Fred Wilson <br />July 16, 2018 <br />Page 4 <br />makes the most sense in light of the mandatory subjective requirements of ORS 390.314 and Goal <br />15. ORS 390.314(2)(a) requires that intensification and changes of use in the Greenway be limited <br />to the greatest possible degree <br />so that “such uses remain, ,compatible with the preservation of the <br />natural, scenic, historical and recreational qualities” of lands within the Greenway. In addition, <br />the best possible <br />Goal 15 requires that the City’s implementation provisions “insure that <br />the <br />appearance, landscaping and public access are provided” within the Greenway, insure that to “ <br />greatest possible degreethe <br />” any “intensification, change of use or development will provide <br />maximum possible <br /> landscaped area, open space or vegetation between the activity and the river,” <br />the greatest possible degree <br />and insure that that to “” “\[n\]ecessary public access will be provided <br />to and along the river by appropriate legal means.” SeeOAR 660-015-0005; Goal 15, Paragraph <br />F(3). It is not possible to draft clear and objective approval criteria that also require an applicant <br />to comply with phrases like “the best possible,” “the greatest possible degree,” and “the maximum <br />possible,” as required by Goal 15. The City cannot comply with the requirements of ORS 390.314 <br />and Goal 15 and also be limited to the application of clear and objective standards for proposed <br />housing developments within the Greenway. <br /> In this situation, ORS 390.314 and Goal 15 must take precedence over ORS 197.307. ORS <br />174.020(2) provides that when a general statutory provision and a particular statutory provision <br />are inconsistent, the particular intent controls. Goal 15 and ORS 390.314 speak to a specific <br />concern – preservation of the Willamette River Greenway, while ORS 197.307(4) appears to apply <br />to all lands and all housing in the state. Within the Greenway, as the more particular statutory <br />provision, the requirements of ORS 390.314 (and by extension Goal 15) must take precedence <br />over the requirement for clear and objective standards for housing. <br /> By statute, the legislature has specifically authorized the adoption of the statewide planning <br />goals and has required cities to comply with them. The legislature recognized that the “promotion <br />of coordinated statewide land conservation and development requires the creation of a statewide <br />planning agency to prescribe planning goals and objectives to be applied by…cities… throughout <br />the state.” ORS 197.005(4). The legislature considers compliance with the statewide planning <br />goals, including Goal 15, to be mandatory. See ORS 197.015(8) (“’Goals’ means the mandatory <br />statewide planning standards adopted by the \[Land Conservation and Development Commission\] <br />pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196 and 197.”). Cities are required by statute to exercise their <br />planning and zoning responsibilities in accordance with the goals. ORS 197.175(1). The <br />must <br />legislature has been very clear that the City’s comprehensive plan and land use regulations <br />comply with the goals. ORS 197.250. <br />planning commission, nor the hearings official have the legal authority to choose to ignore or <br />override land use approval criteria adopted by the City Council. <br />{00285705;2 } <br /> <br />