HANSEN Alissa H <br />From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:15 AM <br />To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <br />Cc: Ted Coopman; HANSEN Alissa H; JEROME Emily N <br />Subject: Staff "substitute" ordinance has problematic code for S-JW and S-C <br />Mayor and Councilors, <br />Although it may be as frustrating for councilors as it is for residents concerned about appropriate <br />implementation of SB 1051, the staff's "Ordinance 1 / Substitute Ordinance" in Attachment B -is not <br />clear and objective and uses language that will potentially create problems for future <br />development. <br />Here is the staff's proposed (substitute) amendment to the S-JW code: <br />"(2) A second (interior, attached or detached) residential structure that is used in connection <br />with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling may be permitted on a lot only as an <br />additional 'One-Family Dwelling" and not as an "Accessory Dwelling.'" <br />This language expressly prohibits the permitting of a "second (interior, attached or detached) <br />residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling <br />" except as a "One-Family Dwelling." <br />First off, what is prohibited is (apparently) intended to be what is defined (in another code <br />amendment) as "Dwelling, Accessory." But the proposed definition of "Dwelling, Accessory" is not <br />limited to a "second" residential structure. Thus, the staff proposal to amend the S-JW code states <br />nothing about a potential third (fourth, etc.) residential structure "used in connection with, etc." <br />Accordingly, an applicant could submit a permit application for an "ADU" as a third (fourth, etc.) <br />dwelling. This would inevitably create confusion and uncertainty among applicants, affected <br />residents and staff. <br />Secondly, "used in connection with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling" is undefined. <br />Thus, neither an applicant nor staff could possibly determine whether a second dwelling falls under <br />this definition. During the Council's previous discussion there was no conclusion that this ambiguous <br />criterion be included as part of"Dwelling, Accessory" under the EC 9.0500 Definitions, and the <br />"Substitute Ordinance" omits that essential clarification. Staff and several councilors appeared to <br />believe this could be implicitly dobe under the development standards for "Accessory Dwelling"; <br />however, that approach (even if implemented) would not disambiguate the S-C and S-JW code. <br />The staff alternative simply will not achieve what is intended and needs to be replaced with code <br />that is clear and won't create problems. <br />I surmise that concerns over "not allowed" and "prohibited" motivated staff to provide a completely <br />confusing and unsatisfactory alternative to the actual language that the Council approved <br />unanimously. The two motions made by Councilor Semple, and passed by the Council, provided <br />explicit code language to substitute for the proposed ordinance: <br />Section 18. Subsection (2) of Section 9.3060 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: <br />