“(g) Compatibility with recreational lands currently devoted to <br />metropolitan recreational needs, used for parks or open <br />space and owned and controlled by a general purpose <br />government and regulation of such lands so that their use <br />will not interfere with adjacent uses. <br />“As used in this section, the words ‘the greatest possible <br />degree’ are drawn from Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 <br />(F.3.b.) and are intended to require a balancing of factors so <br />that each of the identified Willamette Greenway criteria is <br />met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the <br />requested use. <br />“(6) When site review approval is required, the proposed development <br />will be consistent with the applicable site review criteria. <br />“(7) The proposal complies with all applicable standards explicitly <br />addressed in the application. An approved adjustment to a <br />standard pursuant to provisions beginning at EC 9.8015 of this land <br />use code constitutes compliance with the standard.” <br /> Opponents argue that the proposal does not satisfy EC 9.8815(1), which requires that “\[t\]o <br />the greatest possible degree, the * * * development will provide the maximum possible landscaped <br />area, open space, or vegetation between the activity and the river.” The proposal includes a 100- <br />foot setback from the river, although only approximately 70 feet of that is on the applicant’s <br />property. The rest of the setback is provided by City owned property that includes the river trail <br />and bike path. The open space proposed by the development is approximately 15% of the property. <br />According to opponents, only preserving 15% of the property in open space fails to satisfy EC <br />9.8815(1). The staff report found: <br />“The applicant’s response under this criterion does not provide much <br />information, but clearly the applicant chose to locate the development at least <br />100 feet from the river, and to retain that open space area along the bike path <br />and river. Staff believes the applicant’s site plan and other available information <br />showing ample distance and existing riparian vegetation between the <br />development and the river is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this <br />criterion.” Staff Report 4. <br /> Opponents argue that this does not provide the maximum possible open space to the <br />greatest degree possible. Theoretically, the applicant could not develop the property at all and have <br />the entire site be open space. If “to the greatest possible degree” meant the theoretical maximum <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 5 <br /> <br />