With these additional findings and modifications; the Planning Commission concludes that the <br />Hearings Official did not err by requiring a new noise study for undergrounded ancillary equipment <br />and therefore denies Northgreen Property's third assignment of error. . <br />Northareen Property Fourth Assignment of Error <br />Telecom Siting Standards for Variance to Undergrounding - EC 9.5750(9)(c) - <br />Erroneous Interpretation <br />The Hearings Official provides a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 40-41 of his decision. He <br />determined that a variance to allow facilities above ground could be granted if an applicant <br />demonstrated that the sound emanating from its ancillary facilities, as measured at the property <br />line would be 45dBa or less with above ground facilities. However, the Hearings Official found that <br />the applicant failed to make this demonstration. The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official <br />misinterpreted what the code requires to "obviate" the need for undergrounding. The appellant <br />goes onto assert that a variance would only be appropriate if an applicant's proposal eliminates all. <br />noise from the facility. Whether, or not, the Hearings Official was correct in his interpretation is . <br />irrelevant as the Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official that the applicant failed to <br />demonstrate that its proposed above ground facilities would produce less than 45dBa at the <br />property line as required by EC 9.5750(7)(f). <br />As the Planning Commission has determined that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to <br />demonstrate that the 45dBa standard was met, it is unnecessary for the Planning Commission to <br />make any further interpretation of the term "obviate" as used in the text of EC 9.5750(9)(c) <br />because, under any reasonable interpretation, the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof. <br />While there is no need to make a formal interpretation, the Planning Commission concludes that <br />the Hearings Official made a permissible reading of subsection (9)(c) in this instance..As the noise <br />standard was not met and the variance was correctly denied, the Planning Commission will not <br />further speculate as to whether or how the applicant may have met the requirement to "obviate" <br />the need for compliance for above ground facilities. Planning Commission concurs with the <br />Hearings Official's footnote that a request for variance approval would also need to address other <br />factors under the variance criteria such as stealth design, proposed landscaping, configuration or <br />presence of mature trees. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's fourth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Fifth Assianment of Error <br />PUD Standards for Screening EC 9.8320(3) - Naked Top Third of Monopole is not <br />"Adequate Screening" <br />The Hearings Official completed a detailed analysis of this issue on pages 12-15 of the Hearings <br />Official decision. The appellant asserts that the entire monopole needs to be screened to some <br />degree to support a finding of "adequate screening". As to the interpretation of the term <br />"adequate screening," after evaluating the available evidence and meaning of relevant terms, the. <br />Hearings Official found that a condition of approval was needed to ensure the requirement would <br />be met (see Condition #2 of the decision). This condition requires the applicant to engage a <br />landscape architect to develop a comprehensive screening plan and work directly with adjoining <br />property owners to design screening that meets their needs. The Hearings Official notes that the <br />Final Order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 7 <br />