Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

goal would still apply to all other proposed development in the greenway. This argument does not provide a basis to trump the needed housing statutes. The ACA first argues that prior to the 2017 amendments to the needed housing statutes, the clear and objective standards requirement only applied to the development of needed housing on buildable lands. The ACA further argues that the subject property was not considered buildable lands because it is in the greenway. The 2017 amendments to the needed housing statute eliminated the restriction of the clear and objective standards to buildable lands and applied them to not only all needed housing but all housing period. According to the ACA, “\[t\]here is no indication that the legislature intended to change this \[that the application was not entitled to clear and objective standards\] when it passed * * * a revised version of ORS 197.307(4) that does not include the reference to ‘buildable land.’” ACA Memorandum 3. On the contrary, I agree with the applicant that if anything the opposite conclusion should be drawn: “It is difficult to conceive of any other intent of the legislature than to rub out the issue of whether the clear and objective standards of ORS 197.307(4) applies to land outside of the buildable lands inventory than the text of the new statute. Whatever it meant before, it is now crystal clear that ORS 197.307(4) applies to all housing – not just housing in the \[buildable lands inventory\].” Applicant’s 6 July 23, 2018 Memorandum 10-11. Next, the ACA argues ORS 309.314 and Goal 15 must take precedence over ORS 7 197.307. According to the ACA, when a general statutory provision and a particular statutory 8 provision are inconsistent, the particular intent controls. The ACA argues that Goal 15 and ORS 390.314 speak to a particular concern – preservation of the Willamette River Greenway – while ORS 197.307(4) applies to all lands and housing in the state. I agree with the applicant that the opposite argument is more persuasive – that ORS 197.307(4) has the more narrow particular intent – housing development – while Goal 15 applies to all development in the greenway. Furthermore, as the applicant explains, ORS 197.307(4) was the later enacted statute. ORS 174.010 requires 6 Although I do not see that it affects my analysis, the applicant persuasively explains that although there is a presumption that lands such as those in the greenway would not be on the buildable lands inventory that local governments could include them if they wished and that the City did include the subject property on the buildable lands inventory. 7 ORS 390.314 provides the legislative findings and policy to establish the Willamette Greenway. Goal 15 expounds on those policies, and the City implemented Goal 15 through EC 9.8815. 8 ORS 174.020(2) provides: “When a general provision and a particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent.” Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 12