desirable feature of this area is the open space of the golf course, height standards and <br />extensive landscape buffering will ensure the tower is not so prominent as to have some other <br />effect on the neighborhood identity. <br />For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission affirms its prior approval on remand, with <br />additional findings of compliance concerning Policy E.4, under the PUD and CUP approval criteria at EC <br />9.8090(1) and EC 9.8320(1). <br />Task 2: Determine whether it is "possible" for the applicant to produce a noise study for the <br />underground equipment, showing the facility will meet the City's noise standards. <br />In the initial local proceedings, the Hearings Official and Planning Commission denied a variance request by <br />the applicant to locate the ancillary facilities above ground (which will require the facilities to be placed <br />underground). A condition of approval was also imposed, requiring the applicant to produce a new study <br />for the underground facilities that complied with the City noise standards. This noise study would be <br />reviewed for compliance with noise standards at the time of Final PUD application, which occurs following <br />a tentative PUD approval. <br />LUBA found that in order for the City to postpone a determination of compliance with an applicable <br />criterion to future proceedings (in this case the Final PUD process), the City must first determine based on <br />evidence in the record, that compliance with the approval criterion is possible. LUBA noted that while it <br />seemed like a common sense presumption that placing equipment underground is likely to reduce noise <br />impacts, there was no evidence to support the City's conclusion. LUBA noted that the remand will provide <br />the opportunity for parties to submit evidence regarding the validity of the Hearings Official's presumption <br />that such a noise study would almost certainly resolve the issue. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the task in this case is not to analyze the noise study for compliance <br />with applicable noise standards during this remand, but rather to determine that is "possible" for the <br />applicant to demonstrate compliance during the future Final PUD process. Based on the previous <br />condition of approval in this application, compliance with the noise standard will be reviewed at the time <br />of the Final PUD application process. <br />In these remand proceedings, AT&T provided two noise reports prepared by a Professional Engineer from <br />SSA Acoustics, LLP that addresses the equipment sound levels and includes several noise mitigation <br />measures that could be implemented on the site to comply with the noise standard (see SSA Acoustical <br />Reports dated November 29, 2012 and January 11, 2013). Additionally, the applicant addressed the <br />opposing reports in the final rebuttal dated January 25, 2013. <br />Arthur Noxon, Acoustical Engineer, provided letters responding to both of the applicant's noise reports <br />(see letters dated December 29, 2012 and January 18, 2013). Mr. Noxon's letters assert several problems <br />with the applicant's noise analysis and {proposed noise mitigation. His letters conclude that there is no <br />evidence in the record that it is possible that the sound standard can be met. <br />Since the applicant has produced and submitted a noise study stamped by a licensed professional who <br />addresses the noise standard, and also provides that additional mitigation could be implemented to <br />Final Order -On Remand March 4, 2013 Page 7 <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) <br />