natural trees, and so forth. See exhibit L (AmazonHeadwaters and Noble Foundation); exhibit H, <br />I, J (Adidas and Rexius trails information and maps); exhibit M (Comment Amazon Multiuse <br />Transportation Project, STIP); exhibit N (Eugene Parks and Natural Areas Definitions); exhibit <br />O (Maps of proposed impact area); exhibit P (comment letter from be noble foundation); <br />exhibit Q (comment letters of citizens in opposition); exhibit R (comment letter from <br />Southeast Neighborhood Association Board); exhibit S (comment petitions opposing tower <br />siting); exhibit T (comment aesthetic appreciation of the Amazon creek corridor); exhibit U <br />(Comments Establishing an Aesthetic Rationale as Basis for Denial). Friends agrees <br /> of the neighborhood include the aesthetics, views, the <br />natural/forested character of the area, and the unique setting of the Amazon corridor. However, <br />Friends believe that there are addition those named above. <br />The applicant alleges that: <br />The proposed project forwards Policy E.4 by preserving the desirable features of the <br />residential identity. The proposed telecommunication facility, a monopine, is designed to <br />contribute to the existing backdrop of the other evergreen trees in the area, including <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />First, the only justif <br />telecommunications facility, a monopine, is designed to contribute to the existing backdrop of <br />It remains to be seen how the monopine preserves and <br />enhances desirable features of the neighborhood. The proposed monopine will not be screened <br />by any trees in the immediate vicinity, and, therefore, the monopine will be clearly visible, <br />sticking out like a sore thumb. Despite efforts to disguise the tower, the disguise itself is very <br />conspicuous, and the tower will be an anomaly and detract from the many views of the residents, <br />28 <br />trail runners, and so forth, as is demonstrated . In essence, the <br />omplies with this standard amounts to this: the tower will be made <br />to look like a tree because there are other trees in the area. This is insufficient to demonstrate <br /> <br /> <br />27 <br /> While Friends acknowledge that environmental effects of the tower cannot be considered, cell <br />phone towers cause a decrease in birds and bird species. See exhibit V (comment- federal habitat <br />and wildlife issues). Wildlife and bird species are a significant aesthetic component to the area <br />at issue, and, therefore, wildlife viewing, including viewing of birds, is a desirable feature of the <br />neighborhood that must be preserved and enhanced. Friends contend that by reducing the <br />number of birds in the area, there can be no preservation or enhancement of bird watching. <br />28 <br /> For example, it is axiomatic to say that there are no natural trees with antennae fixated to the <br />top of the tree. <br />18 <br /> <br />