Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

have the authority to dictate a new location for the facility. The scope of the City’s review is limited to whether the applicant’s proposal (i.e. the design and location) meets the applicable approval criteria. The Planning Division also provided information concerning this application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. All referral comments received by the Planning Division are included in the application file for reference, and addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and standards in the following evaluation. As noted above, public notice of the application and the public hearing was provided on April 27, 2015, in accordance with Eugene Code requirements. In response to the public notice, staff has received a large volume of written testimony as of the date of this report. Most of the testimony received is opposed (although there were several residents who did express support for the tower) to the placement of the cell tower in this location for the following general reasons: Concern with the human health effects from exposure to RF emissions; Concern with the health and habitat effects on birds, bees and other wildlife from exposure to RF emissions; Concern with the aesthetic impact that will detract from the scenic and natural beauty of the Amazon Corridor; Concern if the facility is really needed since cell phone reception seems to work well in the area; The tower is incompatible with homes, schools and parks in the area; Concern that home values will decline due to evidence that many potential home buyers will not purchase near cell towers. Conditional Use PermitEvaluation In accordance with EC 9.7330, the Hearings Official is required to approve, approve with conditions, or deny this Type III land use application for a CUP. The decision must be based on, and be accompanied by, findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. It must also state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explain the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. To assist the Hearings Official in rendering a decision on the application, staff presents the following conditional use permit approval criteria (shown below in boldtypeface), with findings related to each, based on the evidence available as of the date of this staff report. Staff has also provided a recommendation to the Hearings Official following the staff evaluation, below. EC 9.8090(1): The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. The subject property is designated for low-density residential use on the land use diagram of the Metro Plan, and as noted above, is currently developed with a church. The existing church is considered a non-conforming use, in that it doesnot have an approved CUP as required for HO Agenda - Page 6