Appeal Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Additionally, it is worth noting that the City of Eugene adopted its Goal 5 inventory through Ordinance No. 20351, which became effective on January 1, 2006. The ordinance included a list of historic landmarks in Eugene, making them Goal 5 resources within the City. Because the Chase Ensemble was not included on the list of resources adopted as part of the City’s Goal 5 inventory it is subject to OAR 660-023-0200(8) which, as discussed above, requires a local government to hold a public hearing and make a decision based on eight factors (in addition to the local code requirements and approval criteria for demolition). ORS 197.772 ORS 197.772 is referenced by Baker in relation to a recent Oregon Supreme Court ruling. It is assumed that Baker is referencing a case related to the Carman House, a locally designated historic resource, located in Lake Oswego, Oregon. The issue at play in that case was related to an owner’s request to de- list their property (that is, to remove the property from the from a local historic resource list). In this case, the request before the Board is to demolish a historic building that is included as part of an ensemble on the National Register, not to de-list the Chase Gardens Historic Ensemble. ORS 197.772 is specifically related to the ability of a property owner to refuse to have their property listed (or to subsequently have it de-listed) as a historic resource by a local government. If the historic demolition is approved in this case, the decision will not affect the National Register listing of the Chase Gardens Historic Ensemble. Furthermore, potential future implications of demolition of the Chase House related to the integrity of the ensemble and the ensemble’s National Register listing are not part of the factors or local code approval criteria that can be considered by the Board in its decision to approve or deny the proposed demolition. Section 106 Baker asserts that Cornerstone and Heritage Consulting Group did not comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In response to this claim, the applicant stated in their testimony received on March 24, 2022 that federal funding is not being used for their project, making Section 106 inapplicable. Comments from Kunowski received March 31, 2022 also take issue with whether the applicant has complied with Section 106. Kunowski argues that while the applicant has asserted that Low-Income Housing Tax Credits are not subject to a Section 106 review, there are two ways this is not the case. First, Kunowski references the 2016 Oregon Housing and Community Services Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Compliance manual, concluding that as the Internal Revenue Service issues these tax credits, the applicant is subject to Section 106. Second, Kunowski points out that public housing authorities are subject to Section 106 requirements. In the applicant’s rebuttal they state that they have checked with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and confirmed that Section 106 does not apply to LIHCT. They also note that Section 106 does not have any bearing over the decision of the Board and is a separate item, which they would fully comply with if it became applicable. OAR 358.653 Testimony from Baker and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) both reference OAR 358.653. The testimony from SHPO references OAR 358.653 in Attachment A