Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments submitted 4-30-18 to 6-11-18HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:40 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Subject: FW: Late breaking info on RRCO survey on SDCs Attachments: River Road Community Organization SDU Surveu.docx FYI From: Jon Belcher <Jbelcher@efn.org> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:51 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Late breaking info on RRCO survey on SDCs My apologies for the late notice but this may be helpful in your discussion on changes in code for SDUs Here is the survey River Road Community Organization (RRCO) sent out to be used as part of an upcoming general meeting discussion on SDUs. Please note that the River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations have un-annexed properties and the County Commission will be considering separate changes for them (hence questions 2 & 3). The survey was sent to RRCO's email list and posted to our FaceBook Page and to the NextDoor groups located in River Road. 68 responses were received from more than 2000 potential responders. Also note there was no check on multiple responses or from those outside the Neighborhood. The invitation to participate. Secondary Dwelling Units in River Road - Neighborhood Meeting Topic and SURVEY. Secondary Dwelling Units (also called Granny Flats and Accessory Dwelling Units) have become a hot issue for both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The changes they adopt can help meet the need for about 4,000 additional people in River Road/Santa Clara over the next 20 years (extrapolated from our area and Envision Eugene growth estimates). They could also affect how you and your neighbors use your property. Senate Bill 1051 requires both Lane County and Eugene to adopt changes to how they permit the construction of SDUs. Some changes are already being considered by the Eugene City Council. On June 27th, The Lane County Commission will be considering changes recommended by their Planning Commission. To inform neighbors and to gather your opinions the River Road Community Organization will focus our Monday June 11th general meeting on the subject. Come join us at 7 PM at 1055 River Road to learn more, take part in the discussion and weighing of potential positions. If you can't make it, please complete this online survey: <hyperlink> by Sunday so we can bring your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks! The Survey: Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) and You Secondary Dwelling Units (also called Granny Flats and Accessory Dwelling Units) have become a hot issue for both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The changes they adopt can help meet the need for about 4,000 additional people in River Road/Santa Clara over the next 20 years (extrapolated from our area and Envision Eugene growth estimates). They could also affect how you and your neighbors use your property. Last year the Oregon Legislature passed SB1051 which requires both Lane County and Eugene to adopt changes to how they permit the construction of SDUs. Some changes are already being considered by the Eugene City Council. The Lane County Commission will be considering changes on June 27th. This questionnaire seeks the opinion of River Road residents on some of the changes they're considering. The responses will be anonymously summarized and shared with the Council and Commission. Please answer this once if you live, own property or own/work at a business in the River Road neighborhood. Q1. How do you feel about continuing the requirement for properties with SDUs that either the primary or secondary unit be owner occupied? Strongly ,r Skippost it Moderatety support Ueutr: l ~do~tc~Cet~ Oppose Strongly Oppose FFe841 h'i'• s1 inf~armat,c 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80*1 90%100% (Currently Eugene requires that on lots that have SDUs, either the primary house or the SDU must be owner- occupied. Those who support this rule argue that this curbs problems with absentee landlords, Those who oppose this rule point out that approximately % of Eugene's residences are rentals so this rule significantly reduces the opportunity to build SDUs in Eugene.) Q2: How do you feel about allowing SDUs to be built on unannexed properties in River Road without one unit being owner occupied? Answered: 69 Skipped:0 Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree nor disagree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree No opinion Need more information 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 5056 60% 70% 80% 90% 1001c.b (The Lane County Planning Commission has recommended that the County Commission allow SDUs to be built on unannexed properties within the Urban Growth Boundary (about 2/3 of single family lots in River Road and 1/3 of Santa Clara) without an owner living in one of the units. This could create a difference for our neighborhoods if Eugene retains the owner-occupied requirement for the rest of the City.) 03. Should owners of unannexed properties within the UGB be allowed to build SDUs without annexing? 3 Strongly agree Maldvarety agree Ueither agree ..1 i not d sagiee P~3odera~e~y disagree Strongly disagree. No Gpirsisan' Need More ~nfcrrrraat:csn 0% 10k1a 20% 301tin 4040~ 50% "1% 704t 80% 90% 100% (Currently people living on unannexed properties within the Urban Growth Boundary are required to annex to the City to build a SDU. The Lane County Planning Commission has recommended that the County allow SDUs to be build without annexing to the City.) 04: Should Eugene wave or reduce system development charges for SDUs as Springfield has done? Answered': 6 Strong y agree Moderately agree Neither agree nor disagree Moderately rv disagree Strongly disagree Cron°t Know Need more information G% 10% 204c 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (Some of the costs associated with constructing new buildings are system development charges, the fees that city and county governments collect to mitigate the costs of increasing the capacity of streets, stormwater, 4 parks and sewers for the building. Springfield has decided to temporarily wave these fees to help encourage the building of more affordable SDUS.) Jon Belcher (ibelcher(oWn. orq) Here is the survey River Road Community Organization (RRCO) sent out to be used as part of an upcoming general meeting discussion on SDUs. Please note that the River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations have un-annexed properties and the County Commission will be considering separate changes for them (hence questions 2 & 3). The survey was sent to RRCO's email list and posted to our FaceBook Page and to the NextDoor groups located in River Road. 68 responses were received from more than 2000 potential responders. Also note there was no check on multiple responses or from those outside the Neighborhood. The invitation to participate: r ;f ;n f?L:Fr 7-ad- NclghbPhood lMecting Topic and SURVEY. Secondary Dwelling Units (also called Granny Flats and Accessory Dwelling Units) have become a hot issue for both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The changes they adopt can help meet the need for about 4,000 additional people in River Road/Santa Clara over the next 20 years (extrapolated from our area and Envision Eugene growth estimates). They could also affect how you and your neighbors use your property. Senate Bill 1051 requires both Lane County and Eugene to adopt changes to how they permit the construction of SDUs. Some changes are already being considered by the Eugene City Council. On June 27th, The Lane County Commission will be considering changes recommended by their Planning Commission. To inform neighbors and to gather your opinions the River Road Community Organization will focus our Monday June 11th general meeting on the subject. Come join us at 7 PM at 1055 River Road to learn more, take part in the discussion and weighing of potential positions. If you can't make it, please complete this online survey: <hyperlink> by Sunday so we can bring your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks! The Survey: Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) and You Secondary Dwelling Units (also called Granny Flats and Accessory Dwelling Units) have become a hot issue for both the City of Eugene and Lane County. The changes they adopt can help meet the need for about 4,000 additional people in River Road/Santa Clara over the next 20 years (extrapolated from our area and Envision Eugene growth estimates). They could also affect how you and your neighbors use your property. Las, year the Oregon Legislature passed SB1051 which requires both Lane County and Eugene to adopt changes to how they permit the construction of SDUs. Some changes are already ,~j ~,Liriuur ~l Gay thu EuguEE : City Cuurtcii. The Larie Cow ity Cut fanission will be considering C'hann(-q nn JiinF ?7th. This gi~estionnaire seeks the opinion of River Road residents on some of the changes they're considering. The responses will be anonymously summarized and „i Id, uu vvii: i Ll Iu Cvui iuu cA iu Cui I it Ih6L: iul f. i='ic:a5~ am>Y%iQ i it 110 urwe it" you live, Uwn property or own/work at a business in the River Road neighborhood. Q1. How do you feel about continuing the requirement for properties with SDUs that either the primary or secondary unit be owner occupied? Answered: 69 Skipped:0 Strongly Support Moderately Support Neutral Moderately Oppose Strongly Oppose No Opinion' Need More Information 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% (Currently Eugene requires that on lots that have SDUs, either the primary house or the SDU rr~uvt E}c Uv~rlci-uccupitu. Tlio~u vv ho suppur th;& rule argue tl-gat this curbs problems with absentee landlords, Those who oppose this rule point out that approximately '/z of Eugene's residences are rentals so this rule significantly reduces the opportunity to build SDUs in Eugene.) Q2: How do you feel about allowing SDUs to be built on unannexed properties in River Road without one unit being owner occupied? Answered: 69 Skipped:0 Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree a nor disagree -A I Moderately - disagree Strongly disagree No opinion Need more information 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100{ (The Lane County Planning Commission has recommended that the County Commission allow SDUs to be built on unannexed properties within the Urban Growth Boundary (about 2/3 of single family lots in River Road and 1/3 of Santa Clara) without an owner living in one of the units. This could create a difference for our neighborhoods if Eugene retains the owner- occupied requirement for the rest of the City.) Q3. Should owners of unannexed properties within the UGB be allowed to build SDUs without annexing? Answered: 68 Skipped:1 Strongly agree Moderately agree Neither agree nor disagree Moderately disagree Strongly - disagree No opinion' Need more . information 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (Currently people living on unannexed properties within the Urban Growth Boundary are required to annex to the City to build a SDU. The Lane County Planning Commission has recommended that the County allow SDUs to be build without annexing to the City.) Q4 Shuuld Eugene wave or reduce system development charges for SDUs as Springfield has done? Strongly agree Moderately M agree Neither agree nor disagree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree Don't Know' Need more ■ information 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100 (Some of the costs associated with constructing new buildings are system development charges, the fees that city and county governments collect to mitigate the costs of increasing the capacity of streets, stormwater, parks and sewers for the building. Springfield has decided to temporarily wave these fees to help encourage the building of more affordable SDUS.) HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:42 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Subject: FW: SDU's on Jefferson West Side From: Seppo Korpela <skorpela@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 2:08 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: SDU's on Jefferson West Side Dear City Manager, I write in favor of Secondary