not towers in general. The Hearings Official then incorporates the findings and conclusions from EC <br />9.8320(3) in determining that the approval criterion was met. r <br />In its appeal statement and as part of Mr. Reeder's August 31, 2011 memo to the Planning <br />Commission, the appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred in concluding that, because the <br />application 'met many of the objective standards for telecommunications facilities, this criterion was <br />met. The appellant also notes that the condition of approval provided by the Hearings Official (which <br />requires a landscape architect to work with neighbors to develop a screening plan) is fraught with <br />ambiguity and uncertainty, and fails to adequately screen the top portion of the tower. The Planning <br />Commission notes that the limitations set out by measurable standards, such as height, setbacks and <br />noise, combined with the additional findings and modified conditions of approval to address screening <br />requirements at EC 9.8320(3), and undergrounding of the ancillary equipment with respect to EC <br />9.5750(7)'(f) and (8), the PUD approval criterion at EC 9.8320(13) will also be met. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's twelfth assignment of error. <br />Northareen Property Thirteenth Assignment of Error. <br />Livability - EC 9.8090(2) <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issue on pages 45-46 of his decision. He notes that EC 9.8090(2)(a) <br />ensures buildings are appropriately sized for their use. He correctly finds that the structure in this case <br />is a cell tower, not a "building" as that term is defined in EC 9.0500 and used in subsection (a), and <br />therefore this subsection is not applicable, contrary to the appellant's assertions. The appellant <br />asserts that even though the tower is not a building as that term is defined, the ancillary facilities may <br />be since they store and shelter equipment. Under subsection (b), the Hearings Official also provides <br />findings that address noise, glare and radio frequency emissions. <br />As to the appellant's further assertion that the Hearings Official erred by not imposing increased <br />setbacks to mitigate impacts on surrounding residential uses, the Planning Commission disagrees <br />and finds that the proposed facility provides ample setbacks, well beyond the minimum <br />requirements (being 102' 6" from the nearest property line). With the additional findings, as well <br />as modified and new conditions of approval above, including the requirements for additional <br />screening, placing the ancillary equipment underground and a new condition (Condition #10) that <br />the CUP approval shall only be effective upon final PUD approval, the Planning Commission <br />concludes that the CUP criterion at EC 9.8090(2) is also met. <br />The Planning Commission therefore denies Northgreen Property's thirteenth assignment of error.. <br />IV. CONCLUSION <br />The Eugene Planning Commission has reviewed the record and the appellants' assignments of error, <br />and has voted to modify and affirm the decision of the Hearings Official to conditionally approve the <br />tentative PUD and CUP requests for AT&T Mobility - Oakway Golf Course (PDT 10-2 and CU 11-1). <br />Additional findings and modified conditions of approval are provided in Section III of this Final Order; <br />the modified conditions of approval are also included below for reference. All other conditions <br />imposed by the Hearings Official remain applicable asset out in the Hearings Official's decision. <br />Final.order - AT&T Mobility <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) October 4, 2011 Page 13 <br />