Applicant's Final Written Argument <br />Lombard Apartments <br />July 23, 2018 <br />Page 9of12 <br />In its 2018 memo, the City Attorney argues that the commands of the ORS 197.303- <br />.307 must make way for Goal 15 and ORS 390.314. One such justification for this argument <br />is that Goal 15 and ORS 390.314 "speak to a specific concern - preservation of the Willamette <br />River Greenway, while ORS 197.307(4) appears to speak to all lands and all housing in the <br />state." This is simply not true. One can and should easily make the opposite argument - that <br />ORS 197.307(4) is narrow and has a specific, particular intent. ORS 174.020(2) applies in this <br />case to favor ORS 197.307(4) because it is related only to housing development. The <br />protections of Goal 15 and the Eugene Code Willamette Greenway permits still apply to non- <br />residential development. Furthermore, Senate Bill 1051 (2017) is a later-enacted statute. ORS <br />174.010 requires seemingly inconsistent statutes to be reconciled to give effect to both, if <br />possible. It is certainly possible to give effect to Goal 15/ORS 390.314 and ORS 197.307(4) <br />by striking the non-clear and objective provisions found in EC 9.8815(1)-(7) in this particular <br />Needed Housing development application, but still imposing such requirements on future <br />development of non-residential development or residential development that utilizes the <br />"General" provisions of the Eugene Code (that implement ORS 197.307(6)). <br />Next, the City Attorney argues that since the legislature requires cities to comply with <br />the state-wide planning goals, that Goal 15 in mandatory. There is no question that Goal 15 <br />is applied to local governments. However, so is ORS 197.303-.307. Stating that cities are <br />required to exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities in accordance with the statewide <br />planning goals is a non sequitur. <br />The City Attorney asserts that both the statute and the Goal require subjective <br />standards for review of development proposals in the Greenway. While that may be correct <br />as far as it goes, such statement is entirely irrelevant. Such truism does not allow the City to <br />ignore the commands of ORS 197.307(4). <br />ORS 390.314 does not create standards that apply directly to anything. It is silent about <br />content. The statute mandates planning to implement state policy. Similarly, Goal 15 <br />mandates planning for the Greenway by state agencies in conjunction with local governments <br />that have the Willamette Greenway within their respective jurisdictions. Goal 15 does not <br />apply directly to this decision because the city's Greenway regulations are acknowledged <br />pursuant to ORS 197.251. Byrd v. Stringer, 295 Or 311 (1983); See Boldt V. Clackamas County, 21 <br />Or LUBA 40, 42 n 1 (1990), aff'd, 107 Or App 619 (1991). Local plans and regulations now <br />govern development applications within the Greenway. Reeves v. Yamhill County, 30 Or LUBA <br />135, 137 n 2 (1995). <br />The City could have protected the Greenway to a greater degree by prohibiting all <br />housing in the Greenway, but it chose not to do so. The Metro Plan policies at III-D-4 state: <br />27.2 Land use regulations and acquisition programs along river corridors <br />and ivaterways shall take into account all the concerns and needs of the <br />community, including recreation, resource, and xildlife protection; <br />enhancement of river corridor and natenvay environments; potential for <br />i! Fr:r,r 9.'.101 <br />