Dwelling Units for the Jefferson West Side. Since Eugene is growing in population it is important that we do not take up the farmland around us. We need the local farms to provide food for us when the time comes that oil prices go through the roof and long haul trucking of California produce comes to a stop. This time is not far away, and would have been here already except for the fracking. sincerely, Seppo A. Korpela 2230 Tyler St. Eugene, OR 97405 HANSEN Alissa H From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:15 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Cc: Ted Coopman; HANSEN Alissa H; JEROME Emily N Subject: Staff "substitute" ordinance has problematic code for S-JW and S-C Mayor and Councilors, Although it may be as frustrating for councilors as it is for residents concerned about appropriate implementation of SB 1051, the staff's "Ordinance 1 / Substitute Ordinance" in Attachment B -is not clear and objective and uses language that will potentially create problems for future development. Here is the staff's proposed (substitute) amendment to the S-JW code: "(2) A second (interior, attached or detached) residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling may be permitted on a lot only as an additional 'One-Family Dwelling" and not as an "Accessory Dwelling.'" This language expressly prohibits the permitting of a "second (interior, attached or detached) residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling " except as a "One-Family Dwelling." First off, what is prohibited is (apparently) intended to be what is defined (in another code amendment) as "Dwelling, Accessory." But the proposed definition of "Dwelling, Accessory" is not limited to a "second" residential structure. Thus, the staff proposal to amend the S-JW code states nothing about a potential third (fourth, etc.) residential structure "used in connection with, etc." Accordingly, an applicant could submit a permit application for an "ADU" as a third (fourth, etc.) dwelling. This would inevitably create confusion and uncertainty among applicants, affected residents and staff. Secondly, "used in connection with or that is accessory to a single family dwelling" is undefined. Thus, neither an applicant nor staff could possibly determine whether a second dwelling falls under this definition. During the Council's previous discussion there was no conclusion that this ambiguous criterion be included as part of"Dwelling, Accessory" under the EC 9.0500 Definitions, and the "Substitute Ordinance" omits that essential clarification. Staff and several councilors appeared to believe this could be implicitly dobe under the development standards for "Accessory Dwelling"; however, that approach (even if implemented) would not disambiguate the S-C and S-JW code. The staff alternative simply will not achieve what is intended and needs to be replaced with code that is clear and won't create problems. I surmise that concerns over "not allowed" and "prohibited" motivated staff to provide a completely confusing and unsatisfactory alternative to the actual language that the Council approved unanimously. The two motions made by Councilor Semple, and passed by the Council, provided explicit code language to substitute for the proposed ordinance: Section 18. Subsection (2) of Section 9.3060 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.3060 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. Except where the standards in EC 9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Development Standards specifically provide otherwise: (2) The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-C/R-2 subarea shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, except that secondary dwellings shall not be allowed. Section 19. A new subsection (2) is added to Section 9.3615 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the following subsection is renumbered, to provide as follows: 9.3615 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S- JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, except the following uses listed on Table EC 9.2740 are prohibited in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone: 1. Correctional Facilities. 2. Secondary Dwellings. [(-41 (3). C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone permitted uses, unless such a use is specifically listed in another row on Table 9.2740 as an allowable use under the "R-2" column. Obviously, because of the Council's other motion, the term "Accessory Dwelling" should be substituted for "Secondary Dwelling." The concerns over prohibition can be dealt with in a much simpler way that won't create the problems that the staff alternative would. Here is what council should adopt in the ordinance: Section 8. Subsection (2) of Section 9.3060 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.3060 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. Except where the standards in EC 9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Development Standards specifically provide otherwise: (2) Except for "Accessory Dwelling", Tthe land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-C/R-2 subarea shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone. Section 15. A new subsection (2) is added to Section 9.3615 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the following subsection is renumbered, to provide as follows: 9.3615 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. With the exception of the uses listed in the following subsections, Tthe land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, exGept the fellewing uses (1) Correctional Facility+es . (2) Accessory Dwelling. [44] (3) C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone permitted uses, unless such a use is specifically listed in another row on Table 9.2740 as an allowable use under the "R-2" column. * * * IMPORTANT * * * It's also important to realize that this whole mess arises from the unnecessary and complicating addition of "Accessory Dwelling" to the R-2 (and R-3 and R-4) zones under EC Table 9.2750 (Section 7 of the "Substitute Ordinance." By far the best approach would be to strike those additions, and then the two amendments to S-C and S-JW, above, would be entirely unnecessary. Everything would be simpler and clearer. The council could accomplish this easily by approving the following motion: MOVED: In Section 5, delete the "P(2)" entries for under the R-2, R-3 and R-4 columns in Table 9.2740. In Section 7, delete the following entries under the R-2, R-3 and R-4 columns in Table 9.2750: See (17)", see (17)(a) and (b)" and see (17)(c))". It would serve all parties' interests for the council to not unnecessarily complicate the code just because planning staff still appears to mistakenly think amendments to R-2, R-3 and R-4 are required for compliance with SB 1051 despite the clear opinions to the contrary by the DLCD representative and the City Attorney. Than you for your consideration. Paul Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:46 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Subject: FW: The true beauty of the Jefferson -Westside Special Area Zone Attachments: HA-JWR2ForEPC.pptx FYI From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 7:32 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Eugene NLC <eugene-nlc@googlegroups.com>; KANE Rene C <Rene.C.Kane @ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: The true beauty of the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone Mayor and Councilors, WECAN has launched a scurrilous and deceitful attack on the members of the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood and our collaborative work to develop the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone. I would urge every councilor to refresh their memory of how remarkable the process was and the exceptional quality of the zone that was adopted unanimously by the Council. Please take just a few minutes to browse through the attached PowerPoint slides that cover the community process and a general "tour" of the zone as it was proposed by the community. Subsequent to this presentation, JWN neighborhood leaders worked with city staff to refine the proposal that was then reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission. In contrast to JWN leaders and members doing real work engaging the community and logging the many, many hours in the community and with city staff, task forces and the Planning Commission to produce a thoughtful, pragmatic and widely-supported solution to future residential development in our neighborhood the "we know best" cadre hasn't done a single thing other than pontificating about what the council should impose on residents of Eugene's neighborhoods. Please demonstrate that you understand and appreciate the difference between the community's interests and efforts and the attacks on our work and community by this small, opaque group of zealots who could care less about anyone's opinions but their own. Thank you, Paul Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional R 1I - 1 CL . 3 0 • -44 19 MNM I r, t {ty. ■ Cdr _ 7 w J Q G3 ~ ? Hits j S'$~o• m y5 xp ,:o z gm 3 m y ~ m _ S > > ~ o o~ m mo EmEQoQ c 3~ssa R ~4 s' ~ F ~ n 'Q p C f4 fV 4 \t R~T Rn S'6 3 CIP1 LL O O C1a y3 vQCC y2 % {x G .U y fn 1 V i E~ Ind F _ d 1 • • 0 a • 3 Q) N of u L a PMR 0 • ~ ev N N C O ~ h c i O H - 0 O 6 0 z z w 0 • ~ M ' O y -2 0 C T N N L ~ Y o a~ z~9~ ~ ~ ~ } T p p p 1 s e ~ W Scr HANSEN Alissa H From: Alexis Biddle <alexis@friends.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 3:00 PM To: ZELENKA Alan; TAYLOR Betty L; SYRETT Claire M; SEMPLE Emily; PRYOR Chris E; VINIS Lucy K; EVANS Greg A; YEH Jennifer K; CLARK Mike Cc: HANSEN Alissa H Subject: Upcoming SB 1051 implementation deadline Attachments: SB1051_implementation.pdf; SB1051_Eugene_1000_Friends-4.pdf Dear Mayor and City Council, I write again to reiterate our guidance regarding the implementation of SB 1051. Attached are the two previous letters we submitted earlier this year. Understanding some of the other feedback you are hearing, I want to highlight that the provisions of SB 1051 are not complicated. Some may be urging you to undergo legal gymnastics to minimize the number of SDUs in their neighborhood. Let me assure you, that is not the intent behind SB 1051. It was intended to provide more housing options and increase access to more diverse and abundant housing. SDUs are have a minimal impact in neighborhoods and are relatively affordable compared to current market rate housing. SB 1051 was designed to make it easier for cities to comply with Goal 10 of the land use system. You can even use the bill as cover for a difficult choice you are required to make. I implore you to make the moral (and legally compliant) choice that so many of your constituents desperately need. