Eugene Hearing Official <br />March 5, 2018 <br />Page 7 <br />Similarly objectionable is a requirement that an applicant provide "adequate" drainage for the <br />proposed housing by constructing facilities "`adequate for the drainage of the area."' Home <br />Builders Association, 41 Or LUBA at 410. <br />Also objectionable is language requiring local streets be designed to discourage nonlocal traffic <br />where, in the city's discretion it was "`necessary to insure safety,"' and "`promote the welfare of <br />the general public, pedestrians, bicyclists and residents of the subject area." Home Builders <br />Association, 41 Or LUBA at 388 n 16. <br />(b) Ambiguous standards that can be interpreted to find compliance or <br />noncompliance. <br />Ambiguous standards are those that are subject to different interpretations. When an ambiguous <br />standard can be interpreted to either support or defeat a finding of compliance then the City may <br />not apply it at all. <br />A recent example from Eugene is Walter v. City of Eugene, _ Or LUBA _ (LUBA No. 2016- <br />024, June 30, 2016), aff'd without opinion 281 Or App 461, 383 P3d 1009 (2016). There the <br />ambiguous phrase in the standard was "disperse traffic." In the context of the code, that phrase <br />could be interpreted to show compliance or noncompliance. Hence, the standard could not be <br />applied at all. Because that ambiguous standard was the sole basis for denial, LUBA reversed <br />the denial, ordered the City to approve the South Hills PUD, and awarded attorneys fees. <br />Corvallis had a similar experience in Group B, LLC v. City of Corvallis, _ Or LUBA _ <br />(LUBA No. 2015-019, Aug. 25, 2015), aff d without opinion 275 Or App 577, 366 P3d 847 <br />(2015), rev den 359 Or 667 (2016). Group B involved a Planned Development standard for <br />approval, specifically a condition from an earlier PD approval, that could be interpreted to allow <br />development in a part of the site or prohibit development in that part of a site. Because the City <br />could interpret the standard to either approve or deny the use, the City was not allowed to apply <br />the standard at all. LLUBA reversed the City denial. <br />(c) Lack of a benchmark to apply a numerical standard. <br />Numerical standards are, generally, quintessential clear and objective standards. However, even <br />a numerical standard can fail to meet the statute if it is unclear how to apply the numbers. See <br />Rogue Valley, 35 Or LUBA at 154 n 20. The Home Builders case provides several examples. <br />(1) A requirement for a 100-foot buffer around rare plant or animal populations is unclear and <br />subjective based on how the "area occupied" is determined. (2) A 50-foot buffer protecting <br />"waterways" from the "top of the bank" was unclear because the code did not define those terms, <br />the terms had multiple meanings, and they could lead to divergent or discretionary conclusions <br />with different geographic consequences. (3) A requirement that all dwellings in a planned unit <br />development be within one-quarter mile of a recreation area or open space was flawed for failing <br />to state whether the distance was to be measured along streets or as the crow flies. (4) A <br />APP B - HEARING LTTR 3.5.2018 <br />