Attachment A <br />Screening is not addressed at all in the written statement or adequately shown on the plans. The <br />expectation on screening has been clarified in other cases which the applicant should review for a <br />better understanding of what is required. <br />Noise -The evidence about noise levels casts doubt regarding compliance. <br />Glare - Lighting is not discussed (i.e. around the equipment area). <br />Visual Impacts -The photo simulations show significant visual impacts, which are not adequately <br />addressed in the written statement or otherwise addressed within the application materials. Staff <br />believes that the applicant would needs to undertake extensive work to better represent the <br />visual impact of the tower with more sophisticated and accurate photo simulations, and from a <br />variety of additional viewpoints (e.g. views from nearby homes). Even then, it may be that a <br />different design or location would be appropriate under these approval criteria. <br />Setbacks - While the application mentions that the proposed tower is located at least 75 feet from <br />property lines in response to the telecommunication standards elsewhere in the application, the <br />materials do not sufficiently address this related criterion. At a minimum, the application should <br />include exact measurements from all adjacent property lines as well as nearby residences, and <br />better explain the choice for siting the proposed tower and ancillary equipment in context with <br />this standard. <br />EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a <br />convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as <br />attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. <br />The "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" requirement is not <br />addressed. Staff is concerned that this particular stealth design may not respond appropriately to <br />the setting and recommends that the applicant evaluate alternatives or additional comparative <br />analysis to better show that the proposed design fits the setting. <br />EC 9.8090(4): The proposal demonstrates adequate and safe circulation exists... <br />Instead of just saying "no impact," that applicant must explain the existing conditions and how <br />access to the equipment will be provided. <br />EC 9.8090(5): The proposal is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following... <br />The statement does indicate that the property is not on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. <br />It just says that the project will have minimal impact on the environment. Describe the on-site <br />vegetation; confirm that there are no rare plants or species, or other features that require review <br />under this criterion. Discuss trees on the property as required by this criterion; to the extent that <br />existing trees may need to be preserved in order to assist with the compatibility of the proposed <br />design, the applicant needs to address the preservation standards. Staff recommends that the <br />applicant obtain the services of a licensed arborist or landscape architect to provide an evaluation <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) Page 2 of 3 <br />