GEPPER Jeffrey A

1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Kari Parsons <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 3:42 PMTo: ZELENKA Alan (GMAIL); ZELENKA Alan; ZELENKA Alan; *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City

ManagerSubject: Please postpone tonight's decision on ADU height changes

[EXTERNAL ]

Dear Alan and the council,

I humbly request that you postpone tonight's decision on raising ADU height limits and move to open a period of public discussion. This issue demands careful consideration and ample time for public input, which, to my knowledge, has not been allowed, to date.

Please consider the impact that a hasty decision will have long‐term on neighbors and neighborhoods ‐‐ once a building is built, we are stuck with it for our lifetimes. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to get this right.

ADU's can be lovely and compatible additions to neighborhoods, to be sure, and they are already allowed in Eugene neighborhoods. But 15‐25' walls enclosing a backyard with only 5' of setback is anathema to "lovely and compatible" for many Eugene neighborhoods.

Allow the public to have input and for the city to make the case that these height increases, as written, are needed and good for the Eugene community, writ large. To date, I have not heard this argument. At minimum, this code proposal needs nuance to mitigate the potential negative impacts (loss of solar access, ugly design, etc.) and encourage positive impacts (compatible and pleasing design, retention of privacy, etc.).

Respectfully,

Kari Parsons

2021 ADU Testimony - Batch 9 07/12/2021 (2:01p) to 07/31/2021 Page 1 of 45

1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Pamela Miller <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 4:32 PMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: ADU code amendments: no public comment??!

[EXTERNAL ]

To Mayor and City Councilors, The proposed amendments to ADU code due for a vote today have had no public viewing/ opportunity for comment; is the City planning department now in the employment of developers rather than Eugene's citizens? Where is the justification for these amendments, and why are they being slid in quietly? Coupled with the puzzling decision to adopt provisions for implementation of HB2001 that are considerably more liberal than even that legislation stipulates, I can only conclude that the COVID pandemic has emboldened for-profit interests to lobby the Council/planning department to collude in enacting overly bold implementation of a so-called affordable housing strategy which has not been proven in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the results will be with us for a long time, and their impact on urban livability will not be able to be undone. I urge our Council to fulfill its responsibility to represent all of its constituents, and to take the time necessary to vet this proposal, and submit it to full citizen review! Please support Councilor Semple's motion to postpone this decision and implement public review!! Pamela Miller Ward 3


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: MARSHA SHANKMAN <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 4:32 PMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: Re: Please postpone the vote on height increases for ADUS to allow for public comment

[EXTERNAL ]

Dear Mayor Vinis, City Manager Medary, and City Councilors, I am writing to urge you to postpone the vote to increase the allowable heights for ADUs to 25 feet. The public has not had a chance to comment on this increase, a precipitous change in allowable heights that has the potential to have very negative effects, particularly for older, established neighborhoods like the South University neighborhood. This kind of code change should be approached very thoughtfully not in haste. Please make room for public discussion as well as alternate proposals. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Marsha M. Shankman


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Sigh O'Nara <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 5:27 PMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; GEPPER Jeffrey ASubject: Discussion about ADU/SDU in JWN

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

[EXTERNAL ]

Greetings elected officials and city staff, Very recently I was made aware that the city council is thinking about making special rules regarding ADUs for the Jefferson Westside special area zone. Living in the Jefferson Westside special area zone, I would like to express my opposition to our area having a reduced maximum size ADU requirement. Please reconsider this special treatment. We are medium density. It seems odd that our medium density neighborhood would have more restrictions on ADU size than lower density neighborhoods like Bethel or River Road. We are so close to the core of the city, we should be facilitating as much density here as possible rather than further outside the core. As always, thank you for your time on this very contentious issue. I appreciate the difficult position you are in, and all the vying interests pulling you in very different directions. Sigh O'Nara Ward 1


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Comcast <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:36 AMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: Adu

[EXTERNAL ]

I urge the City Council not to take any action at their Monday meeting on Councilor Claire Syrett's last minute proposals to radically increase the allowable building height of accessory dwellings. There has been no prior public information or opportunity for citizen comment. Please allow time for full Democratic process. Adu used exclusively for short term rentals negatively impact housing shortage. Plus owners fail to pay personal property taxes on the dwellings furnishings. These issues need community discussion. Thank you Miriam Miriam Bolton 1006 Taylor St Eugene, 97401


