additional screening for them, in which case they lose their a portion of their view into the golf <br />course, or have no additional screening, in which case they have a more obtrusive view of the <br />cell tower-they were given some input into the screening. The applicant's revised proposal <br />would eliminate even that level of input. <br />As well, the hearing official is aware that by requiring the tower equipment to be underground, <br />the applicant will not be planting the arborvitae mentioned in the application, and may be <br />limited in what could be planted on top of the underground vault. Because there is no <br />equipment to screen, the hearing official believes it is reasonable to require the applicant to do <br />more than just plant a row of arborvitae, which would have little effect in screening the base of <br />the tower. Native vegetation, such as rhododendron, which can grow to 10 feet, 12 feet, or <br />higher, and be dense and bushy for that entire height, would provide better screening of the <br />portion of the tower below the tree canopy. Another alternative would be to mask the tower, <br />not by making it invisible, but by making an attractively landscaped area that draws attention <br />away from the tower. However, the hearing official is not a design professional and has nothing <br />in the record explaining the security needs of a tower base. A landscape architect is the <br />appropriate professional to design adequate screening of the tower. <br />The mid-section of the pole would probably be well screened by existing and proposed <br />vegetation from most viewing points. It is this section where the leafy crowns of deciduous <br />trees and the thick branches of coniferous trees are most effective. <br />The top of the tower-the area above the bushy crowns and tops of coniferous trees is the <br />portion of the tower that really can't be screened with anything close to the pole. Practically <br />speaking, this is the area that must be kept clear in order for the antenna array to work. <br />Aesthetically speaking, the pole will be visible against and contrast with the sky, especially as <br />seen from below. Here, again, a landscape architect could assist with how to try to achieve <br />screening (or masking) of the upper portion of the tower. <br />A condition of approval is thus needed to address screening. Because the owners that border <br />the subject property would be most effective, the hearing official believes it is appropriate for <br />the applicant to have the landscape architect work with those owners as well to determine how <br />to best screen (or mask) the base of the tower. The recommendation in the staff report for the <br />applicant to plant up to two trees on the property lines of the adjoining homes correctly places <br />the burden of screening on the applicant, but does not ensure effective screening. What is <br />needed is individual attention to each property owner and the unique visual challenges from <br />each home and yard: <br />The applicant shall engage a local (mid-Willamette Valley) landscape architect (no other <br />professional will be acceptable) to develop a comprehensive screening plan for the <br />proposed tower to be incorporated into the final tree preservation/landscape plan <br />(Sheet L-1). The landscape architect must consider views of the tower from the homes <br />and yards that adjoin the subject property in the vicinity of the tower, including the <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 14 <br />