Attachment B <br />on most of the existing evergreen trees in the area. This is because a more gradual taper would <br />require additional height, which would preclude compliance with the 75 foot height limit for the <br />proposed WTF in an R-1 zone under EC 9.5750(7)(b)5. (The top of the antennas must be at 70 <br />feet to meet AT&T's coverage objectives, and the Applicant has already added 5 additional feet <br />to the height to allow for taper). As demonstrated by Att. 15 (Samples & Photos), the branches <br />and trunk of the monopine would match the colors of existing trees near the property. (Staff <br />has agreed to the Applicant's submittal of close-up photos of nearby trees, rather than a <br />collection of branch and bark samples. <br />The entire monopine would be surrounded by a 6 -foot tall cedar fence and a landscaping buffer. <br />See Att. 04 (Site Plan, Sheets A-3.0, A-3.1 and Sheet L1.0). The landscaping buffer has been <br />revised to include a variety of plants typical to residential garden design. The type, variety, and <br />size will create a place of visual interest and be more in keeping with landscaping typically found <br />in the surrounding neighborhood. This further mitigates the visual impact of the proposed <br />monopine by softening the bulk and scale of the tower compared to several shorter, deciduous <br />trees, and mitigating the visual impact from adjacent properties. <br />Additionally, as noted in a conversation with Eugene Planner Becky Taylor, the photo <br />simulations submitted are static images. The shortcoming of these is that they presume that this <br />is how something is viewed. But people typically view their surroundings is as a whole. They see <br />foreground, middle ground, background and everything in between, and they scan their <br />surroundings based on where they are going-where they are placing their feet if they are <br />walking, or if driving or cycling the direction they're steering, traffic signals and signs, <br />pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. This monopine would be no more visible in the landscape than the <br />EWEB utility poles, transformers, backflow prevention devices and other elements we consider <br />less appealing on an aesthetic level. <br />The existing trees on the site are mostly individual trees and "stick out" somewhat, because they <br />are not in a grouping. Yet, the view of these individual trees is not undesirable. The monopine, <br />with its green foliage and dark earth tone bark, would blend into the surroundings better than <br />the stand-alone utility poles with transformers and cobra-head lights. <br />All associated equipment would be located in a proposed equipment shelter designed to look <br />like an extension of the existing church building. It would be constructed flush against the <br />existing building; and sided, roofed, and painted to match. Details of the design are shown at <br />Att. 04 (Site Plan). The shelter would be lined with baffling to mitigate any sound from the air <br />conditioning unit and emergency generator. See Att. 07 (Sound Study). <br />This smaller addition to the church actually mitigates the large blank south face of the church. In <br />this manner the architecture is improved and the south side of the building has a more <br />pedestrian scale, providing articulation and visual interest. Additionally, there would be <br />plantings around these new walls, further lending the project to blend in with the residential <br />character of the neighborhood. <br />2. The general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) 21 <br />