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: MCMAHON Ed (SMTP)Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 9:51 AMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: testimony

[EXTERNAL ]

Good morning Mayor, Council, and City Manager, Apologize for the technical difficulties with my testimony at the Public Forum last night. I simply wanted to encourage you to support Councilor Syrett’s ADU code amendments. The solution to our current housing crises is more front doors. Councilor Syrett’s amendments will help with that. And while we’re discussing the need for more front doors I encourage you to proceed with caution as you discuss the Construction Excise Tax. This is no time to increase the cost of housing. Appreciating your service to our community. Thank you, Ed McMahon Executive Vice President HBA of Lane County 1065 River Road Eugene OR 97404 Ph: 541-484-5352 Cell: 541-517-5449 www.hbalanecounty.org

www.nahb.org/ma


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: peardaughter <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 9:51 AMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; GEPPER Jeffrey ASubject: ADU Postponement


[EXTERNAL ]

Hello, I would like to express my disappointment that Eugene City Council has once again delayed the decision on ADUs. We live in Eugene ‐ we are supposed to be leaders in sustainability and affordable housing! And yet, we continue dragging our feet in an embarrassing manner. My understanding is that the delay was mainly due to the issue of Jefferson Westside wanting to write special rules for their neighborhood. I used to rent in Jefferson Westside. The best part? Walkability! I could get to the library, grocery store, work, and farmers market by foot! The worst part? Rising rents. I ended up moving out when my landlord jacked up the rent due to the shortage of housing in Eugene. Jefferson Westside is the IDEAL neighborhood to increase housing density through the development of ADUs. Neighbors don't want an ADU? Great, they don't have to build one. All this code allows is for Jefferson Westside property owners to build IF THEY WANT. This neighborhood does not deserve special treatment when the rest of the city is trying to provide housing for its residents. Portland has allowed ADU development with reasonable restrictions throughout its city for years. It has provided affordable housing opportunities to many as well as side income for homeowners. Win win! Please, let's finally come into compliance with OR state law and provide some options for our homeowners to take ADU development into their own hands. Sincerely, Elli Webber


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Jefferson Westside Neighbors <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 6:34 PMTo: GEPPER Jeffrey ACc: SEMPLE EmilySubject: Re: ADUs

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

[EXTERNAL ]

Jeff, Could we do an in‐person instead of Zoom? ‐TED On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 3:24 PM GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> wrote:

Hi Ted,

Following up on this to see if you’re available in the next week or two. Let me know what days/times work well for you.

Thanks,

Jeff Gepper

Senior Planner (he/him)

City of Eugene | Planning & Development

jgepper@eugene‐or.gov

541.682.5282

Messages to and from this e‐mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law.

From: GEPPER Jeffrey A Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 8:11 AM To: Jefferson Westside Neighbors <[email protected]>


2

Cc: SEMPLE Emily <ESemple@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: RE: ADUs

Sounds good. How about the week of the 2nd‐6th, what times/days normally work best for you?

Jeff Gepper




541.682.5282


From: Jefferson Westside Neighbors <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:06 PM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Cc: SEMPLE Emily <ESemple@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: Re: ADUs

[EXTERNAL ]

Jeff,

Let's schedule for early August, I am pretty open.

‐TED

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:51 PM GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> wrote:

Hi Ted,

Given that we now have until September 15, I am reaching again to see if we can find a time to meet or have a phone call regarding ADUs in the JWN.


3

I will be out of the office from July 19 through July 27, but am happy to try and find a time after that. I could potentially meet tomorrow or Friday, but as I wrap things up before I go on vacation, it is a bit hectic with my other projects.

Let me know what your availability is in late July and August and we can find a time.

