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

Home Browse Search

1needs; (2) degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such 16 2resources.” 3The amicus brief submitted in support of this assignment of error contends that Ordinance 420418 will contribute to global warming and violates Goal 6. 5Petitioner’s and amici’s thesis is relatively simple. The new lower maximum 6building heights in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the 16-block area will prevent development at 7the maximum densities allowed in the R-3 and R-4 zones in the 16-block area next to the 8university and thereby reduce the capacity of that area to provide housing. According to 9petitioner, this means “some portion of the student population will have to live further away 10from the university,” and petitioner speculates that these displaced students will drive to 11school, rather than walk or ride their bikes, and thus add to air pollution and global warming. 12Petition for Review 25. With regard to the increased off-street parking required by 13Ordinance 20418, petitioner contends that the additional off-street parking spaces will 14displace bedrooms and increase auto commuting with resulting air quality and global 15warming impacts. According to petitioner, “[w]ithin the development envelope on any site, 16there is a simple trade-off between bedrooms for students and bedrooms for cars.” Id. at 26. 17Finally, petitioner argues that with more off-street parking spaces more students who do not 18have cars now, because they are discouraged by the lack of off-street parking, will be 19encouraged to get cars and drive them. 20If petitioner’s and amici’s thesis had support in the evidentiary record, we would 21likely require the city to better explain why it believes the changes adopted by Ordinance 2220418 are small and will not have air quality impacts that could reasonably be expected to 23implicate Goal 6. But petitioner’s and amici’s thesis has little or no support in the 24evidentiary record. As we have already explained, the reduced three step-ups in maximum 16 Petitioner also cites three Metro Plan Policies that petitioner contends were adopted to implement Goal 6, but petitioner does not argue that those policies impose requirements that are not imposed by Goal 6. Page 32