9 <br />seemingly inconsistent statutes to be reconciled to give effect to both, if possible. It is possible to <br />give effect to all provisions by not applying the non-clear and objective standards of EC 9.8815 to <br />needed housing developments but still imposing such requirements on future non-residential <br />development. <br /> In conclusion, the needed housing statutes provide that only clear and objective standards <br />may be applied to needed housing applications such as the present case (and now all housing <br />applications). The Willamette Greenway approval criteria of EC 9.8115 are not clear and objective. <br />Absent some argument that the needed housing statutes do not apply to housing in the Willamette <br />Greenway, the approval criteria of EC 9.8815 cannot be applied. While there may be a winning <br />argument as to why the Willamette Greenway approval criteria trump the needed housing statutes, <br />I do not see that that argument has been made in this case. As this case will likely end up before <br />the Planning Commission, perhaps the legal arguments may be more fully developed. Given the <br />legal arguments before me, I agree with the applicant that the approval criteria of EC 9.8815 cannot <br />be applied to the application because they are not clear and objective. <br />C.Site Review <br />As discussed earlier, the applicant is proceeding under the clear and objective Needed Housing <br />Track site review approval criteria of EC 9.8445. The applicant is also seeking adjustments to a <br />number of the site review approval criteria. The staff report explains how the site review approval <br />criteria are satisfied. There are numerous approval criteria, and opponents do not challenge most <br />of the findings in the staff report. Therefore, I adopt and incorporate the findings in the staff report <br />10 <br />in this decision, except as discussed further. <br />EC 9.8445(4)(a) requires that the proposal comply with the EC 9.2000 through 9.3980 lot <br />dimension and density requirements. The staff report explains the density calculations: <br />“The minimum density for the subject site is 15 units per acre as established by <br />the /ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone at EC 9.4290 * * *. The R-2 base <br />zone of the subject site provides that a maximum density of 28 units per acre is <br />allowed * * *. <br />9 <br />ORS 174.010 provides: “In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare <br />what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been <br />inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will <br />give effect to all.” <br />10 <br />This includes the clarifications to the staff report as explained in staff’s July 9, 2018 Memorandum. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 13 <br /> <br />