of the 75-foot tower but that the top 25 feet could not be screened. The hearings official interpreted <br />adequate screening" to mean screened "to a reasonable extent." Under that interpretation, given <br />that cell towers are conditional uses in R-1 zones and the cell tower would be screened for 50 of <br />the 75 feet, the hearings official found that the adequate screening approval criterion was met. <br />LUBA held that "given the inherently subjective nature" of the approval criterion, it could not say <br />the interpretation was incorrect. Slip op 9. Regarding the "reasonably compatible" standard, the <br />hearings official found: <br />The City Council has already determined that telecommunication towers are <br />permissible in the R-1 zone and there is no restriction in other zones against <br />locating a cell tower any distance from the R-1 zone or any other residential <br />uses. The telecommunications standards in EC 9.5750 have standards for height, <br />setbacks, color, lighting, and use of the tower for display of signs. These <br />telecommunication standards were established to provide clear criteria for <br />providers to meet, but also provide a discretionary process to provide for public <br />input on a case-by-case basis. The proposed tower complies with the height, <br />setbacks, color and lighting * * * standards. <br />Basically what is left for the hearing official to consider is visual impact of this <br />tower at this location - not towers in general, because as explained in the above <br />paragraph, the City Council has already concluded that towers may be located <br />in close proximity to residences." <br />LUBA upheld the hearings official's decision on this issue. LUBA's holding regarding the <br />reasonably compatible standard states: <br />Although the findings quoted above [quoted above here also] could be clearer, <br />we understand the hearings officer to have concluded that the proposed cell <br />tower is reasonably compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood where it <br />meets the objective standards set out in the EC for telecommunication towers, <br />and where the tower will be screened from view while still allowing the tower <br />to function as intended. We cannot say that those findings are inadequate or <br />represent an erroneous interpretation and application of EC 9.8320(13). We also <br />do not think that the evidence cited by petitioner in support of its argument that <br />the tower is not compatible with the neighborhood is so overwhelming that a <br />reasonable person could not find that the tower is compatible, particularly given <br />the inherently subjective nature of the criterion." Slip op 10 (italics and bold <br />added). <br />I understand Northgreen to hold that the "reasonably compatible" approval standard was <br />satisfied when: (1) the objective standards of EC 9.5750 were met and (2) the screening of the <br />bottom two-thirds of the tower and the trees planted on neighbors' property made what might have <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 14-4) 10 <br />255