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Alexis Biddle Urban Circuit Rider 1000 Friends of Oregon Email: alexis(a friends.org Phone: (503) 497-1000 ext. 8 1000 133 SW 2"d Ave, Suite 201 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • www.friends.org friends I Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 of Oregon Central Oregon Office • 155 NW Irving Ave • Bend, OR 97703 • (541) 797-6761 April 9, 2018 Eugene City Council C/O Alissa Hansen (Alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us) Planning Division 99 W. 10' Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: Implementation of SB 1051 Dear Councilors, 1000 Friends of Oregon is a non-profit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to support livable communities. Our membership includes hundreds of Eugene citizens who support the mission and values of the Oregon land use program. Among these Oregon values are the provision of equitable and diverse housing opportunities. In the 2017 Legislative Session, 1000 Friends of Oregon worked with a coalition of partners to pass Senate Bill 1051 (chapter 745, Oregon Laws 2017), a bill that requires cities to comply with standards that promote affordable housing. By July 1", 2018, cities are required to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for each detached single family dwelling in areas zoned for detached single family dwellings. Unfortunately, the phased approach contemplated by the City will not go far enough to meet the requirements of SB 1051. Phase one of the City's proposed draft ordinance will create: "...limited changes solely aimed at compliance with the bill's requirement to allow secondary dwellings in areas zoned for detached single family homes by the July 1, 2018, deadline."' The language at issue in SB 1051 states: (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design. (b) As used in this subsection, "accessory dwelling unit" means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling.' The reason that the City's proposed phase one of SB 1051 implementation is not sufficient is because it is not possible to allow the required minimum of at least one ADU for each detached single family dwelling, if existing standards in the Eugene Code remain. While some of the existing standards in the Eugene Code could be considered reasonable regulations relating to "siting and design," others standards could preclude property owners from exercising their right to build at least one ADU per single family dwelling on their lot. Standards in the existing code' ' Eugene City Council Agenda Item Summary, Agenda Item Number B, January 17'x, 2018. ' Section 6, Chapter 745, Oregon Laws 2017. ' See EC 9.2751(17) that could preclude development of ADUs on any lot with a single family dwelling include, but are not limited to: • Lot area - many lots that allow single family dwellings are smaller than the minimum area required under EC 9.2751(17). • Building size - 10% of total lot area may effectively preclude building attached ADUs on smaller lots. A flat building maximum would avoid this problem. • Lot dimension - the area specific lot dimension requirements of EC 9.2751(17) will not allow development of ADUs on some lots. To the extent that these provisions of the Eugene Code prevent the development of ADUs on lots with single family dwellings, state law will preempt local regulations and the broad provisions of ORS 197.312(5) apply to land use decisions for ADUs in zones that allow single family dwellings after July 1", 2018. The City of Springfield recently passed Ordinance 6376 and we encourage the City of Eugene to take a similar proactive approach to implementing SB 1051 and encouraging affordable housing. Notable amendments to the Springfield Development Code include: • Allow an existing small dwelling to become an ADU (if it is less than 800 square feet), and build a primary dwelling unit. • Allow ADUs on properties zoned medium and high density residential. • Remove the minimum size requirement of 300 square feet for an ADU. • Remove the ratio requirement (an ADU could not exceed 40 percent of the primary dwelling unit), while maintaining the maximum ADU size of 800 square feet. • Allow more flexibility in the location of the entrance to the ADU. • Waive the off-street parking requirement if there is on-street parking available (and there are no adopted plans to remove the on-street parking). • Allow an unpaved parking space on-site in certain situations. • Remove requirement for the property owner to live on site. • Allow more options for meeting design standards. • Allow manufactured homes (Type 2) and approved towable structures as ADUs so long as they are permitted, inspected, and approved by the local authority. 1000 Friends of Oregon supports efforts to hold inclusive discussions about how to meet Eugene's housing needs in the longer term and will be a partner in that effort. For now, we support updating the Eugene Code to meet the requirements of SB 1051 described above. Thank you for considering our suggestions to encourage Eugene to grow affordable and livable neighborhoods. Sincerely, Alexis Biddle Urban Circuit Rider 1000 Friends of Oregon 133 SW 2nd Ave, Suite 201 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • www.friends.org 1000 Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 friends 1 of Oregon Central Oregon Office • 155 NW Irving Ave • Bend, OR 97703 • (541) 797-6761 April 12`h, 2018 Eugene City Council C/O Alissa Hansen (Alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us) Planning Division 99 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 RE: Implementation of SB 1051 Dear Councilors, 1000 Friends of Oregon is a non-profit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to support livable communities. Our membership includes hundreds of Eugene residents who support the mission and values of the Oregon land use program. Among these Oregon values are the provision of equitable and diverse housing opportunities. As you all are well aware, Eugene is facing a multitude of barriers to affordable housing. Fortunately, leadership in the Legislature made it easier for cities to remove barriers to affordable housing with the passage of SB 1051 last summer. Secondary Dwelling Units are required to be allowed by for each single family dwelling by state law. 1000 Friends of Oregon's comments on the technical and legal details of the meaning of SB 1051 are stated in our letter included in the record and packet for today's meeting. This letter concerns the process that has been surrounding the housing conversation in Eugene. Oregon's land use system ensures that citizen involvement is prioritized in land use decisions. Indeed, Goal 1 of the land use system is citizen involvement. Eugene has spent years of effort and millions of dollars on public involvement to develop plans that represent the core of resident's values. The requirements of SB 1051 regarding SDUs are consistent with and support the values enshrined in Envision Eugene. Allowing SDUs for all single family dwellings: • Provides economic opportunities for all by allowing people options to find work near their home. • Provides affordable housing, by lowering the costs of development. • Promotes compact urban development and efficient transportation options by allowing for space efficient infill that enables greater use of efficient transportation options • Protects neighborhood livability by housing people in buildings that fit well within existing neighborhoods. • Protects natural resources by easing development pressures to expand the urban growth boundary and consume valuable farm and forest land. • Provides adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation because each SDU will still be subject to standard development standards and review processes where adjustments can be made to fit with special area overlays. Considering that allowing SDUs for each single family dwelling is required by law, in line with Eugene policies and values, and can be subject to reasonable siting and design standards, it should not be a difficult choice to remove barriers to SDUs. City Council is the only elected body that decides housing policy for the City, and that accountability is why it is your responsibility to make this choice. We need your leadership to follow state law and make this decision in line with the voices of the broader community including renters, the unhoused, and historically disadvantaged people who could not attend this meeting. Sincerely, Alexis Biddle Urban Circuit Rider 1000 Friends of Oregon HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 1:30 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSUCK Robin A Subject: FW: Debunking WECAN's pseudo-legal letter FYI From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:24 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Eugene NLC <eugene-nlc@googlegroups.com>; Ted Coopman <tmcoopman@yahoo.com>; KANE Rene (SMTP) <renekane@comcast.net> Subject: Debunking WECAN's pseudo-legal letter Dear Mayor and Councilors, The letter from WECAN is a fine demonstration of how "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The simple truth is that the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone and the Chambers Special Area Zone stand as models for a citizen-driven process that created Eugene's most flexible medium-density residential zones that also ensure future development "protects, repairs and enhances neighborhood livability." First, let's dispense with the ill-informed attack on the zone's conformance with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan. It's very simple: The two zones were "acknowledged" by the State after their unanimous adoption by City Council, and these zones cannot be legally attacked as "nonconforming." (In legal parlance, this attempt by WECAN is known as a "collateral attack" and is not permitted under Oregon's statutes and court decisions.) S-JW and S-C are consistent with the Metro Plan, both legally and in substance. Period. I won't bother to unwind the letter's devious attempts to attack the fact that both zones do allow development within the range of Medium-Density Residential (14 to 28 dwelting units per net acre). The Planning Division staff and Planning Commission reviewed this issue, and a thorough evaluation clearly demonstrates that fact. (The letter's bogus "statistics' are based on the R-2 maximum density, which is not at all what S-JW and S-C are required or intended to allow. The legal and intelligent intent of S-JW and S-C is to allow residential development within the range of the Metro Plan "Medium-Density Residential" designation. I will point out that WECAN's puffed-up citation to Jefferson Westside Neighbors vs. City of Eugene, Or LUBA 045 (2008) is way off base. First off, subsequent to this decision, the City Council adopted an explicit definition of "Residential Character" specifically in response to LUBA's dubious finding in order to clarify the local policy and code intent where this term is used: "Residential Character. A combination of qualities and features that gives identity to a particular area where the predominant use is housing and that distinguishes the area from other areas." But, in any case, the S-JW and S-C zones define clear-and-objective standards, and do not at all rely on a discretionary evaluation of "residential character" or "neighborhood character." Similarly, the ginned-up claim that excluding "Dwelling, Secondary (or "Accessory Dwelling Unit") from the explicit list of permitted uses conflicts with SB 1051 is ridiculous. Yes, S-JW and S-C do fall under the ADU requirements in SB 1051. That's never been contested. And, yes as both the DLCD representative and the City Attorney have stated S-JW and S-C do allow dwellings that meet the statutory definition of "Accessory Dwelling Unit." Let WECAN waste everyone's time an money appealing on this claim they'll be denied and may even be liable for attorney's fees because of bringing a "frivolous" claim. The letter borders on the absurd when it claims that a person couldn't build a second dwelling if that dwelling were to coincidentally meet the criteria that defines an "SDU." Excluding "Dwelling, Secondary" as an explicit allowed use does not in any way "prohibit" building the same type of dwelling as a permitted second dwelling. The facts remain that S-JW and S-C are highly-regarded as thoughtful models for allowing additional density and housing flexibility in an older, established neighborhood. The tiny bunch of zealots in WECAN have never done a thing to become engaged in the type of open, collaborative community process for which the Jefferson Westside Neighbors has been recognized both locally by City Council's unanimous approval and by being honored with Eugene's first "Neighborhood of the Year" award, and nationally as a "Neighborhood of the Year" finalist in the national competition of Neighborhood USA ("NUSA"). WECAN's letter merits no backtracking by the City Council. Thank you for supporting neighborhoods and making decision based on the true facts. Paul Conte Former JWN Chair Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional HANSEN Alissa H From: WE CAN <wecaneugene@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 6:46 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Cc: HANSEN Alissa H Subject: ADUs in S-JW/S-C Attachments: SJWADUWECAN0606018.pdf Good morning, Councilors, Mayor, and City Manager. Please see the attached letter from WE CAN in reference to the recent amendment to the ordinance regarding SDUs/ADUs in Eugene. Thank you for your attention. Eliza Kashinsky On Behalf of WE CAN Wednesday, June 6th' 2018 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL Eugene Mayor, City Council and City Manager City Manager's Office 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Re: SDU