tower requires a CUP. The applicant also requested that if a determination is made that no CUP <br />is required, the application fee be refunded. <br />Table EC 9.2740 lists the Telecommunications Facility use as (S), which refers to special <br />development standards starting at EC 9.5000. These standards in turn require a CUP for <br />telecommunications towers in R-1. EC 9.2740 notes that uses subject to CUP requirements <br />(listed as (C) in the table) can also be approved through PUD procedures. Code language at EC <br />9.2740 allows uses requiring a CUP (listed as (C) in the use table) be approved through PUD <br />procedures. Because the general EC 9.2740 allows a PUD to replace a CUP, but the specific <br />telecommunications provisions expressly require a CUP, there is a conflict in the code-i.e., <br />whether this application requires both PUD and CUP approval. <br />This issue requires the hearing official to interpret the Eugene Code. Statutory interpretation in <br />Oregon is governed by PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-12, 859 P2d <br />1143 (1993), and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (modifying PGE <br />method for how to consider legislative history). There is no obvious context other than the two <br />provisions that appear to conflict. <br />There is no legislative history in the record; however, the staff report stated that the intent of <br />EC 9.2740 is to eliminate the need for duplicative Type III processes. This makes sense because <br />many of the CUP requirements are similar, nearly duplicative, of the PUD requirements, but <br />does not conclusively resolve the conflict. <br />The next step is consideration of general maxims of statutory construction. State v. Gaines, 346 <br />Or at 172. LUBA periodically addresses situations where there is a true conflict. In one recent <br />case, DLCD v. Jefferson County, 55 Or LUBA 625 (2008), LUBA noted that courts may apply the <br />legislative maxim that the more specific statute prevails over the more general, and that a later <br />adopted statute prevails over the earlier statute. Here, these maxims appear to resolve the <br />question. EC 9.5750(5)(c) is within the specific special standards that EC 9.2740 refers to and is <br />more specific to the proposal than EC 9.2740, which is the general list of allowed uses and the <br />permits required for those uses. Additionally, EC 9.5750 is the later-in-time provision. EC <br />9.5750 was most recently amended in July 2010 (effective August 2010), whereas EC 9.2740 <br />was most recently amended in August 2008 (effective July, 2009). <br />The hearing official concludes that the proposed telecommunications facility in the R-1 zone <br />requires both PUD and CUP approvals.' <br />Neighborhood Applicant Meeting - An additional preliminary matter relates to the <br />neighborhood meeting requirements. The initial neighborhood/applicant meeting required by <br />EC 9.7007 was held on June 8, 2010. EC 9.7007(12) requires applications be submitted within <br />180 days of the meeting. The applicant submitted the PUD application within the 180-day <br />period after the meeting, but later submitted the concurrent CUP application more than 180 <br />1 City staff might note this issue as a clean-up item for the next code update. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 4 <br />