I compliance is "possible," in order to justify deferral of a determination whether the <br />2 application complies with an approval criterion. Presumably, it is the basic substantial <br />3 evidence standard: evidence that a reasonable person could rely upon, in this case to <br />4 conclude that compliance with the 45 dba noise standard is "possible." <br />5 As explained above, the hearings officer found that intervenor had not met its burden <br />6 of showing that its proposed above ground facilities meet the EC 9.5750(7)(f) noise standard. <br />7 Nevertheless, the hearings officer concluded that he believed that placing those facilities <br />8 underground would "almost certainly resolve the noise issue," and achieve compliance with <br />9 the 45 dba standard, and that expression of belief is the functional equivalent of a finding that <br />10 compliance with the noise standard is "possible." <br />11 As we understand the hearings officer's findings, he observed that if equipment that is <br />12 above ground comes reasonably close to meeting the noise standard, placing that equipment <br />13 in an underground vault will "almost certainly" meet the standard. However, he found that <br />14 there is no evidence in the record that supports the "seemingly obvious conclusion" that <br />15 placing equipment for the tower in the ground will "almost certainly resolve the noise issue," <br />16 i.e. establish compliance with the 45 dba standard. The hearings officer apparently presumed <br />17 that placing the equipment in the ground is likely to reduce noise impacts compared to <br />18 placing the equipment above ground, and expressed the belief that a noise study of <br />19 underground equipment would "almost certainly" demonstrate compliance with the 45 dba <br />20 noise standard. The presumption that placing equipment underground is likely to reduce <br />21 noise impacts at the property line compared to placing the equipment above ground seems <br />22 like a common sense presumption. However, no party cites us to any evidence in the record <br />23 supporting that presumption. <br />24 Our resolution of the first assignment of error will require remand in any event. <br />25 Because that remand will provide the city an opportunity to allow the parties to submit <br />26 additional evidence regarding the possible validity of the hearings officer's presumption, we <br />Page 16 <br />