Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)

Home Browse Search

1 Even if the amended EC Table 9.6410 is properly viewed as an “approval standard,” 2within the meaning of ORS 197.307(6), we believe it is sufficiently “clear and objective.” 3As we explained in Rogue Valley Assoc. of Realtors v. City of Ashland, 35 Or LUBA 139, 4156-58 (1998), aff’d 158 Or App 1, 970 P2d 685 (1999), the needed housing statutes were 5derived from LCDC’s St. Helens Housing Policy. We concluded that under the St. Helens 6Housing Policy: 7“‘Needed housing’ is not to be subjected to standards, conditions or 8procedures that involve subjective, value-laden analyses that are designed to 9balance or mitigate impacts of the development on (1) the property to be 10developed or (2) the adjoining properties or community. Such standards, 11conditions or procedures are not clear and objective and could have the effect 12‘of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.’” 35 Or 13LUBA at 158. 14Basing the required number of parking spaces on the number of bedrooms seems quite unlike 15the “adverse impact” or “compatibility” standards that were prescribed as review criteria for 16needed housing under the St. Helens Housing Policy. Admittedly, at least the illusion of a 17lack of clarity can be created in even the clearest of statutory language. However, in view of 18the regulatory function that the number of bedrooms serves in EC Table 9.6410, we do not 19believe the needed housing statutes require more clarity or objectivity. At the time of 20approval, it would appear that the number of bedrooms for purposes of computing the 21required off-street parking is entirely within the control of the applicant, subject to later 22action by the city in the event that rooms that were not proposed or approved as bedrooms 23subsequently are used as such. 24The fourth assignment of error is denied. FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 25 26 The EC is a city “land use regulation,” within the meaning of ORS 197.015(11). 27Under ORS 197.835(7)(a), LUBA must reverse or remand an amendment to a land use 28regulation if the land use regulation amendment is “not in compliance with the 29comprehensive plan[.]” The City of Eugene’s comprehensive plan is made up of a number of Page 18