Thanks again,

Jeff Gepper




541.682.5282


‐‐

Jefferson Westside Neighbors

Executive Board

Eugene, OR

www.jwneugene.org

‐‐ Jefferson Westside Neighbors


4

Executive Board Eugene, OR www.jwneugene.org


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Nancy Meyer <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 7:50 AMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerCc: GEPPER Jeffrey ASubject: ADU suggestion


[EXTERNAL ]

City Council: Please suggest to your land use board that they consider some interesting and popular ideas emanating from Portland for ADU's. For example, one neighbor has suggested that instead of randomly raising the heights of ADU's that could be built 5' from one's lot line, why not consider the following idea? It addresses both density and the need for more truly low income housing:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

If the city really wants to encourage the construction of ADUs, they should do what Portland did, which is 0% interest loans to homeowners who build ADUs and commit to rent them to homeless or otherwise low income residents for a certain number of years. That was an extremely popular and effective win‐win strategy.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

There are ways to get your neighborhoods on board. We support the need for density and true low income housing. Proposing a sudden increase in height is not one of them ‐ especially in communities that will most certainly charge market rate rents.


2

And you'll note that this suggestion will discourage developers/absentee landlords from taking advantage of recent proposals that will raze current low income rental homes and put in higher rental plexes or ADU's. Additional codes to protect some green space, privacy, etc. would all be welcome. Consider what buildings you'd like to have next door? Thank you, Nancy Meyer, SUNA


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Pam Wooddell <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 3:07 PMTo: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: ADUs

[EXTERNAL ] To Eugene City Mayor and Councilors, I wish to thank the five councilors who wisely voted to delay final decision on the ADU ordinance earlier this week despite clearly wishing to be done with this issue. I watched the work session and found it surprising that some councilors, including Councilor Syrett, and the mayor came to final decision time without a clear understanding as to the potential impact of the proposed increases in ADU height limits, among others proposed changes, submitted a few days previously by Councilor Syrett. I was also surprised by the councilor's weak response as to why these late changes might be considered sufficiently important to modify ADU code to a degree that may be objectionable to nearby residents. It was surprising as well that these late changes were requested solely on behalf of a few standing to profit without offering evidence of balanced input. And finally I was surprised that instead of fully acknowledging these shortcomings, the councilor along with the mayor admonished those who did recognize the problems and were choosing to delay the vote. If completing this item on that day was important, Councilor Syrett could have chosen to withdraw the motions. Again, thank you to the five councilors opting for sound process despite pressure to do otherwise; I wish my ward councilor had been among you. Sincerely, Pam Wooddell 52 E 23rd Ave. Eugene, 97405 Ward 2


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Nancy Meyer <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 9:48 AMTo: GEPPER Jeffrey ASubject: Re: Land use codes

[EXTERNAL ]

This is extremely helpful ‐ thank you. I was confused about the two separate processes. Last question: It seems CC&R's (if explicit) tend to release those communities from the Middle Housing (plexes) requirements. 1. I don't see whether CC&R's also keep these communities from building ADU's? If the CC&R's are explicit about dis‐allowing additional accessory housing being built on a lot, then these rules stand up against city codes about ADU's? One concern is ‐ especially since it's apparently difficult to determine how many communities fall under the CC&R building constraints ‐ that these new land use changes (for both Middle Housing and ADU's) will fall almost completely on a percentage of Eugene neighborhoods. Hence, the inaccuracy when many land use changes ‐ for both Middle Income plexes or ADU sizes ‐ are made to sound much more universal and widespread across Eugene than they actually are. I think there will be some significant changes ‐ both positive and negative ‐ to communities which already bear the weight of rentals, ADU's, etc. Still, that will be a decision for the Council.


2

Again, your help has been important, especially as I try to share updates with our community. Please let me know if there's ever anything I can share with you from our 'community end' of things. This is far more complicated a process than most of us realize ‐ and I appreciate your help. Best, Nancy Meyer On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 4:24 PM GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> wrote:

Hi Nancy,

I answered your questions in red text below. I hope this will further help clarify the process. One important point, is that the Middle Housing Code Changes and the ADU Code Changes are two entirely independent processes. While both related to housing, the do not have very much intersection. To illustrate this point, an ADU is roughly defined as being accessory use, that is accessory to a detached Single Family Dwelling. As Middle Housing consists of a Duplex, triplex, quadplex, rowhouse, and cottage cluster, they are not granted an ADU.

Also, I upload Councilor Syrett’s motions onto the website so you can see what those look like.

