implement the policy. The Planning Commission finds that the PUD and CUP provisions still have value in <br />at least implementing a part of the policy and also find that an extensive landscaping condition that was <br />included in response to one of the PUD criteria also helps implement Policy E.4 when applied separately to <br />this proposal in the context of the regulatory framework. Acknowledging that the PUD and CUP may not <br />fully implement or address the requirements of Policy E.4, these approval criteria nonetheless ensured <br />that subjective issues such as screening, natural resource issues and compatibility were addressed above <br />and beyond the more basic telecommunications standards. <br />In response to the PUD standards for screening at EC 9.8320(3), the Planning Commission imposed a <br />condition of approval that requires the applicant to hire a landscape architect to work with 47 adjoining <br />properties that may have a view of the telecommunications tower, to design screening that meets the <br />owner's needs. The condition will result in the planting of approximately 100 new trees if adjoining <br />property owners want the screening (the full text of the condition and a related map are included as part <br />of the initial Final Order of the Planning Commission, dated October 4, 2011). The Planning Commission <br />relied on this condition to ensure sufficient screening, and now, also more specifically as a means to <br />implementing the intent of Policy E.4. Implementation of this condition, in addition to those factors <br />described above, provides further evidence of compliance with Policy E.4. <br />Application of Metro Plan Policy E.4 <br />Based on the findings and context above, Policy E.4 now can be interpreted expressly in three basic <br />elements: <br />Is a cell tower a "public or private facility" subject to inclusion under Policy E.4.? As described <br />above, the Planning Commission finds that the cell tower is a private telecommunication facility <br />that should be considered under the Metro Plan definition of key urban series or facility. <br />Therefore, Policy E.4 applies. <br />What is meant by "designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable <br />features of local and neighborhood areas"? Given the broad range in the types of facilities <br />covered by Policy E.4, the quoted clause cannot mean that every new facility must be designed <br />and located in a manner that both preserves and enhances every desirable feature of the <br />neighborhood. This is especially true because there are other provisions in the Metro Plan and <br />WAP that require attention to competing concerns. In this case, the proposed facility <br />"preserves" the desirable features of the neighborhood by meeting both the objective <br />telecommunications standards and subjective PUD and CUP standards. In addition, the <br />proposal incorporates a landscaping condition designed to shield it from view and mitigate for <br />any visual impact (none of which adversely impacts the features that the WAP considers <br />significant such as the Greenway, Gillespie Butte, etc.). As a telecommunications facility, it <br />enhances the one neighborhood feature it is designed to address, communication. <br />What is meant by "promote their sense of identity"? Given the broad range in the types of <br />facilities covered by Policy E-4, the quoted clause cannot mean that every new facility must <br />"promote the sense of identity" of every desirable feature of the neighborhood. The application <br />of the policy must be done in the context of other Metro Plan provisions. The WAP lists the <br />features considered significant and the tower has no negative affect on those. To the extent the <br />Final Order -On Remand March 4, 2013 Page 6 <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) <br />