West - To the west between the Northgreen Apartments and the site there are currently 9 <br />existing trees including 4 large and one small evergreen tree and a hedge approximately 4 feet <br />high. These trees provide screening from the adjacent property directly to the west year round <br />(see Sheet L-1, Photo Simulation 7 of the applicant's material and Photo 1: View West from <br />Tower Site). There is a gap of screening to the northwest of the proposed monopole in which <br />the applicant proposes to plant 3 red oak trees that will eventually mature to 60 feet in height <br />by 50 feet wide. <br />North - To the north, between the Northgreen Apartments and the proposed site there are <br />currently 8 evenly spaced mature Sycamore trees and a hedge approximately 4 feet in height. <br />(See Photo Simulation 6 of Exhibit K and Photo 2: View North from Tower Site). The existing <br />landscaping will provide sufficient screening of the monopole during the spring and summer <br />months, but additional evergreen plantings should be considered along the north property line. <br />(See proposed condition of approval at the end of this subsection.) <br />East-To the east and southeast, between the adjacent single family residences and the <br />proposed site, there are currently 5 birch and oak trees on the west side of the driveway, and a <br />variety of evergreen trees scattered along the east side of the driveway along the property line. <br />(See Photo Simulations 8 and 9 and Photos 3 and 4: View Northeast and East from Tower Site). <br />Again, the existing landscaping should provide sufficient screening during the spring and <br />summer months but additional evergreen plantings should be considered along the east <br />property line. (See proposed condition of approval at the end of this subsection.) <br />South -To the south, the base of the monopole-is completely screened by existing buildings. <br />There is a developed golf course with numerous mature trees between the residential <br />developments to the south and the subject site (see Aerial Photo of Proposed Site). Staff <br />recommended that no further screening appears to be needed to the south. <br />Discussion <br />Visibility of the proposed tower is one of the major issues that the adjoining property owners <br />and residents raise. The hearing official understands they argue that the visibility of any tower <br />within a residential neighborhood is inconsistent with this code provision. The starting point <br />for analysis is the definition of screening: EC 9.0500 defines "Screening" as, "A method of <br />visually shielding or obscuring an area through the use of fencing, walls, berms, or densely- <br />planted vegetation." The Eugene Code does not define "shielding" or "obscuring." Thus, we <br />turn to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged 2002) for the applicable <br />definitions. Webster's is the dictionary that the appellate courts in Oregon use. Webster's <br />shows the following relevant definitions: <br />Shield -1.b: to cut off from observation: conceal, hide Webster's at 2094. <br />Obscure -1.b: to conceal or hide from view as by or as if by covering wholly or in part: <br />make difficult to discern Webster's at 1557. <br />Nearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 12 <br />