Thanks,

Jeff Gepper




541.682.5282



3

From: Nancy Meyer <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 5:06 PM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: Re: Land use codes

[EXTERNAL ]

Jeff ‐

Sorry for the delayed response ‐ we've been out of town.

And thanks so much for all your time explaining the planning process.

I appreciate it.

A few things I still need help with:

1. Don't the proposals for higher ADU allowances impact SUNA? (15' five feet from property line to 25' total allowance)? It sounds like there will be time for public debate now that it's been tabled til Sept 15.

It's difficult for me (and, I assume, others) to track all of these items in agendas, minutes, and memos. Despite a hunt through the RG and City Council sites, I couldn't even find how the July 12 Council voted on Councilor Semple's motion to table a vote on ADU heights.

I think a lot more people would be involved if they knew some of the proposed changes to the land‐use codes and understood the impact on their communities.

Yes, the height changes would also apply to the university area neighborhoods, including SUNA. The ADU Code Amendment we are currently going through is for a remand of our previous three ordinances approved by the Council. Staff have prepared an ordinance that we believe complies with the Metro Plan and State Law, as directed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on the most recent remand. As detailed in the memo provided to the City Council and available


4

on the Land Use Code Amendments website, we have complied with the necessary noticing procedures for the ADU Code Amendments.

2. Is the Envision Eugene plan concerning neighborhood livability in the mix anymore? Seems we're swinging away from this balance.

The ADU Code Amendment we are currently going through is for a remand of our previous three ordinances approved by the Council. Staff have prepared an ordinance that we believe complies with the Metro Plan and State Law, as directed by the Land Use Board of Appeals on the most recent remand.

3. Is subsidized housing along transit corridors being considered?

There is current legislation working through the State, I believe. I have not been tracking that as close as other staff members I work with. That said, it is outside the scope of this very narrow remand for ADUs. You can read more here: https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/LAR/Pages/CFEC.aspx

4. Finally, as far as 'held harmless' ‐ I was only asking about communities with CC&R's. Aren't they exempt from requirements regarding ADU's, required duplexes, size of lots, etc?

Thank you for the clarification, I misunderstood your question the first time. As it related to CC&Rs, I think there is some confusion between the Middle Housing Code Changes (i.e. HB 2001) and the state law for ADUs (ORS 197.312(5), AKA Senate Bill 1051 circa 2017). These are two separate processes. For Middle Housing (i.e. duplexes, etc), yes there was a provision in the state law that permitted existing CC&Rs to remain and if explicit, prohibit middle housing development. Middle Housing also had specific lot sizes that must allow Triplexes and Quadplexes. This was not the same for ADUs, which provided, as we have learned from all the appeals, is a one‐to‐one requirements to permit an ADU as an accessory to a Single Detached Dwelling. Under the definitions, Middle Housing (i.e. Duplex, triplex, etc…) are not granted an ADU as an accessory use. As a note, even though it is unrelated to ADUs, we do not enforce or have an inventory of all the CC&Rs in the City, so there is no way for me to calculate that percentage unfortunately.

Thank you ‐ once again,

Nancy Meyer

SUNA chair


5

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:21 AM GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> wrote:

Hi Nancy,

Thanks for reaching out. I think there is some level of confusion on how this process operates on a regular basis, so I will do my best to clarify and expand on the ADU standards.

Staff presented the City Council with two separate ordinance drafts, the first of which has been available to the public since April 16, 2021 and a public hearing was conducted for this ordinance. The second version of the ordinance (Option B) only proposed an alternative standards (the university area standards) for ADUs in the Special Jefferson Westside and Special Chambers area and was available to the public on June 25, 2021. This information, as well as additional memos, were detailed in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and meeting materials prepared by staff for the July 12, 2021 work session.

The motions presented by Councilor Syrett were initiated by her as a City Councilor. She has the authority to propose motions to amend an ordinance in the same way Councilor Clark was able to motion to postpone a decision, for example. The motions will be deliberated on and voted on by the other members of the Council, as we saw last night. These motions are driven by and decided upon by City Councilors. They are not included in the AIS because they are not part of staff’s proposal. This process is not unique to ADUs and can be conducted this way for any code amendment or land use ordinance that is brought forward to the City Council for a decision.

