeal forms <br />and written statements, as well as the full record of materials provided under separate cover <br />which includestheHearings Official's decision, publictestimony and application materials. <br />New Cingular Appeal Issue 1 <br />Requirement that the new noise study not include a variance. <br />This appeal issue relates to the variance criteria at EC 9.57509},The Hearings Official addresses <br />the relevant variance criteria on pages 40-41 of the decision ~page~ 80-81 of the record}. <br />The appellantassertsthatthe noise requirement could be metwith a differentsitedesign, <br />without undergrounding the equipment, and therefore requests that the Hearings Official's <br />decision be revised to allow AT&T to submit a new noise study and or variance request "in any <br />2 <br />PC Agenda -Page 2 <br />