I delay." ORS 197.307(4). The city responds that the challenged decision does <br />2 not amend the EC in any way and therefore, petitioner's challenges to <br />3 provisions of the EC are not subject to review in an appeal of the adoption of <br />4 the BLZ. We agree. Shamrock Homes, LLC v. City of Springfield, 68 Or LUBA <br />5 1, 14 (2013) (petitioner may not challenge unamended site design review <br />6 standards in an appeal of the city's adoption of a refinement plan and <br />7 associated code provisions that neither amend or apply the challenged site <br />8 design review standards); NWDA v. City of Portland, 47 Or LUBA 533, 544-45 <br />9 (2004) (it is not within LUBA's scope of review to address whether existing <br />10 code design review standards comply with the ORS 197.307(3)(b)(1997) <br />11 requirement for "clear and objective" approval standards, in the context of a <br />12 post-acknowledgment plan amendment that rezones property to allow uses that <br />13 will be subject to approval under the existing design review standards, where <br />14 the challenged decision does not amend the design review standards or attempt <br />15 to bring any part of the city's code into compliance with ORS <br />16 197.307(3)(b)(1997)); Volny, 37 Or LUBA at 514 (a decision amending an <br />17 acknowledged comprehensive plan housing inventory without amending <br />18 existing approval standards that are applied to needed housing is not required <br />19 to demonstrate that those existing approval standards are "clear and objective," <br />20 as required by ORS 197.307(6)). <br />21 The second assignment of error and the fourth assignment of error are <br />22 denied. <br />Page 15 <br />