6. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed and existing landscaping, <br />14 <br />including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. <br /> The proposed landscaping does not sufficiently screen the monopine. The 15 to 20-ft <br />trees proposed to screen the monopine would take decades to reach sufficient size. The City has <br />a precedent of screening obtrusive cell towers with existing, large trees, and, here, the subject <br />property simply does not have trees in sufficient numbers or size necessary to screen the <br />15 <br />obtrusive monopine. <br /> <br />(c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application <br />requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or <br />conditional use permits also shall include the following information: <br />(1). A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the <br />appearance of the proposed tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at least <br />16 <br />5 points within 3 mile radius. <br /> The applicant has submitted numerous, inconsistent photographs in an attempt to show <br />the appearance of the tower. Because impact to aesthetics and neighborhood character are <br />significant issues before the Hearings Official, the applicant must submit consistent, accurate, <br />and otherwise verifiable information that depicts the monopine design. If anything, the <br />photographs show that the monopine will be an aesthetic eyesore for the neighborhood and <br />community, with virtually no screening by trees of a similar size and variety. Until the applicant <br />submits realistic simulations of what the monopine will look like including with collocated <br />antennae this standard has not been satisfied. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />14 <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 />15 <br /> To the extent that the applicant maintains that trees of a similar height as the monopine create <br />interference for connectivity, the Rest Haven cas-sized trees to screen the <br />monopine demonstrates that such concerns are misplaced. CMS also submitted information <br />contradicting any notion that the tower must be taller than surrounding trees. <br />16 <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). See Bauer v. City of <br />Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux <br />v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />9 <br /> <br />