S .4 <br />G A R <br />V E Y <br />B A R E R <br />i <br />S <br />C H U B E R T <br />This is not a case where conditions of approval may be attached to accomplish compliance, since the <br />record contains no evidence as to what would be required to achieve consistency with cited plan <br />provisions. In particular, neither the staff nor Hearings Official explained specifically which provisions <br />of a Site Review (/SR) overlay zone would accomplish compliance and exactly how the provisions would <br />accomplish compliance, as is required before reliance on a Site Review overlay zone would be sufficient <br />to approve the requested zone change. <br />If the applicant (and the Planning Commission) cannot provide the necessary analysis, this zone change <br />request cannot be approved. If, despite the weight of evidence that the requested R-2 Medium Density <br />Residential Zone is inconsistent with the subject property's designation and supporting plan policies, the <br />Planning Commission does not deny the zone change, then the application must be remanded to the <br />Hearings Official to allow further testimony on the conditions of approval that must be imposed. <br />Determining the effect of Ordinance No. 19855 is not a "collateral attack" <br />One of the pivotal issues before the Planning Commission is what designation the City Council adopted <br />for the subject property through Ordinance No. 19855. The only fact that bears on this determination is <br />which version of the Willakenzie Land Use Diagram was adopted by City Council. <br />There can be no dispute in this matter because the official, original copy of Ordinance No. 19855, <br />including the Willakenzie Area Plan and the only extant copy of the original, full-sized (17"x22"), color <br />Willakenzie Land Use Diagram has been retrieved from the City Recorder's Office and entered into the <br />record. This diagram clearly shows the subject property designated as Low Density Residential, just the <br />same as numerous surrounding tax lots; and consistent policies in the WAP text require maintaining the <br />low-density residential character and use of the subject lot and surrounding properties in the existing <br />neighborhood. <br />Determining the true effects of Ordinance No. 19855 is not by any stretch of the imagination a "collateral <br />attack" on Ordinance No. 19855, but rather an attempt to determine what actually occurred in 1992 when <br />the ordinance was adopted. <br />The simple facts are sufficient to make it obvious there is no merit to any claim that opponent's <br />arguments represent a collateral attack on Ordinance No. 19855. LUBA has addressed this type of <br />baseless claim in a similar case, Turner v. Jackson County, 62 Or LUBA 199 (2010), where LUBA <br />characterized the issue as follows: <br />"[D] eterm ining whether [an ordinance] had the legal effect of rezoning [a lot] is neither a <br />challenge to the acknowledged status of the ordnance nor an impermissible collateral <br />attach That determination simply calls for an interpretation of [the ordinance] along <br />with other applicable[] land use laws. As we explain below, that interpretation was <br />required for the hearing officer to adopt the decision that is before us in this appeal, and <br />the issue of whether the county correctly interpreted [the ordinance] is the dispositive <br />issue." 62 Or LUBA at 201. <br />The same is true here; there is no "collateral attack" on Ordinance No. 19855. Determining the <br />designation of the subject property requires determining the effect of Ordinance No. 19855. As the <br />evidence now shows conclusively, the WLUD actually adopted by the City Council through Ordinance <br />-25- <br />