at EC 9.5750(7)(f), as there is no evidence in the existing record that addresses whether burying the <br />ancillary equipment will result in compliance with the noise standard. <br />This appeal issue relates to the standards at EC 9.5750(8) and (7)(f), and to the variance criterion at <br />EC 9.5750(9)(c). Those sections provide: <br />(8) Standards for Ancillary Facilities. All ancillary facilities shall comply with the <br />standards of subsections (7)(e) and (7)(f) of this section. In addition, all ancillary <br />facilities within an R-1, PL, C-1, GO, and PRO zone must be located underground <br />to the maximum extent technology allows, unless a variance is obtained. <br />pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section. This restriction does <br />not apply within other zones. <br />(7)(f) Noise Reduction. In R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1; and GO and in all other zones when <br />the adjacent property is.zoned for residential use or occupied by a dwelling, <br />hospital, school, library, or nursing home, noise generating equipment shall be <br />sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce <br />sound level measured at the property line to 45dBa. <br />(9)(c) The. city may grant.a variance to the setback and undergrounding requirements <br />of subsections (7)(d) or (8) upon finding that stealth design, proposed <br />landscaping, configuration of the site, or the presence of mature trees obviates <br />the need for compliance. <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue at pages 40 and 41 of his decision. <br />He found that, based on testimony. provided, New Cingular did not meet the variance criteria at EC <br />9.5750(9) because it did not demonstrate that its proposal to locate the ancillary facilities above- <br />ground would comply with the noise reduction standard at (7)(f). New Cingular did not provide the <br />Planning Commission with additional argument to support its variance request. For the reasons <br />explained in the Hearings Official's decision, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings <br />Official correctly denied New Cingular's request to place the ancillary facilities above ground and <br />conditioned the approval (see Condition #1 of the decision) on a new noise study with the <br />equipment underground. The Hearings Official's condition also requires the applicant to submit <br />new site plans and necessary narrative that would meet applicable criteria fora revised design, <br />placing the ancillary equipment underground. <br />The Planning Commission finds that remanding the decision back to the Hearings Official is <br />inappropriate in this case. New Cingular is simply requesting an opportunity to supplement its <br />application after which the Hearings Official would need to hold a new hearing and prepare a new <br />decision. In this case, a remand would potentially allow substantial changes to the application <br />which are more appropriately addressed through a new application. The Planning Commission also <br />denies the appellant's request to reopen the record and submit new evidence as part of these <br />proceedings. Consistent With the August 17, 2011, decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals in <br />Willamette Oaks v. City of Eugene, the Planning.Commission may not accept new evidence <br />pertaining to this issue. <br />Final Order -AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 3 <br />