the hearings official in Northgreen recognized, by allowing cell towers in such <br />zones the city accepts that there will be some impact on surrounding properties, <br />but conditions may be required to make the impacts reasonably compatible. In <br />Northgreen, while some trees were planted on other properties, the top 25 feet <br />of the cell tower, a traditional rather than mono-pine tower, would be essentially <br />unscreened. In the present case, the cell tower will look much more like the <br />existing trees and blend in better than the cell tower in Northgreen. While each <br />case is different, and the `reasonably compatible' standard is as LUBA stated <br />inherently subjective, I find that the modified tree preservation area will result <br />in a cell tower that substantially blends in with the existing stand of trees so as <br />to make the mono-pine reasonably compatible with the surrounding properties." <br />Rest Haven 12. <br />What Northgreen and Rest Haven illustrate is that just because a cell tower is visible to <br />surrounding properties does not mean it is incompatible. The reasonably compatible standard does <br />not require that there are no impacts on surrounding properties, just that any such impacts be <br />adequately mitigated. The applicant submitted a number of views of the proposed mono-pine. The <br />applicant provided a current view and a view with a copy of an existing mono-pine superimposed <br />where the proposed mono-pine would be located. Most of those views demonstrate that the visual <br />impact of the proposed mono-pine would not be significant. In most of the views, the proposed <br />mono-pine does not particularly stand out and is not taller than other trees in the picture. Even <br />though there are no taller tress next to the proposed mono-pine, the views demonstrate that there <br />are a number of similar sized trees in the neighborhood. In most of the views, the proposed mono- <br />pine is already at least partially screened by existing buildings and trees. While the views provided <br />are reduced to fit on standard paper, it is difficult if not impossible to differentiate between the <br />proposed mono-pine and the existing trees.' Furthermore, the surrounding neighborhood already <br />has a significant number of utility facilities visible. As the submitted views demonstrate, there are <br />existing telephone poles and lines, power lines running to roofs, and tall power transmission lines <br />throughout the neighborhood. In fact, in the submitted views the exiting utility poles and <br />particularly the power lines strung between them are much more visually jarring than the mono- <br />pine. Opponent Mona Linstromberg testified that telephone poles, utility poles, and transmission <br />lines and wires have become part of the modern landscape. For better or for worse, so have cell <br />At the hearing, I questioned the applicant as to whether the views superimposed on the views were an actual mono- <br />pine or just some type of simulation. The applicant has clarified that the views use an actual mono-pine for the <br />superimposed image and also provided a picture of an existing mono-pine. Again, the picture of the existing mono- <br />pine looks very similar to live tree. <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 12 <br />257