.are sufficiently specific to limit County officials’discretion. Reply at 2-3. Plaintiffs respond that these guidelines ■ create “no limitation on what the commission may consider .... ” Cpp’n at 9. ' Plaintiffs further argue that the standards under Section 17.54.130 are “indistinguishable” from those held to confer unfettered discretion. Id. at 10; see also Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d at 819. The Court finds that standárds in Section 17.54.130(A)-(D) lie somewhere in between those that other courts. have deemed permissible and impermissible on the basis of discretion conferred, .On the one hand, Section 17.54.130’s standards contain many of the same general terms that the Ninth Circuit. held in Moreno Valley granted too much, discretion. Compare Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d at 818-19 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added) with Zoning Ordinance §
holding the district attorney is vested with the sole discretion as to what crimes will be charged and that discretion will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion recognizing the importance of public welfare and conservation of water in administering its public waters holding that ordinance conferred unbridled discretion where issuance of permit was subject to broad findings that proposed use will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses holding that the burden of overcoming a zoning ordinances presumption of validity is satisfied when it is shown that the ordinance does not bear a substantial relation to the public health safety morals or general welfare holding that zoning regulations which tend to preserve the residential or historical character of a neighborhood andto enhance the aesthetic appeal of a community are considered valid exercises of the public power as relating to the general welfare of the community