HANSEN Alissa H <br />From: SELSER Lindsay R <br />Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:34 PM <br />To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A <br />Subject: FW: SDUs <br />Attachments: SDU Code Amendments.pdf <br />FYI <br />From: Ted Coopman <jwneugene@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 11:43 AM <br />To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Subject: SDUs <br />All, <br />Please see the attached updated request for motions to revise the staff proposal for amendments to the Eugene Code in <br />response to SB 1051. These are somewhat technical as far as suggested code language, so the broad overall on the <br />issues is included in this email. <br />I preface this with my argument that the debates over SDUs and SB 1051 are a distraction from the core challenge of <br />affordable housing. SDUs can neither create affordable housing due to their high cost ($200k for a 600-800 sqft unit) per <br />return ratio (15+ years even at market rate rents) on both investment and people housed nor, even under a maximum <br />adoption, create enough housing to make a difference. This is evidenced by the ultra-low building rate (less than 10 a <br />year) where SDUs are already permitted. Bottomline is 90% of the lots where SDUs are allowed do not have one, so <br />zoning has little do with it. <br />Market rate housing will take care of itself as the incentives for building are high. Affordable housing (meaning <br />subsidized) should be the primary focus because it is the linchpin to a variety of other social challenges. With the <br />economy starting to slide, we need to act immediately to create more affordable housing units. <br />Specifically, the current proposals from staff have several issues. <br />Issue 1: SB 1051 defines "accessory dwelling unit" as "An interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used <br />in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling." Eugene's R-1 zone already allows SDUs, which would <br />comply with that definition, because R-1 otherwise allows only one dwelling on a lot. Therefore, we are currently in <br />compliance with SB 1051 and all other proposed changes are optional. DLCD has said as much. <br />Issue 2: R-2, R-3, R-4 (hereafter R-2+) and S-C and S-JW already allow multiple dwellings of any sort, so they already <br />allow what SB 1051 defines as an "ADU." Therefore, all are currently compliant with SB 1051. Any additional code <br />language will only confuse the issue, for example, how is density calculated? Does an SDU "count" for density or not? It <br />should. Moreover, Eugene code states that if a lot has 3 or more dwellings (even if detached), all of those dwellings are <br />considered "multiple-family dwellings." For that matter, when a dwelling is considered a "multiple-family dwelling," it <br />cannot be considered a "one-family dwelling" (Eugene Code's defined term for "single-family dwelling") so, by definition, <br />you could not put an SDU on an R-2+ lot with two or more dwellings on it because they would no longer be considered <br />single-family dwellings so could have an SDU. Finally, an ADU/SDU is a poor use of land zoned for R-2+ as it may preclude <br />the construction of units that could serve more people. Again, why spend $200k on an SDU when you could build a full <br />size home (or use a manufactured home) for a little more money? <br />