Staff are often asked to assist a City Councilor in getting the details correct to implement a motion. However, while staff may be involved in the process of providing necessary details, it is the Councilor who ultimately decides on how a motion will be brought forward and it not even guaranteed that the motion will be brought forward. That is up to the City Councilor. For example, while we knew of Councilor Syrett’s motion, I was not contacted regarding Councilor Clark’s motion. Councilor Syrett shared her motions with the other Councilors leading up to the July 12, 2021 meeting, which was the Councilor’s decision and is not required. Given these factors, staff cannot present information that is not actually in front of the Council for their review.

Now that the motions have been put forward to the Council, I will be updating the Land Use Code Amendments website to include information on Councilor Syrett’s motions and the outcome of last night’s work session. If you watched last night, this will be returning to Council on September 15, 2021. You can watch the work session here: https://eugene.ompnetwork.org/sessions/189426?embedInPoint=2865&embedOutPoint=6376&shareMethod=link


6

One question you asked is what percentage of the City is “held harmless” from the height/setback allowances brought forward by Councilor Syrett (or ADU height allowances generally). For the regulations we have jurisdiction over (zoning/land use), the ADU standards, including height/setback, apply to all of our base residential zones (R‐1, R‐2, R‐3, and R‐4). These are the proposed ADU standards at EC 9.2751(17). In the Option B ordinance, special area zones either use the ADU standards that apply in the base residential zones or have less restrictive requirements. There are some caveats to that statement, such as the Blair Historic Special Area Zone that have special height standards that apply, but are still less restrictive than the ADU standards. Based on these factors, the number of “held harmless” areas, as implemented by our zoning code, does not really exist. The ADU standards apply broadly throughout zones and special area zones that permit single‐family homes and ADUs under the current proposal.

To your point on whether developers are behind Councilor Syrett’s motion. I cannot speak to the validity of that statement, but as context Councilor Syrett specifically stated last night that her motions were based on testimony from Better Housing Together, which is available in Batch 6 of the testimony here: https://www.eugene‐or.gov/764/Land‐Use‐Code‐Amendments

I hope that helped flush out some of the information you requested. Please let me know if you would like a call or meeting to discuss further or if you want any other clarifications. I will also add this to the record for others to reference.

Thanks,

Jeff Gepper




541.682.5282


From: Nancy Meyer <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:24 AM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: Land use codes


7

[EXTERNAL ]

Hello Jeff,

I'm the chair of the SUNA neighborhood group, and I'm trying to understand ADU and housing proposals as land use codes are unfolding. This is not an area I'm familiar with, so my apologies for coming 'late to the game' here.

I read the agenda/info about ADU heights on your July 12 meeting content. (https://www.eugene‐or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62240/712‐WS‐AIS‐Memo‐‐‐Height‐and‐Notice?bidId=)

However, this doesn't match information I received that there was a motion to increase the height to 15' at the setback and to 25' allowable overall. Both of these are higher than indicated on your chart, unless this is only allowed for ADU's on a slope.

Dramatic proposals changing the code should be stated more clearly somewhere on the City Council site for meeting topics and minutes.

I was not aware of the proposals from Counselor Syrett about raising the height limit for ADU's until the night before the vote. Your Public Information section suggests you alert those neighborhoods impacted by change.


8

As you know, neighborhoods near UO are strongly impacted by ADU's, so changing the allowance to allow two story buildings and 15' walls near lot lines will certainly influence the demographics of these communities.

SUNA is already over 50% rental, and homeowners have no problem with ADU's to support an increase density and affordable rentals in Eugene. However, allowing them to be built so high that they intrude on privacy, light, etc. will impact the value of homes for many and will continue to move our neighborhood into a rental zone.

I realize this is a balancing act the city is working on. However, it seems the Envision Eugene Plan that recognized the importance of preserving neighborhoods is at serious risk here.

And before the NIMBY label is applied to various neighborhoods impacted by these changes, I'd like the city to start being clear that when proposals are described for 'all single family zoned properties' ‐ this doesn't include all those neighborhoods with CC&R's.

It would be helpful to know what percentage of Eugene housing is 'held harmless' from 25' ADU's next door. The density efforts are clearly and increasingly landing on older neighborhoods.

