Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />makes density a key element at every stage, using the term “density” 19 times. LCDC’s <br />earliest decisions interpreting the Statewide Housing Goal, remanded local government <br />density restrictions for violation of Oregon’s statewide Housing Goal. Kneebone v. <br />Ashland, 3 LCDC 131 (1979); Seaman v. Durham, 1 LCDC 283 (1978). <br /> <br />The statute creates a right, subject to explicit, categorical exceptions the cities must apply <br />(subsection 2(4)) and also subject to an exception that cities may apply (acknowledged <br />goal protective measures). Allowing cities to also apply their overlay zones, which would <br />further limit or fully negate residential development in areas with residential base zoning, <br />would read into the statute an exception that is not there. If the legislature had intended <br />to allow cities that authority, it certainly could have added it to the list of exceptions. <br /> <br />It is clear that reading nullification-by-overlay-zone authority into the statute allows cities <br />to disallow what the legislature clearly intends the statute to allow. That is exactly what <br />the City says you must do here. It takes that position without even mentioning PGE/ <br /> <br />That is what the City is doing with the /PD overlay across the board, whether under the <br />General track or Clear and Objective track. The standards in the General track transform <br />the R-1 zone from one that allows single family detached uses, and therefore Middle <br />Housing uses, to one that makes housing approval completely discretionary with the City. <br />The same is true for the Clear and Object track. If the City may use the overlay to <br />prohibit any residential development in the R-1 over 901’, it could amend the ordinance <br />to do the same for any residential development over, say, the 701’ foot elevation. The <br />statute would be defeated where the City of Eugene, or any other city for that matter, <br />wants to defeat it. <br /> <br />The plain reading of the operative phrase “shall allow * * * all middle housing types in areas <br />zoned for residential use that allow for the development of detached single-family dwellings” is <br />the only reading that is consistent with the policy statement accompanying the Middle Housing <br />legislation. HB 2001, sec 10(1) is direct: <br /> <br />“It is the policy of the State of Oregon to reduce to the extent practicable <br />administrative and permitting costs and barriers to the construction of middle <br />housing, as defined in section 2 of this 2019 Act, while maintaining safety, public <br />health and the general welfare with respect to construction and occupancy.” <br /> <br />That policy statement leaves no room for the City to argue that the statute allows it to impose and <br />implement overlay zones that whittle away at the broad Middle Housing rights created by the <br />Statute and which the statute says is limited only by the exceptions stated in the Statute and Rule. <br /> <br />While it addresses a range of stakeholder concerns through a series of carefully-tailored <br />amendments, HB 2001 never backs off from its fundamental purpose. As then-Speaker Kotek <br />explained in introducing the bill: <br /> <br />“The state’s housing crisis has continued for far too long and demands a bold set