Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

subdivision shall be developed only with needed housing and.uses accessory to that housing. The document shall be subject to prior review and approval by the City's Planning Director during the final plat review process. The document shall stipulate that the use restriction is enforceable by the City of Eugene and that any amendment to, or removal of, the established use restriction is subject to prior review and approval by the City's Planning Director. Based on these findings and the condition of approval noted above, this criterion is met. Hearings Official Findings: Mr. Williamson both at the November 4, 2015 hearing, and in more detail in his November 10, 2015 submission makes two related arguments: 1) that the staff decision does not directly comply with the definition of "needed housing" in ORS 197.303 and that term's use in ORS 197.307, and 2) to the extent that the city has accounted for needed housing in its BLI, it cannot sidestep the state statutes because ORS 197.304 requires that needed housing be satisfied within the City of Eugene alone and therefore, the joint Springfield/Eugene BLI cannot be relied upon to account for needed housing. The November 12, 2015 staff memo and accompanying city attorney memo argue that ORS 197.303- 307 are satisfied through the work that the city has already done, and has been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Department of Land Conservation and Development, with regard to housing in compliance with Goal 10. The city attorney argues that the BLI and the city's Housing Needs Analysis ("HNA") have already taken into account information on price ranges and rent levels. The BLI and HNA process is conducted in terms of "housing types" in order to comply with state statute and Goal 10. According to the city attorney, once the number of housing types that are needed are identified, future individual review of price ranges and rental levels for a particular quasi-judicial land use application are unnecessary. The applicant's final argument of November 23, 2015 generally concurs with the city attorney's analysis. The Hearings Official agrees with the city attorney. The Court of Appeals in Montgomery v. City of Dunes City, 236 Or App 194 (2010) provides a useful history of the evolution of ORS 197.307. The city attorney and the applicant's recounting of the history of ORS 197.307 is consistent with court's understanding. Although the holding in Montgomery turns on a different subsection of ORS 197.307, the decision makes clear that accounting for needed housing is a process that occurs within the context of a jurisdiction complying with its comprehensive planning duties - and the related acknowledgement process. The court also reminds us that the rules of statutory construction allow for conclusions that can be made when the Legislature serially amends a statute. Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 336 (1994). Although ORS 197.303-307 have changed overtime, most recently in 2011, the requirement that housing need be assessed within an urban growth boundary has remained. So too have the "housing types" which must be analyzed as set forth in ORS 197.303. That the assessment of housing need is a job connected with comprehensive plan development and amendment is further supported by the requirement in ORS 197.303(3). That provision states: "[w]hen a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need." This language provides context for interpreting both ORS 197.303 and EC 9.8325(1). The reference to "zoning districts" and "zones" described in a comprehensive plan demonstrates that the Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13) 7