form" in orderto complywith the approval criteria in EC 9,5750. <br />The Hearings Official's decision found that, based on testimony provided, the applicant did not <br />meet the variance criteria at EC 9.57509}. While, as the applicant asserts, there may have <br />been other options thattheycould.haveproposed, withouttheseoptions and evidenceto <br />support a revised design, the variance requirements were not met, lacking evidence that the <br />variance criterion was met the Hearings Official conditioned the approval see Condition 1 of <br />the decision}, by requiring the applicant to submit new site plans and necessary narrative that <br />would meetapplicabkecriteriafora reviseddesign placing the ancillary equipment <br />underground. - <br />As discussed further below, under Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 3, staff findsthatthis <br />condition may so substantiallychangethe applicationthatfurtherconsideration by Planning <br />Commission is warranted, including possible reversal of the Hearings Official's approval, . <br />New Cin~ular Appeal Issue 21 Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 1. <br />New Cingular and Northgreen Property, LLC assert that the City's appeal fees are not in <br />compliance with, applicable laws, Based on the August 17, 2011, decision of the Court of <br />Appeals in Wr~lame~te Oaks v, City o~Eugene, the Planning Commission and may not accept <br />new evidence pertaining to this issue, The City Attorney's office will provide further advice with . <br />regard to these appeal issues. <br />North reen Pro ert A eal Issue 2 <br />Telecom Siting Standard for Noise- EC 9.5750~7~~f~ Error in Interpreting Standard <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 35-38 of the decision pages 75-78 of the <br />record},The appellant asserts that the 45dBa noise limit applies not only to telecom noise <br />measured at the receiving propertyline, buttoall noise, This issuewas previously raised in <br />testimony and the Hearings Official noted thatthe interpretation provided bythe appellant <br />would require the applicant to reduce existing noise levels from other sources not related to <br />the application and not within the applicant's control. <br />The Hearings Official concludedthatwithout more robust evidentiarydetail, and detailed . <br />requirements in the code for how the applicant was to address this, the intent of the code was <br />not to prohibit new sound when 45dBA was already exceeded by ambient noise levels, but <br />rather to limit new devices to less than 45dBA. <br />As such, staff recommends thatthe Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official's decision <br />with regard to Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 2, <br />North reen Pro ert A eal Issue 3 <br />Telecom Siting Standard for Noise- EC 9.5750~7~~f~ -Improper use of Conditioning <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 35-38 and 40-41 of the decision pages 75- <br />78and 80-81 of the record},The Hearings Official noted that, based on the evidence provided, 3 <br />PC Agenda -Page 3 <br />