Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 21, 2024 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />As the applicant has explained throughout, this project is designed to buildout single-unit <br />dwellings – dwellings like those of the opponents to house people like the opponents. But, as <br />opponents point out, Middle Housing law now applies, and the project could have externalities of <br />a full Middle Housing buildout. Although opponents have not articulated facilities issues in any <br />detail, it would be prudent for the Hearing Official to find that project as conditioned could <br />support full Middle Housing buildout. See Husk v. City of Bend, __ Or LUBA __ (LUBA No. <br />2022-052, Oct 21, 2022)(Middle Housing needs to be considered determining compliance with <br />standards stated in the code for facilities impacts.) <br /> <br />The applicant has made the case that this development can support Middle Housing buildout. <br />The applicant’s first open record submittal at page 8 discusses compliance with utility standards, <br />including water and sanitary. The applicant’s second open record submittal includes the <br />applicant’s final and best thoughts on how to size up for storm water infrastructure if more <br />impervious surface is added with Middle Housing. The solution is to deal with the increment of <br />stormwater detention that will be needed with storage on individual lots. That requirement is <br />documented in the last recommended condition of approval. <br /> <br />EC 9.8325(8); 901’ development prohibition: <br /> <br />This application does not propose development on Lot 39; however, it states an entitlement to <br />develop in the future with residential use and Middle Housing. How does the standard in EC <br />9.8325(8) impinge on that asserted right and statement of future development plans? <br /> <br />• Does the standard leave open the possibility of a future development proposal, as the <br />applicant as the applicant assumes and as the Public Works Staff assumes (in its July 31 <br />comments that a road through Lot 39 might be possible in the future)? <br /> <br />• Does the standard require a finding that any future development on Lot 39 is prohibited, <br />even with a new development proposal, as the Planning Staff suggests with its proposed <br />conditioning? <br /> <br />• If the latter is the case, does the Middle Housing law operate directly to preserve Middle <br />Housing right and prohibit the City from enforcing a flat out future development <br />prohibition? <br /> <br />• Or is the standard just too ambiguous to enforce at all under ORS 197.307(4)? <br /> <br />We refer the Hearing Official to discussion point 1 in our August 14 second open record letter. <br />That provides a full PGE interpretation of the Middle Housing Statute. It explains that the text, <br />context and legislative history of the Middle Housing Statute prohibits the City from using its <br />/PD overlay standards to impinge on Middle Housing rights. The R-1 base zoning allows single <br />family detached dwellings outright on this land. Under the statute, the City could use its Goal 5 <br />standards to limit Middle Housing rights, but the 901’+ prohibition is not an acknowledged Goal