LUBA rejected petitioners' contrary arguments, and explained: "[Petitioners] also argue the challenged decision complies with ORS 227.173(1) because the phrase `short term parking strategy' is `sufficiently definite to inform interested parties of the basis on which the application would be approved or denied.' [S]ee Oswego Properties, Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 108 Or. App. 113, 814 P.2d 539 (1991); Lee v. City of Portland, 57 Or. App. 798, 646 P.2d 662 (1982). According to [petitioners], the standard of `consistency with the City's short term parking strategy' is more definite than the `desirable to the public convenience and welfare' standard upheld in Lee, `because the former is a reference to an identifiable and existing strategy, whereas the latter is a subjective standard that can only be articulated in the context of specific proposals.

In sum, although we agree with LUBA that none of the goals may be disregarded ab initio, a balancing process that takes account of relative impacts of particular uses on particular goals and of the logical relevancy of particular goals to particular uses is a decisional necessity. See Union Oil Co. v. Board of Co. Comm. of Clack. Co., 81 Or. App. 1, 724 P.2d 341 (1986); see also Oswego Properties, Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 108 Or. App. 113, 814 P.2d 539 (1991). The way in which the factors are balanced is a question for the local government to answer initially, subject to LUBA's and our review.

Because LUBA decided the issue on the basis of ORS 197.835(9)(b), which is an independent basis for its affirmance of the city's decision, we do not comment per se on petitioner's or LUBA's understanding of the ORS 227.173(2) issue. See Oswego Properties, Inc. v. City of Lake Oswego, 108 Or. App. 113, 814 P.2d 539 (1991). Affirmed.