I thirds of the tower without requiring screening of the top one-third of the tower means that <br />2 the proposal provides "adequate screening." According to petitioner, "adequate screening" <br />3 means that all sections of the tower will be screened from view. <br />4 The hearings officer considered the definition of "screening" found at EC 9.0500 and <br />5 the dictionary definitions of "shield" and "obsure" and concluded that the definition of <br />6 "screening" is somewhat ambiguous given that the definitions of "shield" and "obscure" are <br />7 not synonymous. He also noted that telecommunications towers are a use that is allowed <br />8 conditionally in the R-1 zone and that they are allowed to a maximum height of 75 feet. <br />9 Given the inherently subjective nature of a criterion that requires "adequate screening," we <br />10 cannot say that the city's interpretation of EC 9.8320(3) as requiring screening of the tower <br />11 to a reasonable extent is incorrect. Gage, 133 Or App at 349-50. <br />12 B. EC 9.8320(13) <br />13 The hearings officer incorporated the findings and conclusions described above that <br />14 the proposal satisfies EC 9.8320(3) in concluding that the proposal also satisfies EC <br />15 9.8320(13). The hearings officer found: <br />16 "Compatibility is a subjective standard. What one person believes is <br />17 compatible another person might believe is very incompatible. * * * <br />18 "The City Council has already determined that telecommunications towers are <br />19 permissible in the R-1 zone and there is no restriction in other zones against <br />20 locating a cell tower any distance from the R-1 zone or any other residential <br />21 uses. The telecommunications standards in EC 9.5750 have standards for <br />22 height, setbacks, color, lighting, and use of the tower for display of signs. <br />23 These telecommunications standards were established to provide clear criteria <br />24 for providers to meet, but also provide a discretionary process to provide for <br />25 public input on a case-by-case basis. The proposed tower complies with the <br />26 height, setbacks, color and lighting * * * standards. <br />27 "Basically what is left for the hearing official to consider is visual impact of <br />28 this tower at this location - not towers in general, because as explained in the <br />29 above paragraph, the City Council has already concluded that towers may be <br />30 located in close proximity to residences. The findings and conclusions in <br />31 response to EC 9.8320(3) are incorporated here." Record 254-55. <br />Page 9 <br />