Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit <br />what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such <br />construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.? <br /> <br />It is also consistent with the rule for reading remedial statutes. A remedial statute should be <br />liberally construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was enacted. Sunshine Dairy v. <br />Peterson et al., 183 Or 305, 193 P2d 543 (1948); Puget Sound B. & D. Co. v. S.U.C.C., 168 Or <br />614, 126 P2d 37 (1942). The withered reading currently on offer is the opposite. It is narrow in <br />concept, patchy in application, and indeterminate in scope. It makes a tattered rag of what was <br />woven as a protective garment. As a template for evasion of the statute’s remedial purpose, it is <br />potentially crippling in scope. <br /> <br />It is also consistent with dictionary definitions of ordinary meaning. The relevant dictionary <br />definition of “area” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, (1961, 1993) <br />is “a section, district, or zone of a town or city.” Similarly: The New Oxford American <br />Dictionary (2001) defines “area” to mean “a region or part of a town, a country, or the world.” <br /> <br />The applicant hopes that the Hearing Official will be guided by the reasoning of the Court of <br />Appeals in affirming LUBA’s decision in Kamps-Hughes III. LUBA correctly held that the <br />larger statutory context required it to read the ADU statute as creating a one-to-one entitlement <br />to an ADU for each lot with an existing single family detached dwelling. The statute, said <br />LUBA, did not allow the City to use its authority to regulate “siting” to determine where in the <br />City ADUs should be allowed. The Court of Appeals agreed, in language that fits well with the <br />analysis presented here and would fit equally well in the hearings official’s decision in this case: <br /> <br />“Finally, LUBA’s construction is the most consistent with the legislature’s <br />purpose to increase the availability of affordable housing. ORS 197.295 to <br />197.314 are sometimes referred to as Oregon’s “needed housing statutes.” Warren <br />v. Washington County, 296 Or. App. 595, 597, 439 P.3d 581, rev. den., 365 Or. <br />502, 451 P.3d 988 (2019). In 2017, the legislature amended a number of those <br />statutes, including adding ORS 197.312(5). The addition of ORS 197.312(5), as <br />well as other aspects of that legislation, “reflect an intention to promote certain <br />housing development”: <br /> <br />“For example, the legislation includes provisions that, under specified <br />circumstances, impose relatively short timelines for processing <br />applications for development of affordable multifamily housing, prohibit <br />counties from reducing the density associated with certain proposed <br />housing developments, redefine ‘needed housing’ to expressly address <br />‘affordab[ility] to households within the county with a variety of <br />incomes,’ require certain municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units, <br />and permit places of worship to use their real property to provide <br />affordable housing. Or. Laws 2017, ch. 745, §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. Each of <br />those provisions may be viewed as promoting housing development * * <br />*.”