In addition, despite statements to the contrary, not all homes in the S-JW can already build a second dwelling. <br />Detached single-family homes without an SDU or other second dwelling are the only type of housing permitted <br />on 28% of the lots in the neighborhood-of the 554 existing residential lots in the zone, 178 are too small to <br />permit two dwellings. The implementation of S-JW prohibited approximately 133 lots (about 24% of the <br />residential lots covered by the zone) that would have been eligible for two dwellings under medium density <br />minimums and maximums in the R-2 zoning and Metro Plan medium density guidelines from building additional <br />dwellings.' Approximately 155 lots', or 40% of the residential lots zoned S-JW containing detached single-family <br />homes in the zone are not permitted to build a second dwelling-no matter if you call it a SDU, ADU, or just a <br />"dwelling." If SB-1051 is correctly interpreted to indicate that each detached single-family homeowner is <br />permitted to build an ADU, explicitly prohibiting SDUs in the S-JW exacerbates Eugene's non-compliance with <br />state law. <br />Furthermore, in no other zoning in the city are SDUs explicitly, blanketly prohibited as a housing type. <br />Regardless of if Secondary Dwellings need to be explicitly allowed in areas that already permit second dwellings <br />or if allowing them to be functionally permitted under a different name is sufficient to comply with SB 1051, <br />adding SDUs to a list that contains Correctional Facilities as explicitly not allowed in a particular area zoned for <br />detached single-family housing is clearly in violation of SB 1051. <br />Ambiguity and Potential to Prohibit or Complicate Currently Allowed Dwellings <br />As Council discussed at their May 23rd, work session (Council Work Session), the definition and usage of <br />"Secondary Dwellings" in the code is ambiguous. It is defined primarily by its relationship to the other house on <br />the lots, with additional clarity provided by design and siting requirements such as square footage.' Council <br />chose not to initiate changes to the code that would clarify the difference between a SDU and two single family <br />homes sharing the same lot at this time. <br />While the S-JW currently permits two dwellings on lots over 4,500 square feet, it is agnostic as to dwelling type <br />(one-family, duplex, etc.), instead regulating dwelling type by lot size minimums and design and siting <br />requirements. Specifically prohibiting a particular dwelling type within the S-JW opens the question as to <br />whether second dwellings that meet the definition of a SDU (either now or upon further revision of the <br />definition) would also be disallowed in the S-JW, even on lots that would normally permit two dwellings. <br />At the Council Work Session, Assistant City Attorney Emily Jerome stated that smaller accessory dwellings are a <br />"subset of what is already allowed," regardless of what they are called. Including a specific prohibition on <br />Secondary Dwellings in S-JW would appear to be prohibiting the subset of dwellings that meet the definition of <br />SDU in the code. If a specific clause was added to the S-JW code that prohibited "duplexes" then it would <br />prohibit a "single building designed and used as dwellings for 2 families... connected either by common walls or <br />common ceiling/floor connection" even if it continued to allow two dwellings that didn't meet the definition of a <br />duplex on the lot.' <br />3 Calculating density per acre as is done elsewhere in the code would allow two dwellings on lots over approximately 3,100 <br />square feet in medium density areas. The S-JW prohibits two dwellings on lots under 4,500 square feet. There are <br />approximately 133 lots between 3,100 and 4,500 square feet, and 43 lots under 3,100 square feet. <br />° There are about 23 duplexes or ADUs built prior to the implementation of the S-JW on lots smaller than 4,500 square feet. <br />s "in connection with" or "accessory" in SB-1051; "clearly subordinate" in Eugene's current definition. <br />e "The way that the definitions work in our code is that they generally aren't used as the test of what something is alone... <br />essentially, [the standards we currently apply] tells you how staff currently define a secondary dwelling." Emily Jerome, <br />Assistant City Attorney, May 23rd Council Work Session. <br />' In R-1 zones in the Eugene code, density maximums would allow two dwellings on a lot over 6,100 square feet. However, <br />additional provisions in the code prohibit duplexes on non-corner lots, on lots under 8,000 square feet, and in particular <br />