1 <br />Bill Kloos I,F <br />!1 ~ u i iuIT-;I- <br />To: Bill Kloos (bill kloos@landuseore9on.com) 7 2017 <br />Subject: FW: HBA Big Picture Envision Eugene Issues CA11-I Mb 11-1 <br />ILA, 0 1, 7.11'Z <br />-At 2. <br />Ed - <br />To summarize our recent discussions, I think that if the County Board wishes to have a definitive hand in the Residential element of <br />the Envision Eugene package, then the County should insist that it review a single ordinance, rather than separate ordinances - one <br />for Residential and the another for Industrial, Parks, etc. It is clear that the City needs the County CK to expand the UGB for <br />Industrial. It is less clear that the City would need the County concurrence for a standalone Residential package, because the City <br />does not plan to expand the UGB into County land for Residential. <br />A single ordinance would put all issues on the table for discussion between, the City and the County at the same time. <br />Assuming that the County Board does want to weigh in on Residential issues in Eugene, you should be making to the County Board <br />the points you have been raising with the City in meetings and in writing since 2008. You have a hefty list of those, which reflect a <br />general hostility to housing in the plan and the 2002 code, which are not being fixed in this draft Envision package. Particular issues <br />include: <br />Leveraging housing developers into discretionary processes where it is easy for the City to say "no" to repeated applications <br />for the same site; <br />Failure to alfor d housing develo Npers a sllI p N 5 IC patll to Iioa-Il g a pp 1 VVaI UIIUCl LlCO1 0IIU UUJCcLIVC 3LaI dai Us, as reclUll e u <br />5 4 Y <br />state law-, <br />Code language that punishes housing developers with vastly reduced density if they ask for housing development rights <br />guaranteed by state law; <br />Plan and code language that requires housing developers to go through duplicative review processes in series, wasting time <br />and money; <br />Ambiguous boundaries for Residential land on the Metro Plan that encourages repeated litigation (time and money) in <br />order to determine for sure what land can be zoned for housing; <br />"Phantom Inventory" for the new 20-year residential land supply, such as: <br />Assuming capacity for thousands of new units in the South Hills on land everyone knows will not be developed; <br />Assuming development of areas in the River Road area that won't have storm sewer facilities; <br />Assuming development of Willow Creek areas that can't prove up on transportation capacity; <br />And others we have discussed. <br />Generally speaking, the City has punted to the future any serious work on making the plan and code as accommodating of housing <br />as state law requires and common sense supports. <br />You have discussed with membership concerns about an HBA appeal going to the LCDC rather than to LUBA. Those are valid <br />concerns at the back end of the process. At this end of the process, however, I think it is more important to focus on getting the <br />County Board focused on ensuring that the City deals with housing in a way that it has not done so far. <br />Bill Kloos <br />Law Office of Bill Kloos PC <br />375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204 <br />