Prohibition in S-JW and S-C Dear Mayor, City Councilors and City Manager: WE CAN, the Walkable Eugene Citizen's Advisory Network, strongly urges City Council to vote "No" on the Ordinance regarding secondary dwellings as amended at the May 23rd Council Work Session to exclude the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone (S-JW) and Chambers Special Area Zone (S-C) from compliance with SB 1051. WE CAN has already submitted comment regarding our concerns about the overall interpretation of SB 1051 the City has taken. The explicit prohibition of Secondary Dwellings in the S-JW and potentially S-C area not only compounds the existing non-compliance with SB 1051, but also decreases clarity in the overall code and brings to the forefront underlying issues with the S-JW code. Violation of S13-1051 WE CAN is already on record indicating that we believe that SB 1051 allows each lot that contains a detached single family home to build a Secondary Dwelling Unit if they so desire. Staff has interpreted SB 1051 to mean that each zone that allows detached single-family homes should also permit SDUs. Under either interpretation, the proposal to exclude SDUs from the S-JW is in clear violation of SB-1051. The S-JW is clearly an area zoned for detached single-family housing. The S-JW includes as a "purpose" "encouraging the preservation of existing small lots and small, relatively lower-cost, single-dwelling, detached homes, as well as by encouraging new, smaller and relatively lower-cost, detached, single-dwellings and duplexes."' Of all the dwelling types defined in the Eugene code, including triplexes, rowhouses, fourplexes, and multiple family dwellings, the lot size and design requirements in the S-JW prohibit any new dwellings of types other than detached one-family dwellings and duplexes.' As duplexes are also a permitted type in Eugene's R-1 zone, a claim that the inclusion of duplexes as a housing type in the 5-JW zone means that it is not an "area zoned for detached single family dwellings" would be tantamount to claiming that no area in Eugene is zoned for detached single family dwellings, a statement that is untrue on its face. Forbidding SDUs outright in this zone is clearly in violation of the interpretation of SB-1051 that states that SDUs shall be permitted in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings. t Eugene Code 9.3600 (10) There are approximately 106 residential lots in the S-JW that are over 9,000 square feet, and would thus theoretically allow more than two dwellings on the lot. However, dwellings per lot in the S-JW for lots over 9,000 square feet are calculated by dividing the lot size by 4,500 and then rounding down. This means that only two dwellings are allowed on lots between 9,000 and 13,500 square feet, and three on the 5 existing residential lots over 13,500 square feet. The code allows for on additional dwelling to be established on a lot that is between 9,000 square feet and 12,499, and two additional units on lots over 13,500, but only if no residential building on the lot has more than two dwellings in the same building, among other restrictions. This prohibits prohibiting triplexes, fourplexes, and other attached multiple-family housing. In addition, despite statements to the contrary, not all homes in the S-JW can already build a second dwelling. Detached single-family homes without an SDU or other second dwelling are the only type of housing permitted on 28% of the lots in the neighborhood-of the 554 existing residential lots in the zone, 178 are too small to permit two dwellings. The implementation of S-JW prohibited approximately 133 lots (about 24% of the residential lots covered by the zone) that would have been eligible for two dwellings under medium density minimums and maximums in the R-2 zoning and Metro Plan medium density guidelines from building additional dwellings.' Approximately 155 lots', or 40% of the residential lots zoned S-JW containing detached single-family homes in the zone are not permitted to build a second dwelling-no matter if you call it a SDU, ADU, or just a "dwelling." If SB-1051 is correctly interpreted to indicate that each detached single-family homeowner is permitted to build an ADU, explicitly prohibiting SDUs in the S-JW exacerbates Eugene's non-compliance with state law. Furthermore, in no other zoning in the city are SDUs explicitly, blanketly prohibited as a housing type. Regardless of if Secondary Dwellings need to be explicitly allowed in areas that already permit second dwellings or if allowing them to be functionally permitted under a different name is sufficient to comply with SB 1051, adding SDUs to a list that contains Correctional Facilities as explicitly not allowed in a particular area zoned for detached single-family housing is clearly in violation of SB 1051. Ambiguity and Potential to Prohibit or Complicate Currently Allowed Dwellings As Council discussed at their May 23rd, work session (Council Work Session), the definition and usage of "Secondary Dwellings" in the code is ambiguous. It is defined primarily by its relationship to the other house on the lots, with additional clarity provided by design and siting requirements such as square footage.' Council chose not to initiate changes to the code that would clarify the difference between a SDU and two single family homes sharing the same lot at this time. While the S-JW currently permits two dwellings on lots over 4,500 square feet, it is agnostic as to dwelling type (one-family, duplex, etc.), instead regulating dwelling type by lot size minimums and design and siting requirements. Specifically prohibiting a particular dwelling type within the S-JW opens the question as to whether second dwellings that meet the definition of a SDU (either now or upon further revision of the definition) would also be disallowed in the S-JW, even on lots that would normally permit two dwellings. At the Council Work Session, Assistant City Attorney Emily Jerome stated that smaller accessory dwellings are a "subset of what is already allowed," regardless of what they are called. Including a specific prohibition on Secondary Dwellings in S-JW would appear to be prohibiting the subset of dwellings that meet the definition of SDU in the code. If a specific clause was added to the S-JW code that prohibited "duplexes" then it would prohibit a "single building designed and used as dwellings for 2 families... connected either by common walls or common ceiling/floor connection" even if it continued to allow two dwellings that didn't meet the definition of a duplex on the lot.' 3 Calculating density per acre as is done elsewhere in the code would allow two dwellings on lots over approximately 3,100 square feet in medium density areas. The S-JW prohibits two dwellings on lots under 4,500 square feet. There are approximately 133 lots between 3,100 and 4,500 square feet, and 43 lots under 3,100 square feet. ° There are about 23 duplexes or ADUs built prior to the implementation of the S-JW on lots smaller than 4,500 square feet. s "in connection with" or "accessory" in SB-1051; "clearly subordinate" in Eugene's current definition. 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... essentially, [the standards we currently apply] tells you how staff currently define a secondary dwelling." Emily Jerome, Assistant City Attorney, May 23rd Council Work Session. ' In R-1 zones in the Eugene code, density maximums would allow two dwellings on a lot over 6,100 square feet. However, additional provisions in the code prohibit duplexes on non-corner lots, on lots under 8,000 square feet, and in particular At the very least, this provision adds to the lack of clarity in the code. At worst, it could end up disallowing additional dwellings that were previously permitted in the S-JW, reducing the housing allowed in the neighborhood and exposing homeowners wishing to build a small additional dwelling on their lot to litigation and appeals. Density Requirements and Violation of the Metro Plan During the course of the Council Work Session, it became clear that one goal of excluding SDUs from S-JW was to preserve a density maximum of approximately 14 units per acre even in the face of potential additional code changes.' However, such a goal is in violation of the Metro Plan, and additional ordinances or code changes to further this goal exacerbates the S-JW's existing non-conformance with the Metro Plan. There is no minimum or maximum density requirements specific to the S-JW; S-JW handles the number of dwellings permitted on particular lots differently than elsewhere in the Eugene Code. The density permitted on an individual lot in the zone varies widely dependent on the lot size.9 The underlying Metro Plan designation of the area is Medium Density, which, according to Metro Plan policy A.910 should have density ranges between 10 and 20 units per gross acre, which can translate to 14.28 to 28.56 units per net acre. The S-JW permits densities well below those guidelines-by including only the maximum dwellings per lot, S-JW permits development at densities lower than the guidelines in the Metro Plan (i.e. a 12,499 square foot lot would be permitted to build a single unit, at a density of 3.49 units per net acre. A 4,499 square foot lot would be prohibited from developing at the minimum density of 14.28 units per net acre.) Furthermore, calculations made at the time of the passage of the S-JW indicate that the maximum possible density in the zone, including all pre-existing development with more dwelling per lots than permitted by the S- JW and presuming that all lots are developed to contain the maximum dwellings allowed, is 14.6 units per net acre.11 However, this does not translate into properties being able to develop to the minimum required by the Metro Plan. Given the square footage of the various lots, the average permitted density is 13 units per acre, and the mean is 12.5 units per acre. Approximately 64% of the lots in the zone are not permitted to develop at densities above 14.28 units per acre, which is the minimum density permitted for Metro-Plan designated medium density areas. neighborhoods. Even if the code permits two dwellings on lots over 6,100 square feet, the specific prohibitions on duplexes prevent that "subset" of dwelling type on most R-1 properties, while continuing to allow two dwellings in a different configuration (for example, a single-family home and SDU) on the lot. ' "With the general density perimeter of 14 units per acre, I think that has the chance to increase density beyond that." Councilor Semple, May 23rd City Council Work Session 9 A 4,499 square foot lot would be permitted to develop to a maximum density of 9.68 units per net acre, while a 6,000 square foot lot would be able to develop at a density of 14.52 units per net acre. to Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, 2004 Update Policy A.9, page III-A-7 "Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent with the broad density categories of this plan.... Medium density: Over 10 through 20 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate to over 14.28 units per net acre through 28.56 units per net acre depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and development codes)" 11 5-JWJefferson Westside Special Area Zone Density and Goal 10 Land Supply Findings, submitted by Paul Conte, October 12, 2009. 