Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />of solutions from the Legislature this session.” <br /> <br />“* * * *” <br /> <br />“With our communities growing and our ongoing commitment to maintaining our <br />urban growth boundaries, we must consider common-sense approaches to <br />increase housing choice and promote mixed-income neighborhoods. Where we <br />live shapes our future.” <br /> <br />“* * * *” <br /> <br />“House Bill 2001 will increase these kinds of much-needed housing opportunities <br />across the state. More than half of Oregon’s households have one or two people. <br />This means we need to increase the supply of affordable housing that <br />accommodates these smaller households and ensure that everyone can find the <br />right home for their family size.” <br /> <br />“Re-legalizing “missing middle” housing choices in residential areas where they <br />are currently banned will provide a wider variety of housing types and will make <br />it easier for individuals and families to afford living in high opportunity areas.” <br /> <br />Written testimony of Speaker Tina Kotek, HB 2001 public hearing, House Comm. on Public <br />Services and Housing, Feb. 11, 2019. <br /> <br />The legislative history of the statute supports reading it as limited only by explicit exceptions <br />stated in the statute – not allowing the City to read in its own exception to honor overlay zones. <br />The full legislative history is on the State of Oregon’s official website at the following address: <br /> <br />https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Measures/Overview/HB2001. <br /> <br />It is summarized in Intervenor-Respondent Johnson’s brief defending the city’s initial enactment <br />at LUBA. Coopman v. City of Eugene, __ Or LUBA __ (No. 2022-056, Jan. 27, 2023), rem’d, <br />327 Or App 6 (No. A180682, July 12, 2023). That brief was included as Exhibit A to our July 31 <br />letter. <br /> <br />The legislative history shows that the strong pro-housing, pro-density, pro-affordability <br />legislative purposes of the statute stated in the original bill were carefully preserved in the <br />amendment process to include only the short list of specific exceptions that now appear in the <br />Statute. The Statute must be read consistent with that policy subject only to the exceptions now <br />stated explicitly in the State and Rule. <br /> <br />As detailed above, this reading is also consistent with general rules of construction: <br /> <br />“174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a <br />statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms