Friends contends that that 9.8090(2)(a) applies to the current application. The term <br /> must be read in the context of the entire provision and proposal, which contemplates <br />[t]he location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal be considered. <br />(emphasis added). Clearly, the context and intent of this provision is to account for the <br />constructed element that requires a conditional use permit, and, here, that is clearly the obtrusive <br />75-ft tower and to a lesser degree the shed that will house ancillary facilities. There is simply no <br />reason to conclude that the intent of the code is to avoid consideration of proposals that are not <br />building and will be visible from significant distances. Therefore, 9.8090(2)(a) is a mandatory <br />approval crite <br /> <br />(b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site improvements <br />which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare and odors are <br />oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through <br />other design techniques, such as screening and increased setbacks. <br />As noted above and in the concurrently submitted noise reports (exhibits E, F, G), the <br />and state noise standards <br />analysis repeatedly underestimates the effect of noise from the proposal. In addition, the <br />applicant has not demonstrated how the proposal can be sufficiently screened or oriented away <br />from nearby residential uses. The list of issues, including noise, glare and odor is a non- <br />exclusive list that must account for the failure to sufficiently screen the monopine. The <br />proposed monopine will essentially stand alone and dominate the landscape, creating an intrusive <br />and significant visual impact. Because there has been no consistent graphic simulation of the <br />monopine (including with collocated antennae) and because there is simply no way to orient the <br />monopine away from residential uses, the monopine must be sufficiently screened. See exhibit <br />AA (comment site photos). Sufficient screening, however, is impossible because sufficient <br />screening would not be in place for decades, if not longer. <br />9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a <br />convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as <br />attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. <br /> Under this approval criterion, the nature of the use (cellular or wireless connectivity) <br />must be as attractive as the location and setting warrant. Here, the location and setting warrants <br />a use consistent with the existing landscape, parklands, running trails, Amazon creek, and <br />residences. See exhibit Y (comment survey on cell tower locations in Eugene). The proposal, <br />however, would tower over the surrounding properties, creating an eyesore in the neighborhood. <br />The location and setting warrant a proposal that accomplishes the goals of the application (even <br />those goals appear dubious). This can occur by collocation on existing facilities or by using <br />22 <br /> <br />