context of the applicable approval criteria and related development standards. <br />Public Notice/Referrals <br />The application was deemed complete on April 3, 2015. The Planning Division mailed public <br />notice on April 27, 2015, in accordance with the applicable requirements of EC 9.7315. Since <br />the initial application and in response to this notice, the City has received numerous letters and <br />emails regarding the proposed telecommunications tower. Most of the correspondence <br />received by the City was in opposition of the proposal, raising concerns about aesthetics and <br />neighborhood compatibility, health effects from radio frequency (RF) emissions, effects on <br />birds and other wildlife, declines in real estate values and visibility of the proposed facility. <br />Three neighbors submitted emails in support of the project. <br /> <br />All of the written public testimony and evidence received as of the date of this staff report have <br />been included in the record, and will be provided separately for the Hearings Official’s <br />consideration. Several relevant excerpts from the public testimony are also referenced in the <br />following staff evaluation. Public testimony is also posted on the City’s website (and will <br />http://pdd.eugene- <br />continue to be updated periodically as new materials are received), at: <br />or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=CU-14-0003. <br />A neighborhood/applicant meeting was held on January 30, 2014, in accordance with EC <br />9.7007. The applicant’s neighborhood meeting documentation, included in the application file, <br />indicates that at least 35 people attended the meeting. Some attendees spoke and raised the <br />following concerns during the meeting: <br />Health and safety effects from RF emissions on humans; <br />Environmental safety to wildlife including birds and bees; <br />Improper siting within a residential area; <br />Impact on the beauty of the Amazon corridor; <br />FCC oversight is not restrictive enough to ensure human safety. <br /> <br />Some attendees spoke in support of the proposal and raised the following topics: <br />Competition for local provider keeping costs lower for most users; <br />Will provide better coverage in the area which has been consistently poor; <br />Will reduce proliferation of more towers by providing colocation ability; <br />A mono-pine design is better suited to this area than other types of antenna; <br />Will provide better communication options for individuals and businesses; <br />Will provide affordable internet alternatives to local cable companies; <br />Will provide better coverage for emergency situations. <br /> <br />Since the neighborhood meeting in 2014, as this project has progressed, a number of emails <br />have been received by staff in opposition to the proposal. Issues cited in these emails are <br />similar to those raised at the neighborhood meeting. <br /> <br />A number of neighbors and concerned citizens have expressed concern regarding potential <br />health effects associated with RF emissions. Staff has explained that the City does not have the <br />authority to impose more stringent standards than the FCC regulations. The City also does not <br />HO Agenda - Page 5 <br />