2.0 Require site plan review for all commercial and industrial development." <br />Frankly, this is a very broad and subjective plan provision, and it is difficult to apply to a <br />conditional use application for a cell tower in an R-1 zone. The staff report does an admirable job <br />of explaining how staff understands the Metro Plan policy and refinement plan policies to interact: <br />In the Northgreen case, LUBA noted that the code provisions initially cited by <br />the City did not appear to fully implement Policy EA. On remand, the Planning <br />Commission noted that in addition to the PUD and CUP approval standards cited <br />in the initial decision(s), the City's telecommunication standards at EC 9.5750 <br />are key components implementing the Metro Plan (and the Federal <br />Telecommunications Act), while balancing the protection of neighborhood <br />views and livability with the need to provide a key urban service. The stated <br />purpose of the telecommunications standards are to ensure the <br />telecommunications facilities are located, installed, maintained and removed in <br />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 <br />towers as opposed to construction of new telecommunication towers; <br />Recognizes the need of telecommunication providers to build out their <br />systems over time; and <br />Ensures that all telecommunication facilities, including towers, antennas, <br />and ancillary facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual <br />impact on the immediate surroundings and throughout the community, and <br />minimize public inconvenience and disruption." <br />As discussed, the proposal meets all the requirements of EC 9.5750. The applicant explains <br />that it tried to avoid constructing a new tower but there were no other available alternatives. The <br />proposed tower will allow for collocation of other providers. The applicant explained why existing <br />buildings, light or utility poles, and waters towers could not be used. The applicant explains that <br />the proposed tower is necessary to build out its system. The proposed tower meets all the EC <br />9.5750 setback, buffering, and siting requirements. Furthermore, the proposal also needs to satisfy <br />all of the CUP approval criteria. <br />There has not been substantial discussion about what the "desirable features" of the <br />neighborhood are. The neighborhood appears to be a stereotypical residential neighborhood. The <br />area is flat and does not have specific views of the mountains or other significant natural features. <br />I do not see that "the absence of cell towers" is a desirable feature. If the absence of the proposed <br />development were a basis for denying any proposed facilities that require consistency with the <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 7 <br />252