These dictionary definitions reveal a bit of an internal inconsistency in the Eugene Code's <br />definition of "Screening." The term "shield" indicates making an object not visible, but the <br />term "obscure" allows for something to be visible in part, just difficult to discern. And there is <br />more to the code provision at issue. <br />EC 9.8320(3) uses the term "adequate screening." Testimony provided by Bill Kloos on behalf of <br />the Oakway Neighbors and other public testimony asserts that "adequate screening" should <br />mean completely block the view. The staff report noted that this term has not been applied in <br />the past to mean that views of proposed development must be eliminated, but rather they <br />must be screened to a reasonable extent-i.e., adequate in context. For example, in the <br />tentative PUD decision for Goodpasture LLC (PDT 09-1), the hearing official noted that in <br />Sunburst 11 Homeowners Association v. City of West Linn, 17 Or LUBA 401 (1989) LUBA upheld a <br />city determination that the 25-foot trees would adequately buffer a 110-foot tall water tower. <br />LUBA noted that the term "adequate buffer" gave the city discretion, and did not require the <br />city to ensure that views of the water tower would be eliminated. As applied in the past, the <br />term "adequate screening" in the Eugene Code is similarly discretionary. <br />The staff report then noted that in tentative PUD approval PDT 09-1, which was appealed to the <br />Planning Commission and upheld, an adequate amount of screening was considered to be a <br />combination of a six-foot fence and new landscaping to screen three-story apartment buildings. <br />Even though the mono-pole is 25-feet taller (75-feet high as compared to 50-foot high <br />apartments) it is not as bulky and is set back a greater distance. The existing landscaping on this <br />site is also mature and obscures potential views of the tower from much of the surrounding <br />area. Therefore, staff recommended, the existing mature landscaping combined with the <br />proposed and additional required plantings would provide "adequate screening." <br />The hearing official does not believe the term "adequate screening" refers to making objects <br />invisible, but the hearing official also does not believe that the screening required for the three- <br />story apartment buildings at issue in PDT 09-1 is a good comparison to the cell tower at issue <br />here. In PDT 09-1, the surrounding development was entirely other multi-story residential <br />apartment and retirement home buildings. Here, the proposed use is not similar in height, <br />type, or use as the surrounding single-family residences or apartment buildings. <br />The staff report noted that a continuous screen of site obscuring vegetation is not provided <br />along the north and east property lines. Staff thus recommended a condition of approval <br />requiring the applicant to notify neighbors and give them an opportunity to have the applicant <br />plants trees that would screen the proposed tower. After the hearing, the applicant proposed <br />to just plant the trees without first working with the neighbors and the staff recommended <br />deleting that recommended condition. Staff also recommended a condition of approval <br />implementing the landscape plan. The hearing official is concerned that the applicant's revised <br />proposal does not take account of the values of the adjoining owners and residents. Although <br />the owners and residents are given a Hobson's choice-either have the applicant plant <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 13 <br />