Appeal Materials 2024-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2024 Page 10 overlay zone at EC 9.8325(8)(a) to negate Middle Housing rights on the 2+ acres of this 15-acre site that are above the 901-foot elevation?” The Commission relies on the City Attorney for legal advice. The Commission should ask the City Attorney to answer the question above using the required methodology for construing the statute. The Middle Housing Statute is the Big Sister of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Statute that immediately preceded it. As explained in our Second Open Record Letter, Eugene was taken to LUBA four times and the Court of Appeals once before it brought its decision making into compliance with the state ADU law. That kind of track record gives the City a reputation for being hostile to housing. The City should do a better job with Middle Housing implementation than it did with ADUs. The city’s Middle Housing code has already been remanded by LUBA twice – once at the direction of the Court of Appeals. No other city has that poor a track record. That is not an auspicious start. If the City is right about its position on this issue, then it will be supported by a rigorous application of the rules for construing statutes stated in PGE/Gaines. If it is wrong about its position on this issue, then that also will be made apparent by applying the PGE/Gaines interpretive framework. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION DECISION (10) The HO punted on doing a separate review of the subdivision proposal, relying instead on her analysis of the PUD. The applicant incorporates the arguments above. The tentative subdivision application should be approved. Sincerely, Bill Kloos Bill Kloos Enclosures: Site Plan excerpted from Staff Report to HO Applicant’s Second Open Record Letter (August 14, 2024)