Here, only the applicant has applied the PGE rules for interpreting the MHS. At PDF 95-106 the <br />Applicant applied the PGE rules for interpreting statutes, examining the text, context and <br />legislative history. <br /> <br />Applicant concluded at PDF 106: <br /> <br />“In summary, the straightforward reading presented by the applicant is <br />consistent with text, context, legislative history, rules of construction, ordinary <br />dictionary meaning, workability, clarity, predictability, legislative purpose, and, <br />not incidentally, the applicant's property rights. The strained alternative reading <br />is a table exercise in nullification by interpretation, a game normally associated <br />with other cities and other states. The choice is obvious. Middle Housing rights <br />exist wherever single-family detached housing is allowed under the base zoning, <br />subject only to the exceptions listed in the statute. This is such a site.” <br /> <br />Neither the Director, nor the City Attny, nor the HO conducted the required statutory <br />interpretation by applying the PGE framework: <br /> <br />• The July 10, 2024, Staff Report to HO, at pages 25-27, did not address the meaning of the <br />MHS. <br />• The Applicant’s July 10, 2024, hearing letter at pp 2-5 explained how the Director is not <br />honoring the MHS, that a zone verification letter filed Dec. 28, 2023, is still pending, and <br />issuing that zone verification decision would examine and explain the relationship of the <br />MHS to the 901’ prohibition. <br />• Staff’s July 31 first open record filing ignores question of whether MHS reference to “areas <br />zoned for” focuses on just the base zone or also the overlay zone; just says apply the PUD <br />code language. <br />• Applicant’s July 31 open record filing page 3 explained why the MHS “prohibits the city from <br />applying its /PD overlay zone, including the 901’ development prohibition.” <br />• Applicant’s Aug. 14 second open record filing at PDF 95 includes an exhaustive PGE analysis <br />of MHS and relation to /pd overlay zone. <br />• The HO did not conduct a PGE analysis of the MHS and the /PD overlay zone on her own; <br />just took the City position to apply the code language. PDF at 75 para 6. <br />• Staff Report to the PC says HO got it right – Eugene can apply its /PD overlay zone to <br />prohibit development when the base zone allows single-family detached; no PGE analysis of <br />the MHS. PDF 23-25. Complete failure to explain why. <br />• The City Attorney (who works for the City Manager and the Planning Director) has not <br />provided their review of this issue under the PGE rules. <br />• The Director has made sure that the applicant could not get state review of the issue by <br />LUBA by sitting on the zone verification application for more than a year. <br /> <br />So, the Director has simply taken a position on this issue and sat down and crossed her arms – <br />not done a PGE review of the MHS, not asked the City Attny for a PGE review, not asked the HO <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 16 of 43