1. 1 City of Portland City Council Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Land Use Hearings Officer’s Decision Presentation by BDS Staff: Mark Walhood, City Planner II Case File #LUR 01-00737 CU

2. 2 Purpose of Today’s Hearing Consider Appeal of Hearings Officer’s Decision for Approval (with conditions) for a Radio Frequency Transmission Facility under case file #LUR 01-00737 CU; Appellant is Louise Cody (Chair), Centennial Community Association; Applicant is Paul Slotemaker, consultant on behalf of Qwest Wireless, LLC; Council today will uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the HO Decision.

3. 3 Summary of the Proposal Type III Conditional Use Review request to construct 75’ tall monopole with six initial and three future (nine total) antennas, fenced and gated accessory equipment area at grade, and landscaping; Facility to operate at no greater than 100 watts ERP within a residential zone.

4. 4 Background Original proposal was for tower and equipment at northwest corner of site, withdrawn by applicant prior to hearing due to staff concerns regarding visual and functional impacts; Revised proposal for tower near southwest corner of site with smaller equipment enclosure and revised landscaping plan; Staff Report recommended Denial based on visual impact and public benefits; Hearings Officer found all criteria were met, approved proposal with conditions.

5. 5 Approval Criteria 33.815.225.B Conditional Use approval criteria for RFT facilities on a tower in a residential zone, and operating at 100 watts ERP or less; and Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

6. 6 Zoning Map

7. 7 Overall Site Plan - C.6

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17 Overall Site Plan - C.6

18. 18 Landscape Plan - C.7

19. 19 Landscaping Details - C.8

20. 20 Enlarged Site Plan - C.9

21. 21 Elevations - C.10

22. 22 Approval Criteria Conditional Use Approval Criteria (33.815.225.B.1 - 6) B.1 - The applicant must prove that a tower is the only feasible way to provide the service; B.2 - The tower, including mounting technique, must be sleek, clean, and uncluttered; B.3 - The visual impact of the tower on the surrounding area must be minimized. This can be accomplished by one or more of the following methods: –a. Limiting the tower height as much as possible given the technical requirements for providing service and other factors such as whether the tower will provide co-location opportunities; –b. Planting trees around the tower as a way to soften its appearance. The variety and spacing of the trees will be determined based on the site characteristics, tower height, and other co-location factors; or –c. Other methods that adequately minimize visual impact.;

23. 23 Approval Criteria, continued Conditional Use Approval Criteria (33.815.225.B.1 - 6) B.4 - Accessory equipment associated with the facility must be adequately screened. If a new structure will be built to store the accessory equipment, the new structure must be designed to be compatible with the desired character of the surrounding area; B.5 - Public benefits of the use outweigh any impacts which cannot be mitigated; and B.6 - The regulations of Chapter 33.274, Radio Frequency Transmission Facilities are met. Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan

24. 24 Hearings Officer’s Decision Approval of a Conditional Use application to construct a monopole and antennas in substantial conformance with Exhibits C.6 through and including C.10, subject to the following conditions: A.As part of the building permit application submittal, the following condition (B) must be noted on each of the 4 required site plans or included as a sheet in the numbered set of plans. The sheet on which this information appears must be labeled “ZONING COMPLIANCE PAGE - Case File #LUR 01-000737 CU/ Tracs ID #LU 01-008134 CU”. All requirements must be graphically represented on the required plan and must be labeled “REQUIRED”. B.The monopole and all visible cabling and antennas on the pole shall be provided with a dull, matte light grey finish.

25. 25 Issues on Appeal There are other feasible ways to provide the service, and therefore 33.815.225.B.1 is not met; –other nearby locations in Gresham, at various churches in the area, and on existing towers along SE Division Street could provide the service. The visual impact of the tower on the surrounding area has not been minimized (33.815.225.B.3.a-c not met); –loss of views and visual quality in Lynch View Park; –tower is too tall, landscaping proposed is inadequate (not enough trees); and –other locations on the site closer to the school building, or at the southeast corner of the site, would have less visual impact. The public benefits of the use do not outweigh the negative visual and functional impacts to the site (33.815.225.B.5 not met).

26. 26 Other issues raised Landscaping will not be maintained; Litter will be a problem; The proposal will have negative impacts on property values of surrounding homes; and The proposal will have detrimental impacts to the health of nearby residents and park users.

27. 27 Alternatives Facing Council Deny the appeal, and uphold the Hearings Officer’s Decision; Deny the appeal, and uphold the Hearings Officer’s Decision with modifications; or Uphold the appeal, and overturn the Hearings Officer’s Decision.

28. 28 fin