I'd truly be happy to talk with you at your office to better understand these issues and proposals so I can explain them to our community. The lack of time and understanding for public input is frustrating ‐ and the


9

prevailing belief is that developers are behind the more extreme changes.

Thanks for all your time on what I know is a difficult topic.

Nancy Meyer

1135 E 22nd Ave

Eugene, OR 97403

541‐556‐4194


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: Paul Conte <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 3:26 PMTo: HANSEN Alissa HCc: Bill Kabeiseman; JEROME Emily N; *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City ManagerSubject: The City *can* regulate owner-occupancy and off-street parking for ADUs used as short-term rentalsAttachments: ADU_Guidance_updatedSept2019.pdf

[EXTERNAL ]

Alissa, [For the record in CA 18-1] I may have missed it, but I haven't been able to locate any staff comments regarding the fact that the City can require owner-occupancy and off-street parking for "accessory dwellings" that are used for "vacation occupancies."

ORS 197.312(6) Subsection (5) of this section does not prohibit local governments from regulating vacation occupancies, as defined in ORS 90.100, to require owner-occupancy or off-street parking. ORS 90.100(50) “Vacation occupancy” means occupancy in a dwelling unit, not including transient occupancy in a hotel or motel, that has all of the following characteristics: (a) The occupant rents the unit for vacation purposes only, not as a principal residence; (b) The occupant has a principal residence other than at the unit; and (c) The period of authorized occupancy does not exceed 45 days.

It would also be important for the Deputy City Attorney (DCA) to provide the CIty Council with a corrected update to her memo regarding "Council Discretion in Regulating ADUs, in which the DCA erroneously stated: "There are only two types of regulations the Council can include in the code." Obviously, the statutes state otherwise, as does the attached DLCD update of DLCD's "Guidance on Implementing the Accessory DwellingUnits (ADU) Requirement" document. The DCA's document also had several other errors or potentially confusing assertions that need to be corrected or clarified for the council, as I documented in my e-mail below. As I hope you and your staff understand, the expansion of where "accessory dwellings" are allowed and the proposed deregulation of development and lot standards will create a strong incentive to investors to develop new accessory dwellings solely to rent for vacation occupancy, along with the primary dwelling. This effect would worsen housing affordability and serve none of the stated purposes to address housing affordability. In light of the significant extent of the proposed deregulation of accessory dwellings, I would imagine that some councilors would at least want to have a conversation about carving out accessory dwellings that do not provide housing so this short-term rental use would require owner-occupancy. Thank you for ensuring that councilors and citizens are provided with complete and accurate information on the laws regarding accessory dwellings. Thank you. Paul Conte


2

_________________ Earth Advantage Accreditations: * Sustainable Homes Professional * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist _________________ On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 10:41 PM Paul Conte <[email protected]> wrote: July 7, 2021 For the record in City File CA 18-1 Emily, I've reviewed your memo presenting your view of the City Council's "discretionary authority" regarding the "ADU Ordinance" (File CA 18-1). A simpler and more accurate way to describe this topic is simply: What can and cannot Council do in amending the land use code regarding "accessory dwellings." The list of items you addressed is incomplete in several important regards,and some of your explanations need clarification. I hope you will ensure that the City Council is fully and accurately informed regarding the applicable legal requirements. Because of the Planning Division staff's misrepresentation of the law, there is substantial risk that a misinformed Council will rely on these misrepresentations and face a completely unnecessary appeal and remand. 1. The memo stated:

"The Council may adopt code amendments that allow one or several different types of ADUs. While this has not been tested in an appeal, it appears that the Council could amend the code to specify that an ADU must be located within the primary dwelling or completely detached from it." (Italics in original.)

Your advice is correct, AND it has been adjudicated by LUBA, based on your own argument before LUBA. In recapping the City's argument that you presented in LUBA No. 2020-015, LUBA explained that:

"The city points out that ORS 197.312(5) does not require the city to allow all three types of accessory dwellings on every lot that includes a single-family dwelling. Rather, ORS 197.312(5) requires the city to allow "at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling," meaning the city is required to allow an 'interior, attached or detached residential structure."

