Technology Associates <br />RESPONSE: The proposed project is located on a parcel surrounded by a variety of existing trees <br />and vegetation, including red maples, a spruce tree, shore pine, paper birch and Ponderosa pine <br />trees. The Ponderosa pines are similar height and density as the proposed monopine. To <br />further enhance desirable features of the area and promote their sense of identity, AT&T is <br />proposing additional landscape around the base of the monopine and the proposed building <br />extension which will house ancillary equipment. The proposed landscaping (Att.1) as shown on <br />plans includes a variety of vegetation and shrubbery as well as vine maples. <br />The desirable features of the surrounding neighborhood include a variety of flora, mature <br />evergreen trees and deciduous trees. The proposed monopine and additional landscaping will <br />preserve the desirable features of the neighborhood by contributing the abundant flora and <br />mature trees. Additional photo simulations (Att. 2) clearly demonstrate the abundance and <br />variety of vegetation, including native trees and shrubs, surrounding the subject property. <br />2. EC 9.8090(2) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are <br />reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate <br />development of surrounding property, as the relate to the following factors: <br />(a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and <br />density of use being proposed. <br />The statement says the monopine is designed to look like other evergreen trees in the <br />immediate area, butthe site plans show few evergreen trees in close proximity. The <br />additional photo simulations help support the argument about there being a <br />backdrop of trees, but it appears that these photos were taken at strategic locations, <br />rather than representing actual impacts. This criterion is about the location of the <br />facility to minimize impacts on surrounding properties. As noted above, the narrative <br />and supporting photos simulations don't appear to accurately describe the setting, <br />nor do they fully address how the facility will be reasonably compatible with <br />surrounding properties who would view the tower without any backdrop of trees. It <br />may be helpful to review the Rest Haven cell tower findings, which provide extensive <br />discussion of this criterion. <br />7117 SW Beveland Street, Suite 101 <br />Tigard, OR 97223 <br />(323)559-4103 <br />Email: jacob.finnev@taec.net <br />www.taec.net <br />