Page - 4 <br />and pre-existing statutes. 1000 Friends v. LCDC, 292 Or 735, 642 P2d 1158 1 <br />(1982); 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC , 244 Or.App. 239, 259 P.3d 1021 2 <br />(2011)(McMinnville ); Land Watch of Lane Cnty. v. Lane Cnty., 283 Or.App. 3 <br />217, 388 P.3d 434 (2016); Commercial Real Estate Economic Coalition v. 4 <br />Metro, 37 Or. LUBA 171 (1999). The context of a statute includes the entire 5 <br />enactment of which it was a part as well as related statutes on the same subject . 6 <br />State v. Ortiz, 202 Or.App. 695, 699–700, 124 P.3d 611 (2005), State v. Carr, 7 <br />319 Or. 408, 411–12, 877 P.2d 1192 (1994). In construing land use statutes, 8 <br />LCDC’s goals and rules are also relevant context. A copy of Goal 10 is 9 <br />attached as the most “relevant” contextual statewide land u se goal in 10 <br />construing the 2019 Middle Housing statute. Exhibit C. See 1000 Friends of 11 <br />Or. v. Jackson Cnty., 292 Or App 173, 423 P.3d 793, 801 (2018).1 12 <br /> Copies of 2019 Or Laws ch. 639 (HB 2001) and ORS 197.768 are 13 <br />attached as Exhibits A and B. The legislative history of the Middle Housing 14 <br />statute, including text, analysis, amendments, testimony, committee hearings 15 <br />and work sessions, etc., can be found online on the Oregon Legislative 16 <br />Information System (OLIS) at 17 <br />https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB2001 . 18 <br /> <br />1 For in-depth background on Goal 10, see Diller & Sullivan, The Challenge of <br />Housing Affordability in Oregon,” 27 Journal of Affordable Housing 183, 206- <br />216 (2018). <br />