City’s telecommunications standards and other applicable CUP approval criteria. These <br />relevant code provisions implement Policy E.4, at least in part, and therefore serve as a basis for <br />interpreting whether it has been met by the proposed facility. <br /> <br />Telecommunications Standards <br />In the Northgreen case, LUBA noted that the code provisions initially cited by the City did not <br />appear to fully implement Policy E.4. On remand, the Planning Commission noted that in <br />addition to the PUD and CUP approval standards cited in the initial decision(s), the City’s <br />telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750 are key component implementing the Metro Plan <br />(and the Federal Telecommunications Act), while balancing the protection of neighborhood <br />views and livability with the need to provide a key urban service. The stated purpose of the <br />telecommunications standards are to ensure that telecommunication facilities are located, <br />installed, maintained and removed in a manner that: <br />Minimizes the number of transmission towers throughout the community; <br />Encourages the collocation of telecommunication facilities; <br />Encourages the use of existing buildings, light or utility poles or water towers as <br />opposed to construction of new telecommunication towers; <br />Recognizes the need of telecommunication providers to build out their systems over <br />time; and <br />Ensures that all telecommunication facilities, including towers, antennas, and ancillary <br />facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual impact on the immediate <br />surroundings and throughout the community, and minimize public inconvenience and <br />disruption. <br />The City’s telecommunications standards at EC 9.5750 address a broad range of concerns <br />related to provision of telecommunications service such as requiring view shed protection, <br />height limitations, setback minimums, noise mitigation, buffering requirements, color <br />requirements,graphic simulations of the proposed structure, structure capacity for collocation, <br />ability to collocate on alternative sites, and evidence demonstrating alternative sites are <br />unfeasible. As addressed in the following evaluation, the applicant has not met its burden of <br />demonstrating compliance with all of these standards. <br /> <br />CUP Requirements <br />The City’s initial decision in the Northgreen case relied solely on reference to CUP (and PUD) <br />criteria as the implementing provisions of Policy E.4. LUBA concluded that the cited provisions <br />did not appear to fully implement the policy. As affirmed on remand, the Planning Commission <br />found that CUP (and PUD) provisions still had value in at least implementing a part of the policy. <br /> <br />Acknowledging that the CUP criteria in this case may not fully implement or address the <br />requirements of Policy E.4, they nonetheless ensure that subjective issues such as compatibility, <br />screening, aesthetics and visual impact must be appropriately addressed beyond the more basic <br />telecommunications standards. In this case (and further addressed below), it does not appear <br />that the application meets all of the applicable CUP approval criteria as relevant to Policy E.4. <br /> <br />Similar to the Northgreen case, the proposed telecommunications facility would enhance the <br />HO Agenda - Page 10 <br />