If the "spirit" of the law is to reduce drive-alone trips, LUBA makes no attempt to evaluate by the intent or spirit of the law, and instead finds that any fig leaf for compliance will do in order to protect autoist interests.
The matter that has seemed most interesting here is the question, "what does it mean to 'implement' something?"
LUBA finds that the need to implement things other than highway expansion first "is not as absolute as petitioners argue." They also find that as long as the benchmarks or standards are vague enough, there is nothing to challenge.
|On "implement" and Policy 1G|
|Adopted benchmarks - Comprehensive Plan|
I don't know how much of a nefarious motive to ascribe to the City in that battle, but the basis of LUBA's decision, and apparent inability to find more strongly for petitioners, is in no small way the direct fruit of the City's obstinacy. The City adopted standards so low and weak that there would never be a way to find that they City had failed to meet them. Independent of and prior to the SRC process, the City planted the seeds for this over a decade ago.
|The City could embrace these standards more passionately|
Right now we have way too much fudge factor, greenwash, and fig leaf.
Back to the LUBA decision, it is interesting that even as they admitted the City's process was "a very compressed period of time," no adopted procedure required the City to give more time.
|On the time-line|
|On traffic modeling|