Public Testimony – Open Record Applicant’s Representative Testimony - July 31, 2024

Eugene Hearing Official July 31, 2024 Page 5 dwellings” is the only reading that is consistent with the policy statement in the Statute. HB 2001, sec 10(1) is direct: “It is the policy of the State of Oregon to reduce to the extent practicable administrative and permitting costs and barriers to the construction of middle housing, as defined in section 2 of this 2019 Act, while maintaining safety, public health and the general welfare with respect to construction and occupancy.” That policy statement leaves no room for the City to argue that the statute allows it to impose and implement overlay zones that whittle away at the broad MH rights created by the Statute and limited only by the exceptions stated in the Statute and Rule. Finally, the legislative history of the Statute supports all of the above. The full legislative history is at: https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB2001. It is summarized in the Intervenor-Respondent brief defending the city’s initial enactment at LUBA. Coopman v. City of Eugene, __ Or LUBA __ (No. 2022-056, Jan. 27, 2023), rem’d, 327 Or App 6 (No. A180682, July 12, 2023). That brief by al Johnson appears as Exhibit A hereto. The legislative history shows that the aggressive policy stated in the original bill was negotiated a bit in the amendment process to include specific exceptions that now appear in the Statute. The Statute must be read consistent with that aggressive policy subject only to the exceptions now stated explicitly in the State and Rule. The city’s view is that the Statute also allows the City to adopt, amend and apply overlay zones that erode Middle Housing rights for other reasons in the city’s discretion. That would be the result if the City is allowed to apply its 901’ regulation that renders all R-1 land above that elevation into open space because that regulation does not fit any stated exception. Finally, there is a safety net in the state law that operates to negate the effectiveness of the city’s proposal to use the /PD overlay zone to preserve as open space all land above 901’. One is section 13 of HB 2001, which would prohibit reflecting the 901’ prohibition in any PUD Performance Agreement.5 A Performance Agreement is the binding contract for a final PUD, and it is recorded. 5 Section 13 of HB 2001 Or Laws 2019 ch 639: “a provision in a recorded instrument affecting real property is not enforceable if: (1) The provision would allow the development of a single-family dwelling on the real property but would prohibit the development of: (a) Middle housing * * * *”