LUBA affirmed your argument:

"The definition of 'accessory dwelling' also suggests that the legislature understood that not all lots would be able to construct the preferred type of accessory dwelling." LUBA No. 2020-015 Page 11

Councilors should understand that they have an pre-validated "green light" to limit certain situations to allow, for example, only an interior or attached accessory dwelling. 2. The memo stated:

"The Council may adopt reasonable regulations relating to siting. This means that the Council can adopt ADU regulations that dictate where an ADU can be placed on a lot, but not which lots can have an ADU. Permissible regulations in this category include things like required setbacks, a required spatial relationship with the other dwelling, lot coverage limitations." (Italics in original.)


3

To clarify:

As with all of the restrictions on approval criteria for accessory dwellings, the actual requirement is that a prohibited regulation, such as minimum lot size cannot be imposed such that a lot that would allow a detached, single-family dwelling would not allow at least one form of accessory dwelling for every allowed detached, single-family dwelling. This may seem obvious with respect to lot criteria, but the Planning Division staff have seriously misconstrued the prohibition against "density" as an accessory dwelling criterion. Staff have translated this to a completely fabricated and misguided claim that the City cannot count an accessory dwelling when it determines whether a proposed development conforms to a base zone's "maximum density" criterion. Of course, the City Council can always choose to adopt code that doesn't count any variety of housing types -- accessory dwellings, "tiny houses," etc. or it could even count a triplex as two dwellings when determining conformance with a pseudo-density maximum. But such decisions would NOT change the true count of dwellings with respect to other regulations, such as building code, fire code and comprehensive plan policies. Specifically, Planning Division staff are completely misrepresenting the law when it comes to a zone conforming to it's Metro Plan designation as "Low Density Residential," "Medium Density Residential," or "High Density Residential." For example, Planning Division staff are claiming with respect to amendments to the S-JW Zone that a configuration of a single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling on a 4,500 square foot lot has a density of 9.68 dwellings per acre, which is half of the true density of 19.36 du/na. Staff makes this same obvious error when it claims that two single-family dwellings and two accessory dwellings on a 4,500 square foot lot have a density of 19.36 du/na dwellings per acre, which is half of the true density of 38.72 du/na. Because of this error, Planning Division staff are irresponsibly recommending Council approve an ordinance that would clearly conflict with the "Medium Density Residential" Metro Plan designation -- a maximum of 28.56 du/na -- for most of the S-JW Zone district.

3. The memo stated:

"The Council may adopt reasonable regulations relating to design. This means that the Council can adopt ADU regulations that dictate the layout of the ADU or the materials used in the ADU’s fabrication. Permissible regulations in this category include things like size limitations, roof pitch, height limitations, window / façade requirements." (Italics in original.)

To expand the list:

The list of permissible regulations related to design includes limits on the number of bedrooms. The number of bedrooms is perhaps the most fundamental design decision that must be made when a dwelling is designed. However, the number of occupants is not a permissible criterion (as the memo correctly states).

4. The memo stated:

"Any regulations that are applied to an ADU must be “clear and objective.” This means that the City’s ADU approval process cannot involve City discretion. The ADU regulations must be specific enough that an applicant is able to plan and design its ADU proposal to meet the City’s regulations, knowing that the City will approve." (Italics in original.)

To clarify:

The second sentence describing the "meaning" of "clear and objective" is not correct. "Clear" has been interpreted legally as "not ambiguous." If two reasonable individuals with appropriate knowledge would, with high certainty, come to the same conclusion whether or not a proposal meets a requirement, then the regulation is "clear." An "objective" standard is one that covers a condition having a reality independent of perception. The number of dwellings on a lot is clear and objective.


4

How they may be "tallied' against some pseudo-density regulatory criterion may also be a clear and objective standard, but no manner of tallying alters the reality. Also, the City's accessory dwelling approval process can indeed involve discretion as an element in an alternative approval process. However, the City must provide at least one completely clear and objective process. SIDEBAR: As will be addressed in my appeal of the "Clear and Objective" ordinance, the City did not fix several broader development standards, e.g., Willamette Greenway Permit approval criteria, to which accessory dwellings may be required to conform. Consequently, no version of code amendments limited to specific accessory dwelling standards will provide a comprehensive clear and objective approval process for all development applications. The City Council will need to fix that deficiency when the "Clear and Objective" ordinance comes back to the City on remand.