15.3 units per net acre including all potential lot divisions The Metro Plan policies surrounding residential lands are clear that the intent is to increase residential densities within the UGB.12 In particular, Metro Plan Policy A.16 states (emphasis added): A.16 Allow for the development of zoning districts which allow overlap of the established Metro Plan density ranges to promote housing choice and result in either maintaining or increasing housing density in those districts. Under no circumstances, shall housing densities be allowed below existing Metro Plan density ranges. In their analysis of the S-JW's compliance with the Metro Plan, staff skipped directly from policy A.15 to A.1713, ignoring the fact that the S-JW clearly allows, and in fact enforces, housing densities below existing Metro Plan density ranges. Passing additional ordinances and code amendments in order to ensure that the density in the area remains below that which is required by the Metro Plan is in clear violation of the Metro Plan, and brings into question the validity of the entirety of the S-JW code. Diminishes Neighborhood Character Prohibiting SDUs and other medium-density housing types in the S-JW is inconsistent with the historical character of the neighborhood. The areas covered by the S-JW have a long history of permitting a diversity of housing types and densities. Two cottage clusters in the area covered by the S-JW, at densities of 18 and 31 units per net acre, were built in 1939 and 1920-1940, respectively. SDU-type cottages were developed in the neighborhood as early as 1900. Fourplexes also have a long history in the neighborhood as a housing type-the dozen buildings housing fourplexes within the neighborhood were built between 1910 and 2007, including in 1925, 1935, and 1937. The historical character of the neighborhood is clearly a mix of housing types and densities within a single neighborhood. Paul Conte proposed the amendment introduced by Councilor Semple in his testimony re: City File # CA 18-1, submitted April 28`h, 2018. In this, he claimed that allowing SDUs on the smaller lots would "push the number of dwellings on smaller lots beyond the limits of compatibility." The concepts of "compatibility" and "character" are subjective concepts. However, the argument seems to be that potential SDUs would damage the character of the neighborhood by potentially permitting densities and housing types consistent with the Metro Plan designation of the neighborhood and the historical development patterns. LUBA has rejected the concept that maintaining the "character" of the neighborhood means disallowing housing types other than detached single-family or maintaining a low-density level of development. In particular, in Jefferson Westside Neighbors vs. City of Eugene, Or LUBA 045 (2008), LUBA stated (emphasis added): "Under petitioners' apparent view of EC 9.9680(1)(a), the city must determine if the potential residential use of Parcel 1 will be consistent with the predominant residential dwelling type in the neighborhood, 12 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, 2004 Update Policies "A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB." A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in- fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods. A. 14 Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to higher density housing and to make provision for a full range of housing options. 13 Exhibit B of Council Ordinance Number 20449, Adopted December 14, 2009. Draft Findings for CA 09-03, RA 09-02, Z 09- 04 Special Area Zone - Jefferson Westside which petitioners assert is detached single-family dwellings, and deny the application if that potential residential use will undermine the single-family "character" of the neighborhood. That view is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning and zoning for the subject property, which allows a variety of residential dwelling types and densities as outright permitted uses. Petitioners' preferred interpretation would effectively limit new residential development within the neighborhood to detached single family dwellings. Accordingly, we reject petitioners' view that EC 9.9680(1)(a) requires the city to determine the residential character of the neighborhood based on the predominant dwelling types and density and then determine whether the presumed residential use of the created parcels would erode that "character." ....As noted, the policy to prevent the erosion of the neighborhood's residential character cannot possibly mean preserving the existing or predominant types of residential dwellings and density against other residential dwelling types and densities, when the applicable plan and zoning designations specifically allow a variety of dwelling types and densities as outright permitted uses." After the loss of this appeal, the S-JW was implemented, which changed the zoning designations; however, neither the plan designation of medium density nor the policies of the Metro Plan change (see above re: Plan/Zone conflict for the S-1W.) By limiting housing types and densities to duplexes and detached single family housing at a density of below 14 units per acre, the S-JW not only violates the Metro Plan, but also is inconsistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. Of the variety of housing types that have been in existence in the neighborhood since 1900, including cottage clusters, fourplexes, triplexes, and small apartment complexes, under the S-JW, now only detached one-family dwellings and duplexes are permitted. Moreover, through lot size minimums and other requirements S-JW prohibits housing types that are essential to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Allowing only detached one-family housing and duplexes but not other housing types appropriate for medium density areas enforces a character of the neighborhood as that of a single-family neighborhood, which is inconsistent with both the Metro Plan designation and with the actual historical housing types and development patterns in existence in the neighborhood. It ensures that any future development will decrease the diversity of housing types in the neighborhood, as opposed to furthering the historical patterns of housing in the neighborhood, ultimately degrading the character of the neighborhood. Explicitly prohibiting SDUs as a housing type in the S-JW exacerbates this conflict and increases the S-JW's degradation of the character of the neighborhood. Conclusion The prohibition of SDUs in the S-JW and S-C is clearly in violation of both state law and the Metro Plan and furthers the existing non-conformance of the S-JW with the Metro Plan. In addition, Council highlighted the need to increase clarity in the code surrounding SDUs in their discussions surrounding SB 1051 and the proposed ordinances. Prohibiting SDUs in the S-JW and/or S-C does not accomplish this goal, as stated above, and in fact decreases the clarity of the code. The language of this motion may actually reduce the amount of housing permitted in the S-JW area. We therefore urge Council to vote "no" on the ordinance as amended. WE CAN (Walkable Eugene Citizens Advisory Network) www.wecaneugene.org wecaneugene@gmail.com HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 1:31 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Subject: FW: Secondary Dwellings FYI From: Susan Connolly <susanmconnolly@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 3:30 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Secondary Dwellings Come on folks! I hear you keep delaying action on the state mandated zoning change to allow back-yard dwellings!? As you know, it's either infill or expand our UGB. Most residents don't want our population to grow. But, new residents are Arriving in droves and we all have to scoot over and make room for them. Please don't make exceptions for the NIMBYs in Jefferson-Westside. Please show your courage and do the right thing. Thank you for all you do, Susan Connolly Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 9:02 AM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A; BRAUD Denny Subject: FW: SDU FYI -----Original Message----- From: Bryna Livingston <brynalivingston@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2018 7:00 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: SDU I am so disappointed that you as a group are deciding to ignore the majority and make it even more difficult to add an SDU in our back yard. Our lot complied with all zoning, but the service fees amounted to $13,000, making the project prohibitive. My husband is 84 years old, and in compromised health. I am 77 and our hope was to be able to rent our little 1 bedroom house for an income stream, with the awareness that we may need a caretaker in the future. I am especially disappointed in our counselor, Emily Sempter. I had emailed her with these details and didn't even receive a reply. Bryna Livingston 2071 Tyler St Eugene, OR 97405 brynalivingston@gmail.com 541-501-3351 Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:34 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Cc: BRAUD Denny Subject: FW: Adding ADUs to R-2, R-3 and R-4 is not required, has no benefit and would complicate application procedures FYI From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:07 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: Adding ADUs to R-2, R-3 and R-4 is not required, has no benefit and would complicate application procedures Mayor and Councilors, I was glad to see that Emily Jerome unequivocally confirmed that SB 1051 does not require explicit addition of ADUs as an allowed use in R-2, R-3 and R-4 (or S-JW and S-C). The only remaining reason that staff now has for adding the ADU residential subcategory to R-2, R-3 and R-4 is their claim that this would add "clarity." But Alissa Hansen's jumbled "justification" turned reality on its head, as I'll explain. First, what appears to motivate staff now is still their holding on to the incorrect, "gut" belief that they need to put "ADU" explicitly into the R-2, R-3 and R-4 code to demonstrate to the State that Eugene Code complies with SB 1051. That's not a requirement, of course. But, at a very superficial level, a DLCD staff might look at R-2, see it allows "ADU" and be satisfied. However, any serious challenge to R-2 would look at R-2's allowance for multiple dwellings of a variety of types and conclude, as the DLCD staff and City Attorney already have, that R-2 is in compliance. So, despite staff's "feelings," there is no actual legal or political value to adding ADUs to R-2, R-3 and R-4. Turning now to Alissa's justification that adding ADUs to R-2, R-3 and R-4 would improve "clarity," she made two points: a) Staff keeps track of SDUs (ADUs) and wouldn't be able to do that if an applicant proposed a second dwelling on an R-2/3/4 lot. But staff has never tracked SDUs/ADUs in R-2/3/4, and Alissa didn't point to any requirement or benefit in adding that administrative overhead going forward. Adding ADUs to R-2/3/4 would increase the burden on staff (and applicants). b) Staff wouldn't be able to determine which type of dwelling was being applied for in R-2/3/4 unless the applicant identified whether it was an "SDU (ADU)" or a "second dwelling." She made it seem like this would be a problem, and that staff couldn't be burdened with having to examine the specifics of an (e.g.) R- 2 dwelling application to determine whether or not it was for an ADU. The problem with this argument is that it relies on there being some new reason or benefit that would justify a staff person make the determination whether a dwelling application in (e.g.) R-2 was an "ADU." Currently, staff looks to see whether an R-2/3/4 proposal is for single-family, duplex, or multiple-dwelling. Adding another subtype of single-family, i.e., ADU, to R-2/3/4 just complicates the procedures for both the applicant and staff. There is simply no requirement and no actual reason or benefit to adding ADU to R-2, R-3 and R-4. And, instead of improving "clarity," adding another (likely unused) dwelling subtype makes these three zones more complicated. Councilors should take a breath and think through the goal of greater "clarity." Not adding ADU to R-2, R-3 and R-4 serves that goal best. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:33 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Cc: BRAUD Denny Subject: FW: Zelenka's "Red Herring" comment Attachments: EPC Agend and attachments March 26 2018 DENSITY and OCCUPANCY.pdf FYI From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 7:31 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Eugene Planning Commission <epc@ci.eugene.or.us>; Eugene NLC <eugene-nlc@googlegroups.com> Subject: Zelenka's "Red Herring" comment Councilors, At yesterday's hearing Councilor Zelenka made a snide comment that residents' concerns about density was "frankly, a red herring." Well here for the councilor's dining enjoyment is the "red herring" served with a side of crow. The planning staff memo to the EPC for the EPC meeting on March 26, 2018 to deliberate on SDU code amendments provided "Possible [Code] Changes for Planning Commission Consideration." The explicit, legislative-form code amendments that were presented included: 2. Remove Lot Size/Density Requirements Proposed new code in Table 9.2740: "(Dwellings. All dwellings, except secondary dwellings, shall meet minimum and maximum density requirements in accordance with Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards (A similar code amendment was also provided for the Chambers Special Area Zone. 3. Remove Owner-Occupancy Requirements Proposed amendment to remove "Either the secondary dwelling or the primary dwelling must be occupied by the property owner" from the code. So, "Bon Appetit!" Councilor Zelenka. Please do your homework next time before you dismiss residents' well-founded concerns so casually. Paul Accredited Earth Advantage Sustainable Homes Professional WPIanning Commission Phone: 541-682-5481 www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2018 - REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. II. DELIBERATIONS/RECOMMENDATION Secondary Dwellings (Phase 1 Implementation of Senate Bill 1051) Staff: Alissa Hansen, 541-682-5508 III. