adding no more than 45dBA. The appellant asserts that the 45dBa noise limit at EC 9.5750(7)(f) <br />applies not only to noise emanating from telecommunications equipment measured at the <br />receiving property line; but to all noise measurable at the property line. This issue was previously <br />raised in testimony and the Hearings Official found that the interpretation provided by the <br />appellant would incorrectly require the applicant to reduce existing noise levels from other sources <br />not related to the application and not within the applicant's control. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official was correct in his application of 45dBa <br />standard, specific to the noise-generating telecommunications equipment proposed in the <br />application(s). The Planning Commission also finds that the standard does not necessarily preclude <br />noise-generating telecommunications equipment when ambient noise may already exceed 45dBa. <br />As explained in the September 14, 2011 memorandum from Associate'Planner Steve Ochs to the <br />Eugene Planning Commission, this determination is supported by the plain text of EC 9.5750(7)(f). <br />Further, this is supported by the context provided by EC 9.5750(6)(b)5, which requires the..applicant <br />to submit "[d]ocumentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce sound levels in excess of <br />those standards specified in subsection (7) of this section, or designs showing how the sound is to <br />be effectively muffled and reduced pursuant to those standards." (emphasis added). <br />Furthermore, the Planning Commission concludes that the Hearings Official did not err by <br />establishing the condition of approval to require a new noise study for undergrounded ancillary <br />equipment, so long as the condition is modified as necessary to ensure that other elements of the <br />proposal (specifically, the location of the tower) will remain consistent with the applicable approval <br />criteria. The modified condition of approval is provided under. Northgreen Property's third <br />assignment of error, below. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northareen Property's second assignment of error <br />Northareen Property Third Assignment of Error <br />Telecom Siting Standard for Noise - EC 9.5750(7)(f) - Improper use of Conditioning <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 35-38 and 40-41 of his <br />decision. Based on the evidence provided, he found that the applicant did not comply with the <br />noise standard at EC 9.5750(7)(f). The Hearings Official noted that he had two-choices in <br />responding to this issue. He could deny the entire application, or he could deny the variance <br />request thereby requiring the equipment to be placed underground. He went on to note that <br />placing the equipment underground would almost certainly resolve the noise issue and, therefore <br />satisfy EC 9.5750(7)(f), but there was nothing in the record to support this seemingly obvious <br />conclusion. As a result, he correctly imposed a condition (see Condition #6 of the decision) <br />requiring a new noise study to confirm compliance with EC 9.5750(7)(f), based on a site plan that <br />does not include a variance to the undergrounding requirements of EC 9.5750(8): The Hearings <br />Official also included-a related condition (see Condition #1 of the decision) requiring the applicant <br />to submit a new site plan and any necessary narrative for placing the equipment underground. <br />The appellant. asserts that the Hearings Official should have denied the application, also noting that <br />conditioning is only proper if the record has evidence showing that the standard can be met with <br />the condition. The appellant further asserts that the undergrounding is too big of a change to <br />final Order -AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 5 <br />