I West Creek's real disagreement with the city is that measuring slope based on 5-foot <br />2 contour intervals precludes development of a "portion of the development site" under EC <br />3 9.8325(5). West Creels would prefer the city rely upon different evidence using a different <br />4 contour interval, if that would result in approval of its preferred 75-lot PUD. But that <br />5 disagreement does not convert an otherwise clear and objective standard into a standard that <br />6 offends ORS 197.307(4). <br />7 3. ORS 227.173(1) <br />8 ORS 227.173(1) provides: <br />9 "Approval or denial of a discretionary permit application shall be based on <br />10 standards and criteria, which shall be set forth in the development ordinance <br />11 and which shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary permit application <br />12 to the development ordinance and to the comprehensive plan for the area in <br />13 which the development would occur and to the development ordinance and <br />14 comprehensive plan for the city as a whole." <br />15 ORS 227.173(1) requires approval standards that are "clear enough for an applicant to <br />16 know what [it] must show during the application process." Lee v. City of Portland, 57 Or <br />17 App 798, 802, 646 P2d 662 (1982). As we understand West Creek's challenge under ORS <br />18 227.173, it boils down to an argument that ORS 227.173(1) prohibits the city from applying <br />19 EC 9.8325(5) because the standard does not specify how to determine 20 percent slope, and <br />20 thus the standard is not clear enough to allow an applicant to determine what must be <br />21 demonstrated in the application. According to West Creek, directions from planning staff on <br />22 the application form to measure slope using a 5-foot contour interval are not sufficient to <br />23 avoid the lack of clarity and subjectivity contained in EC 9.8325(5). West Creek argues that <br />24 the necessary clarity and objectivity must exist in the city's acknowledged code provisions. <br />25 In our discussion above rejecting West Creek's argument that ORS 197.307(4) <br />26 prohibits the city from applying EC 9.8325(5) to its application, we concluded that the 20 <br />27 percent slope standard in EC 9.8325(5) is clear and objective on its face. We reiterate that <br />28 conclusion here and conclude that EC 9.8325(5) is similarly "clear enough for an applicant to <br />Page 9 <br />