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room-Atrium Building 99 W. 10th Avenue Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Chair); John Jaworski; Brianna Nicolello (Vice-Chair); William Randall; Kristen Taylor AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 26, 2018 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Alissa Hansen, Planning Division Subject: Deliberation/Recommendation: Secondary Dwellings (Phase 1 Implementation of Senate Bill 1051) (City File CA 18-1) ACTION REQUESTED Deliberate and provide a recommendation to City Council on a land use code amendment related to the allowance of secondary dwellings. The goal of this proposed land use code amendment is to expand the areas in which secondary dwellings are allowed in the City, as required by recent state legislation (Senate Bill 1051). The proposed amendment focuses on where secondary dwellings will be allowed in the City, and will increase the number of zones where secondary dwellings are permitted. The proposed land use code language is provided in Attachment A. BRIEFING STATEMENT In an effort to address housing affordability, the Oregon State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1051 during the 2017 legislative session. This bill, which became effective August 15, 2017, contains a number of new provisions in state law intended to facilitate housing affordability. Pertinent to this process is the portion related to accessory dwelling units (known as secondary dwelling units in Eugene), which requires: "A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design." To allow for emerging community conversations around housing affordability and neighborhood livability to evolve, in January 2018, the City Council initiated a phased approach for land use code changes to implement Senate Bill 1051 related to secondary dwellings. The current phase (Phase 1) addresses where secondary dwellings are permitted in the City. The existing standards for height, setbacks, building size, etc., are proposed to remain in place at this time. Phase 2 is proposed to begin following adoption of Phase 1 and consist of a review and potential update of our existing standards for secondary dwellings through an inclusive community process. This will allow for the emerging community conversations around housing affordability and neighborhood livability to inform potential changes. Eugene has long allowed for secondary dwellings in the R-1 Low Density Residential zone subject to development standards such as height, setbacks, building size, owner-occupancy and parking. Secondary dwellings are also allowed in certain special area zones (including Chambers, Chase Node, Downtown Westside, Royal Node, Whiteaker and Walnut Station) subject to development standards. Proposed Land Use Code Amendment As a result of the proposed amendment, secondary dwellings will be allowed as permitted uses in the following zones: • AG Agricultural • R-2 Medium Density Residential • R-3 Limited High-Density Residential • R-4 High Density Residential • S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone • S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone • S-HB Blair Boulevard Historic Commercial Special Area Zone The proposed amendment also includes language to clarify that secondary dwellings are not accessory buildings. As proposed (see Attachment A), the amendment does not change the standards that currently apply to secondary dwellings. Planning Commission Public Hearing The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 6, 2018 to consider the proposed amendments. A total of 20 people testified at the public hearing, and provided a broad range of perspectives. Following the close of the public hearing, the record was left open for one week for additional testimony. Testimony received at the public hearing and during the open record period was provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover, and is available on the web at: https://www.eugene-or.gov/764/Land-Use-Code-Amendments Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission asked staff to respond to several topics raised in testimony. Staff responses are provided in Attachment B. In an effort to facilitate deliberations, staff has also provided possible changes to the secondary dwelling standards for the Planning Commission's consideration (See Attachment C). These possible changes are based on testimony, and questions and comments raised by the Planning Commission, and are intended to provide options in the event the Planning Commission chooses to consider these topics during deliberations. Deliberations Deliberations will be structured to address the topics in the following order: The draft code language provided in Attachment A that addresses where secondary dwellings are permitted. 2. Other topics that the Planning Commission wishes to consider. Applicable Criteria The Eugene Planning Commission will address the relevant approval criteria from the Eugene Code (EC), below, in making their recommendation to the Eugene City Council on the proposed code amendment. EC 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. Preliminary findings addressing the above approval criteria have been prepared and are provided as Attachment D. These findings may need to be updated depending on the results of Planning Commissions deliberations. RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the testimony, and provide any suggested revisions before recommending approval to City Council on the land use code amendments. Following Planning Commission's recommendation, the amendments will be the subject of a public hearing before the City Council on April 16, 2018, followed by City Council action on May 14, 2018. Senate Bill 1051 requires that the amendments be in effect by July 1, 2018. FOR MORE INFORMATION Alissa Hansen, 541-682-5508 or alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us Project webpage: https://www.eugene-or.gov/764/Land-Use-Code-Amendments ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Code Language (same version provided as part of public hearing materials) B. Staff Response to Public Testimony /Planning Commission C. Draft Possible Changes for Planning Commission Consideration D. Preliminary Findings (same version provided as part of public hearing materials) ATTACHMENT C Possible Changes for Planning Commission Consideration DRAFT 03.20.18 Language proposed to be added is shown in bold italics. Language proposed to be deleted is shown in [64i',^ thFGW l4] 9.0500 Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Dwelling, Secondary. [A weAiRg W it that isIGGated the same got a nrimaFy G Re by the PFOpeFty owneF. ] An interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling. ATTACHMENT C e ova Lc Imo: metre antsy 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. The following Table 9.2740 Residential Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements identifies those uses in the residential zones that are: (P) Permitted. (SR) Permitted, subject to an approved site review plan or an approved final planned unit development. (C) Subject to an approved conditional use permit or an approved final planned unit development. (PUD) Permitted, subject to an approved final planned unit development. (S) Permitted, subject to the Special Development Standards for Certain Uses beginning at EC 9.5000. The numbers in ( ) in the table are uses that have special use limitations that are described in EC 9.2741 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.2740. The examples listed in Table 9.2740 are for informational purposes and are not exclusive. Table 9.2740 does not indicate uses subject to Standards Review. Applicability of Standards Review procedures is set out at EC 9.8465. 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750. (1) Density. (a) The minimum residential density requirements set forth in Table 9.2750 do not apply to: 1. [AttaGhed s] condary dwellings [+a R 1 (17) Secondary Dwellings. (a) General Standards for Attached Secondary Dwellings. Except as provided in subsection (c) below, secondary dwellings that are within the same building as the primary dwelling shall comply with all of the following: [1 Let AFea To allow a sevonilani dwellinn flan lots shall aen+ain at least 12,500 s are foot eXd Jinn the nnle nertinn of the let and shall have a m'nimum pole width a ren, aired URder EG 9.2775(5)(e). All ether lets shall r.antain at least F 100 s e feet ] *Renumber remainder of section. (c) Area-Specific Secondary Dwelling Standards. The following standards apply to all new attached or detached secondary dwellings in the R-1 zone within the city-recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors ATTACHMENT C and South University Neighborhood Association: [4 Lot AFea. To allow f"r a sesnndaFy dwelling, the lot shall snn+ain at least one ~ro fco+ 7 L 7,600 *Renumber remainder of section. 9.2775 Residential Flag Lot Standards for R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. (4) Use Regulations. Residential flag lots have the same land use regulations as the base zone except: (a) Home occupations are not allowed on residential flag lots less than 13,500 square feet; and (b) [SeGE)R ' wy d welliRgs a Fe n"+ allowed nn flan In+s loss than 12,500 snuare feet; and (s}] Secondary dwellings are not allowed on flag lots that did not exist or were not approved prior to August 29, 2014. 9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Development Standards. (2) Development Standards Applicable in the S-C/R-1 Subarea. Except as provided in this subsection, the development standards applicable in the S-C/R-1 Subarea shall be those set forth in EC 9.2750 to EC 9.2777 for the R-1 zone, Special Development Standards for Certain Uses in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, and the General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885. (a) Lot Size Minimums for Flag Lots. In lieu of any conflicting provisions in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777 for flag lots in the R-1 zone, the [ 4. SiRgle d wellings aRd attanhed senandani dwellings, nimUM lot size 4,500 s e feet. [le+ashed seGendani dwellings. rninimum lots size 6,000 squaFe feet. The] original lot, prior to creation of the flag lot, is not subject to a minimum lot size of 13,500 square feet. (3) Development Standards Applicable in S-C/R-2 Subarea. Except as provided in this subsection, the development standards applicable in the S-C/R-2 subarea shall be those set out in EC 9.2750 to 9.2777 for the R-2 zone, Special Development Standards for Certain Uses in EC 9.5000 through EC 9.5850, and the General Standards for all Development in EC 9.6000 through 9.6885. (a) Density Standards. In lieu of the density standards for the R-2 zone in Table 9.2750 and EC 9.2750(1), there is no minimum density requirement regardless of lot size, and the following maximum density standards apply: 1. For lots with street access: a. One dwelling unit if the lot area is less than or equal to 4,500 square feet. b. Two dwelling units if the lot area is greater than 4,500 square feet and less than or equal to 9,200 square feet. C. Three dwelling units if the lot area is greater than 9,200 square feet. d. Secondary dwellings are not subject to maximum density standards. 