appropriately screened from surrounding properties. This screening will contribute to compatibility. <br />As noted at EC 9.8320'(5)(c) in regards to traffic, EC 9.8320(9) in regards to stormwater runoff, and EC <br />9.8320(4) in regards to protection of natural features which are incorporated here by reference, the <br />proposed development will have minimal off-site impacts related to traffic, noise, stormwater runoff <br />and natural resources, all of which helps ensure the development is reasonably compatible with the <br />nearby land uses. The findings above at EC 9.8320(12) in regards to off-site impacts are also <br />incorporated here by reference as further demonstration of compliance. <br />As noted elsewhere, City has very specific telecommunications standards which set maximum heights, <br />setbacks, decibel levels and mirror FCC requirements. The applicant's proposal complies with all of <br />these standards. These telecommunications standards were established to create clear criteria to for <br />providers to meet, but also provide a discretionary process to provide for public input on a-case by <br />case basis. While the Eugene Code clearly allows for cell towers in the R-1 zone (as long as the <br />property is not being used for a residential purpose) and certain standards are met, it also provides <br />the additional criteria here regarding compatibility which allows some subjectivity. It is clear based on <br />testimony provided by surrounding neighbors they do not feel that the proposed mono-pole is <br />reasonably compatible or harmonious based on a variety of factors. Several of these factors raised in <br />testimony, such as noise, RF emissions and height have clear standards that have been met and the <br />development is considered reasonably compatible in relation to those factors. Other concerns raised <br />in testimony, such as visual aesthetics and compatibility are addressed by screening, height <br />limitations and other requirements. <br />EC•9.8320(14): If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in the <br />approval of the tentative application exempts future land divisions from compliance <br />with state or local surveying requirements. <br />The applicant is not proposing a land division. This criterion is not applicable. <br />EC 9.8320(151: If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the applicant <br />shall demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the special area <br />zone. <br />The subject property is not located within a special area zone. As such, this criterion is not applicable. <br />Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Request: <br />In accordance with EC 9.7330, the Hearings Official is required to approve, approve with conditions, or <br />deny this Type III land use application for a CUP. The decision must be based on, and be accompanied <br />by, findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. It must also <br />state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explain the justification for the decision <br />based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. <br />To assist the Hearings Official in rendering a decision on the application, staff presents the following <br />conditional use permit approval criteria (shown below in bold typeface), with findings related to each, <br />based on the evidence available as of the date of this staff report. Where criteria are identical to PUD <br />criteria, the findings are incorporated by reference. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 31 <br />'HO Agenda -Page 1 <br />