The entire Oakway Golf Course area was annexed in 1972 and received preliminary approval for the entire <br />168 acre Planned Unit Development. Subsequently, from 1972 through 1976 the area was developed in <br />phases of the original PUD and more recent PUDs. <br />The telecommunications requirements adopted in the Eugene Code which are relevant to the subject <br />request and addressed below at EC 9.5750, have been crafted to ensure that they are consistent with the <br />requirements of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act prohibits cities and states from <br />discriminating among telecommunications providers and from erecting barriers to a provider's entry into a <br />local market. The City's policies and ordinance ensure that all providers in similar situations are treated in <br />a similar fashion. The City worked to design the ordinance so that no barriers to market entry were <br />created, consistent with federal requirements under the act. <br />The PUD application is required by the /PD overlay zone. Telecommunications requirements at EC <br />9.5750(5) also require a CUP for construction new telecommunications towers in areas zoned R-1. <br />Relevant application procedures for this request are addressed at EC 9.7300 through 9.7340. Relevant <br />application requirements and approval criteria for this request are addressed at EC 9.8300 through <br />9.8330, EC 9.8075 through EC 9.8109 and EC 9.5750. <br />A pre-application conference was held March 16,.2010 (LC 10-09), consistent with application procedures <br />at EC 9.7005. Public notice of the PUD application was mailed and posted on December 10, 2011. <br />Subsequently, the application was put on hold and a notice of hearing cancellation was mailed on January <br />4, 2011. All testimony submitted after the first notice is included in the record. Public notice of the June <br />15, 2011 hearing for concurrent applications was mailed on May 11, 2011. The Planning Department <br />received a large amount of public testimony opposing the telecommunications tower based on a number <br />of issues, but primarily in relation to compatibility with surrounding residential areas in regards to noise, <br />emissions and visual impacts. All of the testimony provided has been forwarded to the Hearings Official <br />under separate cover. <br />Preliminary Issues: <br />Concurrent Aoolications - As noted above, the applicant has submitted for concurrent tentative PUD and <br />CUP approval. Based on initial consultation with City staff, the applicant originally applied only for a PUD. <br />Subsequently, after public comment was received on the PUD application, the applicant provided a time <br />extension put the PUD application on hold and submitted the CUP application. On pages 2 and 3 of the <br />applicant's written statement, the applicant requests that the Hearings Official make a determination as <br />to whether the proposed tower requires a CUP. The applicant also requests that if a determination is <br />made that no CUP is required, the application fee be refunded. <br />Table EC 9.2740 lists the Telecommunications Facility use as (S), which refers to the telecommunications <br />standards at EC 9.5750. These standards in turn, require a CUP for telecommunications towers in R-1. EC <br />9.2740 notes that uses subject to CUP requirements (listed as (C) in the table) can also be approved <br />through PUD procedures. Code language at EC 9.2740 allowing uses requiring a CUP to be approved <br />through-PUD procedures is intended so to eliminate.the need for duplicative Type III processes. In this <br />case EC 9.5750(5)(c) appears to explicitly require a CUP for construction of a transmission tower in R-1. <br />There is no clear link from the telecommunication standards at EC 9.5750(5)(c), back to the provisions at <br />EC 9.2740 which allow. PUD procedures in place of the CUP. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 <br />HO Agenda -Page 1 <br />