I DDP, which the planning commission apparently understood to prohibit any <br />2 building in the 135-foot area between The Regent building and Tract B's <br />3 southern property line, (2) inconsistency with planned development standards <br />4 at Corvallis Land Development Code (LDC) 2.5.40.04 that require that <br />5 proposed development be compatible with surrounding development, under a <br />6 number of different factors, and (3) inconsistency with cul-de-sac standards <br />7 adopted after 2006 that the planning commission understood to prohibit NW <br />8 Mirador Place from providing access to more than 18 dwelling units. <br />9 Petitioner appealed the planning commission decision to the city council, <br />10 which conducted a de novo hearing. On April 6, 2015, the city council issued <br />11 its decision denying the application. This appeal followed. <br />12 FIRST AND SECOND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />13 Under these assignments of error, petitioner argues that the city erred in <br />14 denying the proposed multi-family development based on standards and <br />15 conditions that are not clear and objective, contrary to ORS 197.307(4). For <br />16 the following reasons, we generally agree with petitioner. <br />17 ORS 197.307(4) provides that, with one exception, "a local government <br />18 may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and <br />19 procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable <br />20 land[.]"' The sole exception is where a local government adopts an alternative <br />' ORS 197.307 provides, in relevant part: <br />"(3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban <br />growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, <br />needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning <br />districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans <br />Page 5 <br />