Metro Plan then almost anything could be denied on that basis. As to whether the proposed tower <br />promotes their sense of identity," I do not see that it affects any sense of identity one way or the <br />other. Given that Policy G.1 of the Public Facilities and Services Element supports the extension <br />of key urban services and facilities such as telecommunication facilities, I conclude that the <br />proposal is consistent with the applicable Metro Plan and refinement plan provisions. EC 9.8090(1) <br />is satisfied. <br />EC 9.8090(2) provides: <br />The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are <br />reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or <br />appropriate development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following <br />factors: <br />a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for <br />the type and density of use being proposed." <br />b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other <br />site improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts <br />such as noise, glare and odors are oriented away from nearby <br />residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through other <br />design techniques, such as screening and increased setbacks." <br />As the staff report explains, EC 9.8090(2)(a) only applies to buildings, and the proposed <br />mono-pine does not meet the EC definition of building. I agree. Therefore, EC 9.8090(2)(a) is not <br />applicable. <br />EC 9.8090(2)(b) addresses structures which could cause substantial off-site impacts to <br />surrounding areas such as noise, glare and odors.' The staff report identified five areas of concern <br />related to the proposed mono-pine.' The first identified impact is setbacks. The staff report <br />explains that the proposal satisfies the setback requirements of EC 9.5750(7)(d). In fact, the <br />proposal exceeds the setback requirements by 10 feet to the east and north, 125 feet to the west, <br />and 260 feet to the south. The staff report goes on to find that the setback may not be sufficient. <br />This analysis has more to with how the setbacks affect the visual impact of the proposed tower on <br />neighboring properties rather than the setbacks themselves. I agree that the setbacks are sufficient <br />2 EC 9.0500 defines "building" as "A structure designed and used as a place of occupancy, storage, or shelter." <br />s EC 9.0500 defines "structure" as "Anything constructed or built, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of <br />work artificially built up composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." <br />4 Only one of the five areas identified by staff, glare, is a specifically listed impact, but EC 9.8090(2)(b) states "impacts <br />such as * * Thus, additional impacts, such as visual impact may be considered under this provision. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 8 <br />253