Following that determination, the Planning Commission then evaluated the proposal, and for the <br />reasons explained below, found that it is consistent with Metro Plan Policy E.4, as an applicable <br />approval criterion. Therefore, the Planning Commission affirms its conclusion from the initial <br />proceedings -that the Application satisfies EC 9.8090(1) and EC 9.8320(1)-albeit based upon <br />different reasoning. The Planning Commission reaches this conclusion as described in further detail <br />below. <br />Metro Plan Context <br />LUBA found that that Policy E.4 constitutes an "applicable" Metro Plan policy that the City must <br />separately address, because it "provides fairly specific and mandatory direction that public facilities <br />such as the telecommunications tower 'be designed and located' to 'preserve and enhance' desirable <br />features of the area." <br />The proper application of general Metro Plan policies to individual development applications requires <br />careful evaluation of whether and how a particular policy applies and what it means in the context of a <br />particular neighborhood area. It also requires that we look to the context provided by the local regulatory <br />framework of the Metro Plan, refinement plans (in this case the Willakenzie Area Plan), and the Eugene <br />Code regulations intended to implement those adopted land use plans. Interpreting the Metro Plan <br />requires weighing the various components so applicable plan policies and code provisions can be applied <br />in a practical manner to a variety of proposals. <br />The Metro Plan Introduction includes a section called the "Use of the Metro Plan" (page 1-5). This <br />section notes that a "...A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Metro Plan to provide a consistent <br />course of action, moving the community toward attainment of its goals... The revised goals, objectives, <br />and policies contained in this Metro Plan are not presented in any particular order of importance. The <br />respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and <br />among some goals and policies. When making decisions based on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals <br />and policies can be met to the some degree in every instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a <br />balancing of its various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, <br />objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand." <br />The Planning Commission finds that while Policy E.4 is the policy subject to additional consideration on <br />remand, given the direction found in the Metro Plan, Policy E.4 should be interpreted in context with <br />other requirements such as Policy G.1 (Public Facilities and Services Element) to extend key urban <br />services and facilities in an orderly and efficient manner. It should not be used in isolation or at the <br />expense of other relevant adopted plan provisions and policies (i.e. Policy G.1), or more detailed code <br />provisions for example, that direct the provision of adequate urban infrastructure. Policy G.1 and its <br />implementing provisions in the land use code are a key aspect of the City's growth management <br />objectives and promoting compact urban development as described in the Metro Plan. <br />In making an independent application of Policy E.4, when interpreted in the context of the M.etro Plan, <br />the policy should be applied in general enough terms to apply to all "key urban services and facilities" <br />which include a variety of public and private facilities. <br />Final Order -On Remand March 4, 2013 Page 3 <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) <br />