II. APPLICABLE CRITERIA <br />In this case, the applicable approval criteria involved in the remanded issues include EC 9.8090(1) and <br />EC 9.8320(1), concerning compliance with Metro Plan Policy E.4 (referred to below as "Task 1") and the <br />45 dBA noise standard for ancillary telecommunications facilities at EC 9.5750(7)(f) (referred to below <br />as "Task 2"). <br />III. RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The record before the Planning Commission consists of the written testimony presented by appellant, <br />applicant, and other parties to the Planning Commission on remand starting November 29, 2012 <br />through January 25, 2013. It also includes the initial record which consists of all documents before the <br />Land Use Board of Appeals in Northgreen Properties, LLC v. City of Eugene and New Cingular Wireless <br />PCS, LLC, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA Nos. 2011-099, March 5, 2012). The entire file described above was <br />physically before the Planning Commission. <br />During the open record period, evidence and testimony was provided regarding the health implications <br />of the proposed cell phone tower. The Planning Commission disregards all such evidence as the issue is <br />beyond the scope of the remand, and under the Federal Communications Act, federal law requires that <br />if the facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations for RF <br />emissions, the local government cannot consider this issue further. In this case, the record and <br />decisions below confirm that the application requirements were met with regard to FCC compliance, <br />and that issue was not remanded by LUBA. <br />IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />On remand, after consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence, the Planning <br />Commission affirms that the Application satisfies all applicable approval criteria. In the event of any <br />conflict between the initial Final Order and these supplemental findings, the supplemental findings <br />shall control. The Planning Commission makes the following specific findings as to each issue on <br />remand: <br />Task 1: Determine whether the proposal is consistent with Metro Plan Policy E.4, as an <br />applicable approval criterion. <br />Metro Plan Policy E.4 (page III-E-3): "Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a <br />manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes <br />their sense of identity." <br />During remand proceedings, the Planning Commission first revisited why Policy E.4 applies specifically <br />to this proposal. Based on LUBA's clear direction and past local precedence, the Planning Commission <br />concludes that Policy E.4 applies to this proposed telecommunications tower because it is a <br />"communication facility" and that term is included in the Metro Plan's definition of "key urban services <br />and facilities" (see Metro Plan Glossary, page V-3). <br />Final Order -On Remand March 4, 2013 Page 2 <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) <br />