I sounds emitted from other unrelated sources near the property line. EC 9.5750(6) therefore <br />2 lends some additional contextual support for the city's interpretation of EC 9.5750(7)(f). <br />3 The fifth assignment of error is denied. <br />4 B. Third Assignment of Error <br />5 As explained above, EC 9.5750(8) requires that ancillary facilities be located <br />6 underground unless a variance is approved. As defined by EC 9.0500, "Telecommunications <br />7 Ancillary Facilities' include "[t]he buildings, cabinets, vaults, closures, and equipment <br />8 required for operation of telecommunication systems including but not limited to repeaters, <br />9 equipment housing, ventilation and other mechanical equipment." Intervenor initially <br />10 applied for a variance from the requirement to locate its ancillary facilities above ground. <br />11 Intervenor submitted a noise study to demonstrate that projected noise from the proposed <br />12 above ground location of the ancillary equipment met the standard set out in EC 9.5750(7)(f). <br />13 Petitioner and other project opponents submitted evidence and testimony from an acoustical <br />14 engineer that challenged some of the assumptions, methodology and conclusions in <br />15 intervenor's noise study. The hearings officer found the petitioner's expert's evidence and <br />16 testimony to be more credible.s The hearings officer then concluded: <br />17 "At this point, the hearing official has two choices. First, the hearing official <br />18 could deny the application as not in compliance with this criterion. Second, <br />19 the hearing official could deny the applicant's request for a variance pursuant <br />20 to EC 9.5750(9)(c) to allow placement of the facilities above ground. Placing <br />21 the equipment for the tower in the ground will almost certainly resolve the <br />s The hearings officer found <br />"[T]he entirety of the evidence does not demonstrate that the noise level from the tower <br />equipment would comply with EC 9.5750(7)(f). The reports do show raw numbers that <br />would seem to comply with this standard, but they lack some of the analyses that [petitioner's <br />engineer] conducted. As such, [petitioner's engineer's] reports are the only ones in the record <br />to address specific aspects of noise level, * * As well, the hearing official is concerned that <br />the applicant's reports do not address several questions and formulae that [petitioner's expert] <br />raised. * * * [W]here the applicant's engineers do not explain their assumptions and <br />calculations after another qualified person has raised questions about them, the hearing <br />official cannot conclude that those reports demonstrate compliance." Record 248. <br />Page 13 <br />