In the context of the c <br />above, the current proposal increases the number of towers, precludes collocation as a result of <br />noise and other issues in which a future collocator would end up violating standards. The <br />applicant fails to ensure that it would use existing buildings, light or utility poles, or water towers <br />as opposed to construction of new telecommunication towers. The application also fails to <br />ensure that all telecommunication facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual <br />impact on the immediate surroundings and throughout the community, as well as the failure to <br />minimize public inconvenience and disruption from the tower, and, therefore, the applicant fails <br />to satisfy its . <br /> Based on the proximity to the Amazon creek, Friends believes that an additional Metro <br />Plan policy is applicable, and the applicant has failed to even acknowledge this policy. Policy <br />D5 is also applicable to the proposal because the development is located <br />along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, <br />29 <br />scenic, and environmental qualities of those The applicant has not <br />demonstrated that a 75-ft tower is compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental <br />30 <br />qualities of Amazon Creek. Therefore, the application must be denied. <br /> In the Northgreen case, the city relied on policy G1 for context. Policy G1 provides: <br />efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II-C, relevant <br />policies in this chapter, and Policy G1 has no bearing on the present <br />application because, according to the a See <br />exhibit A. Because the minimum level of wireless connectivity is already being provided by the <br />applicant, any reliance on policy G1 for context is misplaced. However, the aforementioned <br />Metro plan policies, goals, and objectives should be used as context to interpret policies E4 and <br />D5, as well as the purpose statements for the city <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />29 <br /> The reason this particular policy was not implicated in prior telecommunication cases in the <br />city of Eugene is because the subject properties in those cases were not located adjacent to or <br />along a city waterway. <br />30 <br /> Even if it were determined to be an independent approval criterion, which Friends assert it is, <br />this policy can also provide context for interpreting policy E4. <br />20 <br /> <br />