(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the <br />application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications <br />for site review or conditional use permits also shall include the <br />following information: <br />1.A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation <br />showing the appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and <br />ancillary facilities from at least 5 points within a 3 mile radius. Such <br />points shall be chosen by the provider with review and approval by <br />the planning director to ensure that various potential views are <br />represented. <br />The applicant initially provided photo simulations showing the appearance of the proposed <br />tower from several different views. Staff notified the applicant that the provided photo <br />simulations did not meetEugene Code requirements, and that additional views and better <br />photo simulations were needed. The applicant submitted revised simulations (dated October <br />27, 2014, see Attachment 8) to staff. Staff reviewed the new material and responded back to <br />the applicant(see Attachment 9) advising that additional effort was required, “to better <br />represent the visual impact of the tower with more sophisticated and accurate photo <br />simulations, and from a variety of additional viewpoints (e.g. views from nearby homes)”. <br /> <br />The applicant, in their resubmittal of materials (March 27, 2015), provided additional photo <br />simulations from eight different viewpoints. The applicant also provided two photographs from <br />the tower manufacturer showing an actual example of an existing similar mono-pine structure <br />(see Attachment 17). <br /> <br />As previously discussed in this staff report (see EC 9.8090(2)(b), pages 12-15) , staff has noted <br />multiple inconsistencies throughout these submitted photo simulations that depict different <br />styles of simulated mono-pine trees, and that portray the antenna panel array as sometimes <br />visible and sometimes with no array visible through the branches. In the public testimony <br />received, William Collinge points out similar inconsistencies in the applicant’s submitted <br />materials as shown in Attachment 11 regarding the appearance and screening of the antenna <br />array and also discrepancies in the actual site location of the structure. <br /> <br />Although the applicant has exceeded the minimum requirement of providing graphic <br />simulations from a minimum of 5 viewpoints, the inconsistency with the submitted materials <br />does not give staff the ability to determine the veracity of the evidence provided and to <br />adequately asses the proposal to determine the visual impacts to the neighborhood. Therefore, <br />staff has deemed the submitted visual materials as insufficient for this application. <br /> <br />2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 <br />feet have been considered and have been determined to be <br />technologically unfeasible or unavailable. For site reviews, <br />alternative sites zoned C-4, I-1, I-2, and I-3 must be considered. For <br />HO Agenda - Page 25 <br />