I agree with the applicant's analysis. The staff report also agree with this analysis and I <br />adopt and incorporate the staff report findings on the criterion in this decision. EC 9.5 75 0(6)(c)(2) <br />is satisfied. <br />EC 9.5750(7)(f) provides that noise generating equipment shall be sound-buffered to <br />reduce the sound level measured at the property line to 45 dBa or below. The staff report states <br />that this requirement is not satisfied. As explained earlier, however, that conclusion was based on <br />the inclusion of an emergency generator in the proposal that has now been eliminated. Without the <br />emergency generator, the proposal meets the 45 dBa requirement as explained in the November 4, <br />2015 staff memorandum. I adopt and incorporate staff's findings on this issue in this decision. EC <br />9.5750(7)(f) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.5750(8) requires that in R-1 zones all ancillary facilities must be underground unless <br />a variance is obtained pursuant to EC 9.5750(9). The applicant has requested a variance. EC <br />9.5750(9)(c) provides: <br />The city may grant a variance to the setback and undergrounding requirements <br />of subsections (7)(d) or (8) upon finding that stealth design, proposed <br />landscaping, configuration of the site, or the presence of mature trees obviates <br />the need for compliance.' <br />The original variance request included an above ground emergency generator. As discussed <br />earlier, the emergency generator would have likely violated the noise standards. The applicant <br />eliminated the emergency generator from the proposal, and the only ancillary facilities outside and <br />above ground that a variance is needed for are air conditioning units. As the applicant explains, <br />the air conditioning units need to be outside to circulate ambient air. Although some opponents <br />argue that even the air conditioners would be too noisy, the noise study provided by the applicant <br />and concurred with by staff demonstrates that the noise standards will not be violated. <br />There was also some confusion between the applicant and staff as to how the ancillary <br />facilities could be screened. The applicant and staff now agree that the above ground ancillary <br />facilities may be screened with landscaping. I agree with staffs conclusion, and I adopt and <br />incorporate the followings findings from staffs November 4, 2015 memorandum in this decision: <br />Staffs expert sound consultant, The Noise Consultancy, has reviewed the <br />applicant's expert's] acoustic report and agrees with its conclusion that the <br />elimination of the emergency generator and the installation of the two air <br />conditioning units, along with the elimination of the sound wall, will not exceed <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 5 <br />250