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

Home Browse Search

1documents. Two of those documents are the Metro Plan and the West University Refinement 2Plan. Petitioner argues under its fifth assignment of error that Ordinance 20418 is 3inconsistent with certain Metro Plan and West University Refinement Plan policies. 4 In addressing the Metro Plan and its refinement plans, the city’s findings explain: 5“The code amendments include minor changes to the Land Use Code that 6address issues raised by the community that are primarily related to residential 7development and lot configuration standards, without raising significant 8policy issues. Given the minor nature of these amendments, there are no 9relevant Metro Plan policies affected by this action. Furthermore, the 10amendments do not address any adopted refinement plans. Therefore, no 11refinement plan is affected by this action.” Record 31. 12Before turning to petitioner’s specific challenge, we note that while local law may 13require findings for legislative land use decisions, and by statute some land use decisions 14must be supported by findings without regard to whether they are quasi-judicial or 15legislative, there is no specific, generally applicable legal requirement that cities must adopt 16findings to support legislative land use decisions. Witham Parts and Equipment Co. v. 17ODOT, 42 Or LUBA 435, 451, aff’d 185 Or App 408, 61 P3d 281 (2002); 18Redland/Viola/Fischer's Mill CPO v. Clackamas County, 27 Or LUBA 560, 563-64 (1994); 19Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 22 Or LUBA 307, 313-14 (1991). Nevertheless, even 20without a generally applicable legal requirement that legislative land use decisions must in 21all cases be supported by findings, for LUBA and the appellate courts to perform their review 22function, “there must be enough in the way of findings or accessible material in the record of 23the legislative act to show that applicable criteria were applied and that required 24considerations were indeed considered.” Citizens Against Irresponsible Growth v. Metro, 25179 Or App 12, 16 n 6, 38 P3d 956 (2002). With that understanding of our standard of 26review in this matter, we turn to petitioner’s arguments. A. West University Refinement Plan Policy 3 27 28 West University Refinement Plan Policy 3 requires, among other things, that the city 29“review parking requirements for residential development with the purpose of reducing the Page 19