I adopt an alternative approval process for needed housing if that alternative <br />2 process allows greater density than would otherwise be allowed by applying <br />3 only clear and objective standards. The city adopted its needed housing track <br />4 into the EC many years ago. Homebuilders Assoc. v. City of Eugene, 41 Or <br />5 LUBA 370 (2002). We fail to see, and petitioner does not explain, how ORS <br />6 197.307(6) is relevant to petitioner's challenge to the city's adoption of a BLI. <br />7 Petitioner appears to have issues with the process and criteria that the city has <br />8 adopted into the EC under the discretionary track and under the needed housing <br />9 track, but an appeal of the city's adoption of a BLI is not the appropriate place <br />10 to challenge those adopted provisions. Volny v. City of Bend, 37 Or LUBA 493, <br />11 aff'd 168 Or App 516, 4 P3d 768 (2000) (petitioners may not challenge <br />12 unamended site review standards in an appeal of a decision amending the city's <br />13 comprehensive plan to adopt a new forecast of housing needs). <br />14 For the reasons set forth above, the first assignment of error is denied. <br />15 SECOND AND FOURTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />16 In its second assignment of error, petitioner argues that EC 9.8670(2) <br />17 and 9.8680(1) are not "clear and objective standards" within the meaning of <br />18 ORS 197.307(4). In its fourth assignment of error, petitioner argues that EC <br />19 9.8505 and 9.8415(6) violate the requirement in ORS 197.307(4) that the <br />20 "standards, conditions and procedures [regulating the development of needed <br />21 housing on buildable land] may not have the effect, either in themselves or <br />22 cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or <br />Page 14 <br />