Toler v. City of Cave Junction, 53 Or Li~BA 158,11 X2006},"Decision <br />at 6. <br />"Limiting certain C-2 uses from rotating on the subject property would be <br />a collateral attack on past legislative decisions taken by the City Council <br />in amending the C-2 use list and fending that such changes were in <br />conformity with the IVletro Fran. " Decision at 7. <br />The Hearings ~fficiaZ cites a LUBA decision that doesn't apply to the <br />current case. The issue in Toler, was that Cave ~unctian caning <br />ordinance ~CJZO} 17,08.537 defines "medical facility" to allow <br />"assisted residential facilities," and LUBA ruled that: <br />"any inconsistency between the code de f inition o f "medical facilities "and <br />the purpose or text of the FG-LI zone cannot be challenged in this <br />decision. For good or ill, 'medical facilities' are allowed in the FG-Ll zone, _ <br />and those facilities may include 'assisted residential facilities'." Toler v. <br />City of Cave ~unetian, 53 ~r LUBA 158, lbl ~2006~ at 4, <br />what LUBA ruled against was an argument that a zoning ordinance <br />was inherently Flawed, when such an argument could, and should, <br />have been raised at the time the ordinance was adopted. <br />In the current case, we raise arguments that do not attack the C-2 Zone, <br />but rather address how the WNP policies require a condition when the <br />C-~ Zone is applied to a specific parcel covered by two applicable <br />refinement plan policies, LUBA found such arguments are not <br />prescribed: <br />IVo authority that we are aware of renders quasi judicial land use <br />decisions immune from review under applicable statutes simply because . <br />those decisions apply local regulations ar standards that were adopted in . <br />an earlier, unappealed decision, VIT1-tile Ioca1 land use decisions rendered <br />pursuant to acknowledged comprehensive plans and regulations are not <br />reviewable for compliance with statewide planning goals and rules, that <br />principle does not a ppl y to arguments that land use decisions applyin <br />g acknowledged regulations may be inconsistent with applicable state <br />statutes. Forster v. ~'dlk County, 115 0r App 475, 478, S39 ~'2d 241 <br />X1992}, Young vs. Croak County, LUBA X007-250 at 14. <br />Even if the current case were to represent an argument against the C-2 <br />bane as a whole, LUBA has found that such an argument can be raised <br />when the zone is applied: <br />"Further, adoption a f new zones and associated zoning regulations can, as . <br />in the present case, be of fected in two separate ordinances, one that adopts <br />the new zone but does not apply it to any~property, and a second that <br />Appeal Statement Z 11-3 ~ 11 August 1b, 2011 <br />PC Agenda -Page 20 <br />