(7) (c) Collocation. New transmission towers shall be designed to accommodate <br />collocation of additional providers: <br />2. New transmission towers of a height of at least 60 feet and no more than 80 feet <br />shall be designed to accommodate collocation of a minimum of 1 additional <br />22 <br />provider either outright or through future modification to the tower. <br />The applicant purports to allow for one additional provider through collocation, but the <br />applicant has not submitted verifiable, accurate information to demonstrate that collocation will <br />be possible. First, the applicant has not demonstrated that the tower is structurally capable of <br />accommodating a second provider. Second, the applicant has not disclosed what the proposed <br />monopine would look like with the additional collocation equipment whether that includes new <br />the applicant has not demonstrated how it intends to reconcile additional equipment for <br />collocation and the remedial screening. Third, the applicant has not demonstrated that <br />collocation is feasible given that an additional provider would require noise-generating <br />equipment, and, here, the noise-generating equipment for the applicant will exceed applicable <br />noise standards. See exhibits E, F, G (noise reports from Arthur Noxon). The applicant is <br />essentially ensuring that future collocation on the tower will be precluded. Failing to allow for <br />future collocation is not only contrary to this section, but also contrary to the purpose statements <br />fo <br /> <br />(e) Buffering. In all zones, existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum <br />extent possible. In the C-4, I-1, I-2, and I-3zones, no buffering is required beyond <br />that required by this land use code. In all other zones, landscaping shall be <br />placed completely around the transmission tower and ancillary facilities located <br />at ground level except as required to access the facility. Such landscaping shall <br />consist of evergreen vegetation with a minimum planted height of 6 feet placed <br />densely so as to form a screen. Landscaping shall be compatible with other <br />nearby landscaping and shall be kept healthy and well maintained. <br /> To the extent that the applicant proposes to plant 15 to 20-ft tall trees to screen the tower, <br />these trees will take decades to reach a height sufficient to screen the tower. Unlike the Rest <br />Haven case (see exhibit X), where the applicant sufficiently screened the tower amongst existing <br />tall trees, the proposed tower has no immediately adjacent trees for screening purposes. <br />Regardless of the proposed landscaping, the tower itself is not compatible with nearby <br /> <br />22 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary <br />to determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />13 <br /> <br />