running trails and parks, and adjacent to a significant waterway. Even assuming that the cell <br />tower is disguised as a monopine, lf is clearly evident to even the least <br />discerning eye, according to the images submitted by the applicant. Indeed, because these <br />images go to an important issue in this matter (i.e., aesthetics), the applicant must submit <br />consistent, verifiable representations of <br />the surrounding desirable features of the neighborhood. <br />In addition, there is nothing that the applicant can do for the foreseeable future to <br />sufficiently screen the proposed monopine. For a less intrusive option, this would not be the <br />case; however, the applicant decided to narrowly consider only a single option, one that is a clear <br />detriment to the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. As such, the local neighborhood and <br />community have been heavily inconvenienced and disrupted as a result of this unnecessary <br />proposal. <br />To the extent that the hearings official finds that the these purpose statements do not <br />constitute mandatory approval criteria, see Freeland v. City of Bend, 45 Or LUBA 125, 130 <br />8 <br />(2003), the purpose statements should be used by the hearings official as context to interpret and <br />apply the approval criteria, id. <br />an affirmative obligation on the city prior to approving residential development, at a minimum <br />that language functions as context for interpreting uses permitted in the RC subzone, pursuant to <br />. The clear weight of the purpose statements counsel against the construction of a <br />new, unnecessary tower, encourage the use of existing facilities, and encourage collocation. The <br />current applicant satisfies none of these provisions. <br />to these purpose statements for context and explain how these purpose statements are furthered <br />ations and decision. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />8 <br /> Purpose statements in land use regulations are often generally worded expressions of the <br />motivation for adopting the regulation, or the goals or objectives that the local government hopes <br />to achieve by adopting the regulation. Where a purpose statement is worded in that manner, <br />LUBA has stated that it does not play a direct role in reviewing applications for permits under <br />the land user regulations. Here, Friends contends that these purpose statements should be read as <br />mandatory approval criteria or, absent that, context for interpreting approval criteria. <br />4 <br /> <br />