Summary of Appellants' Argument <br />On pages 2 and 3 of the appeal statement, Appellants argue that the Hearings Official erred in <br />his interpretation of applicable Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and Oregon Statewide Planning <br />Goal provisions. First, the Appellants argue that the newly amended version of ORS 197.307(4) <br />does not include the reference to "buildable land" because, according to the Appellants, such <br />reference would be redundant "because all residentially designated land is buildable land." <br />[emphasis in original]. Appellants believe the reference to buildable land is important because <br />the original ORS definition included an exception for those lands within the Willamette <br />Greenway. Secondly, the Appellants state that Statewide Planning Goal 15, through the <br />Willamette Greenway Permit, should control because it only applies to development in the <br />greenway while ORS 197.307 applies to all lands and housing in the state. <br />Planning Commission's Determination <br />The Planning Commission disagrees with the conclusion of the Hearings Official concerning the <br />applicability of Willamette Greenway Permit approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds <br />that Willamette Greenway Permit approval criteria located in the Eugene Code (EC 9.8815) can <br />and should be applied to the subject application. ORS 390.314 and Goal 15 require the City to <br />adopt and apply specific subjective regulations within the Greenway (including regulations to <br />ensure the "best possible appearance, landscaping and public access" and requiring findings <br />that "to the greatest possible degree ...the intensification, change of use or development will <br />provide the maximum possible landscaped area, open space or vegetation between the activity <br />and the river."). The City has complied with these state laws regulating the Greenway by <br />adopting and applying EC 9.8815. <br />Separately, ORS 197.307(4) requires that the City offer all housing applicants the option to <br />proceed under clear and objective approval standards. The competing requirements of ORS <br />390.314 and Goal 15 on one hand, and ORS 197.307(4) on the other, have created a legal <br />conundrum for cities with land located within the Greenway. <br />The Planning Commission finds that for housing developments within the Greenway, ORS <br />390.314 and Goal 15 must take precedence over ORS 197.307. ORS 174.020(2) provides that <br />when a general statutory provision and a particular statutory provision are inconsistent, the <br />particular intent controls. Goal 15 and ORS 390.314 speak to a specific concern - preservation <br />of the Willamette River Greenway, while ORS 197.307(4) appears to apply to all lands and all <br />housing in the state. The Planning Commission finds that within the Greenway, as the more <br />particular statutory provision, the requirements of ORS 390.314 (and by extension Goal 15) <br />must take precedence over the requirement for clear and objective standards for housing. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official erred with respect to this appeal issue. Therefore, the Planning Commission <br />modifies the Hearing Official's decision and finds that the criteria in EC 9.8815 are applicable to <br />this application. <br />Appeal Issue ##2: The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based <br />on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.8815(1). <br />Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 4 <br />