2. For alley access lots: One dwelling unit regardless of lot size. ATTACHMENT C Table 9.3115 S-CN Chase Node Special Area Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements Land Use Type C HDR/MU HDR Rssident[at n 'r Dwellings (All dwellings, except secondary dwellings, shall meet minimum and maximum density requirements for development within the Chase Gardens Plan area.) 9.3315 S-E Elmira Road Special Area Zone Development and Lot Standards. In addition to applicable provisions contained elsewhere in this land use code, the development standards listed in subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall apply to all development in the S-E zone. In cases of conflict, the standards specifically applicable in the S-E zone shall apply. (1) All residential development shall be governed by the general standards applied to the R-1 zone[-], except that secondary dwellings are not subject to minimum or maximum density requirements. 9.3626 Special Development Standards for Table 9.3625. (1) Density. For purposes of determining the maximum allowable dwellings on a lot: (0 Secondary dwellings are not subject to maximum density requirements. 9.3811 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.3810. (1) Secondary Dwellings. Secondary dwellings shall conform to all of the following: (e) Detached secondary dwellings shall: 1. Vr7 "Renumber remainder of section. 4 ATTACHMENT C S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone 9.3911 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.3910. (1) Drive-up or Drive-through Facilities. No drive-up or drive-through facilities are allowed in this zone. (2) Residential Density. There is no minimum density; maximum density is according to the R-4 residential density requirements in Table 9.2750. Secondary dwellings are not subject to maximum density requirements. ATTACHMENT C t l n ne' W, x __...m_ off... 9.0500 Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases mean: Dwelling, Secondary. A dwelling unit that is located on the same lot as a primary one- family dwelling that is clearly subordinate to the primary one-family dwelling, whether a part of the same structure as the primary one-family dwelling or a detached dwelling unit on the same lot. [Either the seGaRdaFy welling ^r the nriman, rdwellino must h or rn'e by the prepeFty ewneF.] 9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750. (17) Secondary Dwellings in R-1. (a) General Standards for Attached Secondary Dwellings. Except as provided in subsection (c) below, secondary dwellings that are within the same building as the primary dwelling shall comply with all of the following: 7 . t all be e then insinal Fe he sesenda dwelling sh - f the nrene t siden ^ e ~nr ~n, crr v ~+°n^ wner The - rinci al 1 esi' e must be E)GGLI m Ge y prvpcnF nv~v rirrc-T ed far a minimr ,m of 6 . p p l7 GT7V p o wner of the Property as shown R the most r°^ Gorr rnt I an A sses%F's Fell if th eis eee Fe han e y W eFt f d th G . e. -p p me. - t in+°rns+ in the nrone t WRer With the mainrit y G TeF 9 reoGF , e shall he d m d the y F y ee e t t G e °Fty may he deemed the mainrit he n iv he r if r'^ other o~iner Gems a y WR N Nc. reater iflteFest The rinsi al Fes;QenGe san Ret be ! sed t d g . p p ea eF ren e t t o n rd n rd II' / he ne the ocv a - =i~c n= he buildin ermit for .,e 'f the nrimani ElWell' th ^r i i it v r r ara ry o rt r~ ~ g p i s ^ t st r^ted la+eo then ert ^ ° r r' r rr arTrrcrt g r n i`t° the situ ~~ii+h a y s v vr T y A nn°^tabl° rdosrrmenta+inn far this n ° inaL rites yete F's r istration d hemeewnef's-insaran^° in^^ni p4ver'6 license anther utilit ° +a„ filin h , and sesnnrtani rd ill When both the nrimaF g, y lli.,n are anus+rr r^t d at t y sr rsh rdn^r rmen+a+inr, must hen he same tome e yirded Prior +n final e 8 T , ssepanG)y { y~ eraw L~ subseGtieR s r se ern a nrenerh 7 above . p , d ue to a temperany leave of ahsense far a em nleymen+ ei-drr^^+ieRal v ;teeF e eFtuRi y er medical need Tie el r r eFt m owReF m st n pp , . tr -p rnvird° the si+v proof of temnorani leave ^+atr r^ p y u from the Fe fii E )wRer's emnlever er+rroatinnal fa^ilit vnLrn+ee p p r organization or merdinal n y r r rnvirder onrd a notarized st^+^m°n+ that the er n nert~i nymer intenrts to F r rme ossr rn ansv of the nrin^inal resirdense a fter then r lir•„it I es np the nrnneFt nyine ~ Oa leave DLIFOR the rent nr lease be+h r ma y , g 1 1 aves on Whi ~I~ R the e t Gh m hits L ° t y eW TGiTSt° n^ TF1-fT~ m C E) pC' . Tl-fvr p T 7 ff p e - l i ~7p T V, ATTACHMENT C X30(34. Deed ReGtrintinn Dri^r to in of a b uildiRg n mit fnr the 0 onidani dwellinn /er then :naFy d welling if it i° n RG# anted later) the PAORPF 1; appFeyed by the pity that h^n been re,norrted with the I ^ e Ge wnty bleFk. The deed n+io., mUSt innl~ ode a refeFertcc the deed c;,;ac filer ~.-restfi - to v~,~~ca-r aGne of th~wee~llinnngj F 1416t bbeetthe nrinnin^1 resideeMe nGpeFty owner whe is the majerity ewneFef thepmPeFty. RequiFementG fnr onnUpan shall he determined ^ outing to the annlinable nre,rinionn of the Eugene Code. t„rint•on„ F ~nc+ With the la Rd enrl binds thep,~epr b. Thceed~ec~~;~~-~,~~ ~,~F .T o,1lReF(n)i he' ~nnenc~e s aRd aneinns G. The dd eeo-rrstr' +ien m^„ be termiRated en approval by the •t„ when one of the d wellinoc is removed n at ni ~nh time as the pity r dwellinnc by the numer ^tiwnn. , D ct lceast vnonim. e the,7FGpcn rfii~Tr shall Verifisa~~~~av°vec=~~ 1 arc cars- r-r ~ ablc e dGG iv,m TreFlicr tativen n fnr rvr thiv s p irpe6eir~ n lw vrdcecv ytete cr's rest ense- e~travc-cvvr--rrn~crrl~vvvvri registratien, driver's tiseese, hemeewner's sdr^nne a tax filing. aRdiGF utility boll. 44-.1 Additional Standards for Secondary Dwellings on Flag Lots. Secondary dwellings on flag lots are also subject to the standards at EC 9.2775(5)(e). (c) Area-Specific Secondary Dwelling Standards. The following standards apply to all new attached or detached secondary dwellings in the R-1 zone within the city-recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association: 9.2751!_17\/a\7 aFe annlinable 12. Temnoraw Leave. The staRdaFdr, at EG 9.2751(17)(a)8. liable 13. Deed RestrietiOR. The standards,at-EG 9.X751(17)r9. ^ linable 14. Verlfleatlen. The standards €G9 51(17)(a)!O are ^n rnabl ] *Renumber remainder of section (d) Adjustment Review. The standard[s] at [Cr' 9.27-51 (17)/a\Q regarding teFnPGFaFy leave and ] EC 9.2751(17)(b)5. regarding building height (to allow for a secondary dwelling over an accessory building) may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(34). Additionally, an adjustment may be requested to convert an existing building into a secondary dwelling in accordance with EC 9.8030(34) if the existing building does not meet the standards under EC 9.2751(17)(a) or (b). For secondary dwellings, these are the only standards that may be adjusted. PXith the eXGentien of EG ATTACHMENT C 9 5"1"'a`Q regadn,g teMpeFaFy leave-,4]These standards are not adjustable for secondary dwellings within the city-recognized, boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association. 9.3811 Special Use Limitations for Table 9.3810. (1) Secondary Dwellings. Secondary dwellings shall conform to all of the following: (a) The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet unless occupying the full story oofa multi-story structure with ground floor residential use. [(b) EithreF the aFy dwell♦ RdaFy dwelling shall be nnsUpied by +he PFApeFty owReF] (eb) There shall be at least 1 off-street parking space on the property. (dc) The dwelling shall be located on a lot that is not a flag lot. (ed) Detached secondary dwellings shall: 1. Comply with the residential density limitations in Table 9.3815(3)(n) Royal Node Special Area Zone Development Standards. 2. Provide a pedestrian walkway from the street or alley to the primary entrance of the secondary dwelling. 3. The primary entrance to a secondary dwelling shall be defined by a roofed porch. 4. Outdoor storage and garbage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and those across the street or alley. [PFiGr?suanoe of a final "nnc'appacn Gy p°e Frrrit fi~GF the secnnvdaFy dwelling, the ewner shall n vide the oifii with a Gepy of a netiee that has been rennrrdeid oththe Lane Q QI that ider0 .m.e nts the seAendwy dwells dwelling is niner/nnni nie4 ] 9.8030 Adjustment Review - Approval Criteria. The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application. Approval or conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following applicable criteria. (34) Secondary Dwellings. Where this land use code provides that the standards for secondary dwellings may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon demonstration by the applicant that the applicable corresponding criteria are met. [(a) Te i Lggye A nrnneFty GWRer may o eefd the temnnra Fy lead L nrn~nf nftp~ Fa Fy leave state is from the pFepeFty ewRer's emnleye-r *Renumber remainder of the section. HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:34 PM To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSTICK Robin A Subject: FW: SDUs Attachments: SDU Code Amendments.pdf FYI From: Ted Coopman <jwneugene@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 11:43 AM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: SDUs All, Please see the attached updated request for motions to revise the staff proposal for amendments to the Eugene Code in response to SB 1051. These are somewhat technical as far as suggested code language, so the broad overall on the issues is included in this email. I preface this with my argument that the debates over SDUs and SB 1051 are a distraction from the core challenge of affordable housing. SDUs can neither create affordable housing due to their high cost ($200k for a 600-800 sqft unit) per return ratio (15+ years even at market rate rents) on both investment and people housed nor, even under a maximum adoption, create enough housing to make a difference. This is evidenced by the ultra-low building rate (less than 10 a year) where SDUs are already permitted. Bottomline is 90% of the lots where SDUs are allowed do not have one, so zoning has little do with it. Market rate housing will take care of itself as the incentives for building are high. Affordable housing (meaning subsidized) should be the primary focus because it is the linchpin to a variety of other social challenges. With the economy starting to slide, we need to act immediately to create more affordable housing units. Specifically, the current proposals from staff have several issues. Issue 1: SB 1051 defines "accessory dwelling unit" as "An interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a single-family dwelling." Eugene's R-1 zone already allows SDUs, which would comply with that definition, because R-1 otherwise allows only one dwelling on a lot. Therefore, we are currently in compliance with SB 1051 and all other proposed changes are optional. DLCD has said as much. 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 allow what SB 1051 defines as an "ADU." Therefore, all are currently compliant with SB 1051. Any additional code language will only confuse the issue, for example, how is density calculated? Does an SDU "count" for density or not? It should. Moreover, Eugene code states that if a lot has 3 or more dwellings (even if detached), all of those dwellings are considered "multiple-family dwellings." For that matter, when a dwelling is considered a "multiple-family dwelling," it cannot be considered a "one-family dwelling" (Eugene Code's defined term for "single-family dwelling") so, by definition, 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 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 the construction of units that could serve more people. Again, why spend $200k on an SDU when you could build a full size home (or use a manufactured home) for a little more money? The situation seems to be that staff and the EPC are getting a lot of incorrect and self-interested input from developers and special interest groups that are framed as making Eugene SB1051 compliant but are, in fact, intended to allow for more density in general, which is not the stated intent of 561051. This sort of mess is a direct result of a flawed process that lacks transparency and useful public input (which would have likely caught these problems) beyond parties with pre-existing agendas. Further, that a piecemeal approach that slices and dices different code provisions will inevitably result in confusing and contradictory code. Instead of clarification and predictability we get the exact opposite. Mayor Vinis recently said as much. Therefore, since Eugene is, on its face, in compliance with the letter (SDUs allowed in R-1) and spirit (increasing housing opportunities via the dwellings now allowed on church property) we should declare victory and move on to setting up clear and objective standards. Once that is achieved, we should (as the coalition of Neighborhood Groups proposed) then take on the systematic analysis of each neighborhood via the associated Neighborhood Association to identify the conditions for development in each neighborhood, opportunities for smart infill, and potential locations for affordable housing development. I think you for your time and attention, -TED Ted M. Coopman, Chair. Jefferson Westside Neighbors Executive Board Eugene, OR www.iwneugene.org Suggested amendments to Council Bills 5184 and 5185 regarding Secondary Dwellings A. To clarify two terms in CB 5185 Section 1, a motion to add the following entries under Eugene Code 9.0500 Definitions: Accessory Dwelling Unit. A secondary-dwelling. Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling that shares a common wall or ceiling with another dwelling for a contiguous area of at least 64 square feet. Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling that is not an attached or interior dwelling. Dwelling, Interior. A dwelling that is wholly within the interior of the same building as another dwelling is an attached dwelling. An interior dwelling may or may not also meet the definition of an attached dwelling. Dwelling, Single-Family. A one-family dwelling. Dwelling, Secondary. An interior, attached, or detached dwelling that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a one-family dwelling on the same legal lot. For purposes of this definition, a property owner must occupy either the secondary dwelling or must occupy the other dwelling, to with which the secondary dwelling is used in connection or to which the secondary dwelling is an accessory. Comments on the above definitions: • The following terms are defined so that the Dwelling, Secondary definition is clear and objective, as required by SB 1051: o Dwelling, Attached. o Dwelling, Detached. o Dwelling, Interior. • To avoid any confusion, the following terms are defined as synonyms for the specific terms used in SB 1051: o Accessory Dwelling Unit. o Dwelling, Single-Family. Dwelling, Secondary is defined using the specific language of SB 1051 with the addition of a clarification to make the term "used in connection with or that is accessory to" clear and objective consistent with the current Eugene Code requirement for owner occupancy, B. To remove the unnecessary addition of secondary dwellings to the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones and avoid the potential for unintended consequences on special area zones, including the Chambers Special Area Zone and the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone, a motion to amend CB 5184 as follows: In Section 4, delete the "P(2)" entries for under the R-2, R-3 and R-4 columns in Table 9.2740. In Section 6, delete the following entries under the R-2, R-3 and R-4 columns in Table 9.2750: See (17)", See (17)(a) and (b)" and See (17)(c))". C. If this motion were to fail, then please make a motion to add the following two sections to CB 5184 to exclude Secondary Dwellings from the Chambers Special Area Zone and the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone, which already allow much more flexibility for second dwellings on lots that are at least 4,500 square feet. Section 18. Subsection (2) of Section 9.3060 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide as follows: 9.3060 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone - Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. Except where the standards in EC 9.3065 S-C Chambers Special Area Zone Development Standards specifically provide otherwise: (2) The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-C/R-2 subarea shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, except that secondary dwellings shall not be allowed. Section 19. A new subsection (2) is added to Section 9.3615 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the following subsection is renumbered, to provide as follows: 9.3615 S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements and Special Use Limitations. The land use and permit requirements and special use limitations applicable in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone shall be those set out at EC 9.2740 and EC 9.2741 for uses in the R-2 zone, except the following uses listed on Table EC 9.2740 are prohibited in the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone: 1. Correctional Facilities. 2. Secondary Dwellings. [44] (3). C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone permitted uses, unless such a use is specifically listed in another row on Table 9.2740 as an allowable use under the "R-2" column. HANSEN Alissa H From: VINIS Lucy K Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:11 PM To: HOSTICK Robin A; *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Cc: RUIZ Jon R; BRAUD Denny; HANSEN Alissa H Subject: Re: Secondary Dwellings/Implementation of Senate Bill 1051 Follow Up Good afternoon, Robin, Thank you very much for writing this memo. It is extremely helpful in clarifying many of the questions posed at the forum and in our work session last week, and is a helpful guide for the discussion at tomorrow's work session. Best wishes, Lucy From: HOSTICK Robin A Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:10:52 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Cc: RUIZ Jon R; BRAUD Denny; HANSEN Alissa H Subject: Secondary Dwellings/Implementation of Senate Bill 1051 Follow Up Dear Mayor and City Council, The attached memo provides answers to the questions raised by City Council at your May 14, 2018 meeting regarding secondary dwellings/Implementation of Senate Bill 1051. To address Senate Bill 1051 within the approaching July 1, 2018 deadline, staff recommends the following questions be discussed and conclusively answered during the May 23, 2018 work session: • Does Council wish to replace the term "secondary dwelling" with the term "accessory dwelling" throughout the code? • Among the zones where secondary dwellings are proposed to be added as an explicitly permitted use, are there any zones the Council feels should be removed from the ordinance? • Are there any existing development standards that currently apply to secondary dwellings that Council wishes to modify or remove? This would include any standards that Council feels are unrelated to siting and design. Memo to City Council Secondary Dwellings.pdf Kind regards, ROBIN HOSTICK Planning Director City of Eugene Planning Division 99 W. 10th Ave. I Eugene, OR 97401 tel. (541) 682-5507 1 fax (541) 682-5572 robin.a. hostick(Wci.euoene.or. us www.eugene-or.gov HANSEN Alissa H From: SELSER Lindsay R Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:18 AM To: HOSTICK Robin A; HANSEN Alissa H Subject: FW: ADUs FYI From: Ron-Janet Bevirt <beznys@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:30 PM To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject: ADUs Hello all, I would like to repeat once again, the fact, not opinion, that the construction of ADUs and/or Middle Housing types, does not produce "affordable housing". Once again last night (Council meeting May 14, 2018), it was stated by the woman speaking as a representative of Better Housing Together, that increased construction of ADUs will produce affordable housing. She read the list of supporters of Better Housing Together (a list heavy with those who stand to profit from the code changes they are promoting). The Mayor mentioned Better Housing Together as a benign, public-spirited group. It is important for all, who are genuinely seeking to work toward supplying housing for all levels of demand including for workforce-income folks, to speak in the context of reality. All new construction is expensive and new housing affordable to workforce-income folks is only going to be created with subsidies. It is time to stop spreading false information and to have genuine, reality-based conversations about the relevant issues. Absent, widespread public condemnation and destruction of the existing housing thereon of residentially zoned property, the imagined space that will be "created" by changing R-1 zoning is insufficient to meet the large demand for housing that we need to address. It is certainly possible to increase density, but it should be done thoughtfully, instead of using "one-size-fits- all" thinking. Working with residential neighborhoods is a more-sure way to do planning than making random changes that hold the potential to decrease or destroy the qualities presently existing in residential neighborhoods. Finally, let me address the issue of "stakeholders" in the conversation. Mayor Vinis spoke last night about shaping a conversation that would include representatives from the Neighborhood Leaders Council. The "public" in all its forms should be included as part of the conversation. The NLC represents the neighborhoods. Do each of the groups listed as supporters of Better Housing Together and all the groups named on the large list the City of Eugene has identified as "stakeholders" have equal voices? Who should have "standing" to be in the conversation about changing residential zoning? If 50 people speak in favor of making it law that all Eugene residents must wear cowboy boots while they are sleeping, are we going to ponder the pros and cons of such a law? My point is, do those who have a financial interest in a certain outcome (cowboy boot sellers and those potentially getting jobs on the enforcement team) have equal "standing" with the population influenced by the legislation? We have seen the ladies singing before Council, who believe that changing residential zoning to increase building more ADUs will provide housing for the unhoused. Those ladies feel sorry for people on the street, but they are uninformed about the issues surrounding the ADU conversation. It is important to keep appropriately proportional representation among the voices in the conversation. Lobby groups with over-lapping representation such as Eugene Chamber of Commerce, WeCan, Better Housing Together, AARP and so on should not all have equal seats at the table. Yes, we need the voice of realtors, builders, developers, bankers, architects, renters, rental property owners, groups providing low-income housing, and residential property owners; however, if the majority of those groups think residential property owners should "take a bullet". Is that how the decision should be made? Does it not seem appropriate for the voices of those designated to "take the bullet" to have some preponderance of consideration? What residential neighborhoods are seeking is to be actively involved in making decisions that are particular to their individual neighborhoods as opposed to having "one-size-fits-all" legislation that does not fit all that well anywhere. Please include my comments in the public record. Thanks for your consideration, Ron Bevirt HANSEN Alissa H From: Sent: To: Subject: Greetings Mayor and Council- HANSEN Alissa H Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:07 PM *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Testimony related to Secondary Dwellings/Senate Bill 1051 Following your April 16, 2018 public hearing related to secondary dwellings and implementation of Senate Bill 1051 you left the record open for two weeks for additional testimony (until 5:00pm on April 30, 2018). Below is a link to the testimony received during that timeframe. This includes emails sent to the Mayor/City Council email list that were forwarded to me or where I was copied, and emails sent directly to me. • Testimony Submitted between April 16 and April 30 Hard copies of the testimony are also available in the project binder located at the City Council Office. The project web page is: https://www.eugene-or.gov/764/Land-Use-Code-Amendments Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Alissa Hansen I Principal Planner pax C>' Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law