satisfaction of policy E4 because the applicant has not demonstrated how the monopine enhances <br />or preserves desirable features of the neighborhood or how it promotes the sense of identity in <br />the neighborhood. <br />allegation that trees, architecture, and wireless services are the <br />narrow and short-sighted. While the <br />variety and extent of the existing, natural vegetation is clearly a desirable feature of the <br />) is a <br />desirable feature. Even if could be considered a desirable feature, the monopine <br />anything other than a pine tree. In other words, architecture is irrelevant if the development is <br />purporting to look like something from the natural environment. <br />is simply misplaced. Furthermore, there is nothing to demonstrate that a desirable feature of the <br /> Even assuming that wireless service could be a desirable <br />feature of the neighborhood, improving that feature must be balanced with the impacts to other <br />desirable features of the neighborhood. Regardless, the overwhelming evidence in the record <br />points to desirable features of the neighborhood that does not include wireless connectivity or <br />architecture. <br /> The applicant must demonstrate that it is preserving and enhancing the desirable features <br /> sense of identity. Within the context of a natural and sensitive <br />environment, parklands, running trails, the Amazon creek, and residences, the City must account <br />for the compatibility, screening, aesthetics, and visual impact of the proposed monopine. There <br />is nothing to demonstrate that a 75-ft tower is compatible with the surrounding natural <br />environment, parklands, running trails, and residences. Even assuming the monopine could be <br />compatible with these desirable features, doing so would be contingent upon adequate screening, <br />while preserving existing aesthetics and minimizing visual impact. Here, unlike the Rest Haven <br />case, there are no immediately surrounding trees in close proximity and of similar height that <br />could screen the monopine. As a result, the proposed monopine will dominate the view, creating <br />a significant visual impact that reduces aesthetics of the parklands, running trails, Amazon creek, <br />and nearby residences. <br /> Friends agrees with staff that satisfaction of policy E4 requires a balancing of the <br />proposed development with those desirable features to be preserved and enhanced. Here, the <br />drawbacks of the monopine are too great to overcome what appears to be no more than a <br />nominal increase in wireless service. The monopine is not designed and located in a manner that <br />preserves and enhances the desirable features of the neighborhood. Indeed, the design and <br />location detracts from the natural and recreational features of the neighborhood. This is simply <br />too much to overcome, even assuming there is a modest increase in wireless connectivity. <br />19 <br /> <br />