5. The memo stated:

"[T]he City Council cannot, without substantial re-noticing and legal consideration, revise the code in a way that would limit or prohibit uses that are currently allowed on a lot." (Italics in original.)

To clarify:

This is a reference to a so-called "Measure 56" notice requirement found in ORS 227.186(4), which requires "a written individual notice of a land use change to be mailed to the owner of each lot or parcel of property that the ordinance proposes to rezone." ORS 227.186(9) states: "[P]roperty is rezoned when the city ... Adopts ... an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone." The City Attorney and City Council would do well to be reminded that the Planning Division staff entirely misconstrued the statutory meaning of "restricts" in the Measure 49 claim. The Supreme Court upheld the correct interpretation that I argued. The planner who is bungling the handling of amendments to S-JW has attempted to raise the spectre of a M56 claim unless the staff version of the code amendments are adopted. This is both utter B.S. and highly irresponsible in light of the Supreme Court decision on "restricts." The inconvenient fact is that there are elements of staff's proposed amendments related to the base zones that might be construed as requiring broader notice under staff's misrepresentation of ORS 227.186(9).

6. The memo stated:

"The City Council cannot revise the code in a way that would cause the allowable density in a zone to fall below the minimum density required for its area, as set out in the Metro Plan." (Italics in original.)

To expand and clarify:

This is another requirement that is being blatantly misrepresented by Planning Division staff in their relentless effort to double the density of the S-JW Zone. The most important thing to know is that the S-JW Zone's conformance with the Medium Density Residential designation has not only been affirmed unanimously by the City Council, it has also been enshrined specifically as policies in the comprehensive plan. That should settle the question. Staff's meritless attack is based on not counting accessory dwellings in evaluating conformance with the plan designation. See above comments debunking of that ruse. Staff also attempts to use narrow, specific cases where some lots may not be developable at 14.28 du/na, the MDR range minimum. But a zone's conformance with the plan designation doesn't require every lot to be developable within the designation range. This was true of the initial (and current) S-JW standards; and the City Council's adopted findings, acknowledged by DLCD, relied upon a lot-specific analysis -- verified by Planning


5

Division staff -- that the minimum level of allowable development under S-JW in aggregate was 15 du/na, and even more if features such as lot division and "density bonuses" were taken into account. Turning the tables: The City Council cannot revise the code in a way that would cause the allowable density on any lot or development site in a zone to exceed the maximum density designated for its area, as set out in the Metro Plan. Unlike the way zone's must conform to the designation's minimum density requirement in aggregate, a zone must not allow any development to exceed the designation's maximum density limit. Emily should carefully explain this to the City Council because Emily had to settle a DLCD enforcement order that I brought because the CIty was allowing developments under the R-3 Zone that exceed the density of subject lots that were designated MDR. (See attached.) Now staff is proposing precisely that the City again violate the law and raise the allowable density in the S-JW Zone to be in the middle of what's allowed in the R-3 Zone, despite the S-JW area's MDR designation. Mark my words: The City is going to get this ordinance remanded if you adopt a version that conflicts with the Metro Plan designation. The Planning Division staff's wholly fabricated "swindle" that accessory dwellings don't count is going to get laughed out of court.

Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 _________________ Earth Advantage Accreditations: * Sustainable Homes Professional * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist


GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTING

THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) REQUIREMENT

UNDER OREGON SENATE BILL 1051

UPDATED TO INCLUDE HB 2001 (2019)

M. Klepinger’s backyard detached ADU, Richmond neighborhood, Portland, OR. (Photo courtesy of Ellen Bassett and accessorydwellings.org.)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 2018, updated SEPTEMBER 2019


‐2‐ ADU Guidance September 2019

Introduction As housing prices in Oregon go up, outpacing employment and wage growth, the availability of affordable housing is decreasing in cities throughout the state. While Oregon’s population continues to expand, the supply of housing, already impacted by less building during the recession, has not kept up. To address the lack of housing supply, House Speaker Tina Kotek introduced House Bill (HB) 2007 during the 2017 legislative session to, as she stated, “remove barriers to development.” Through the legislative process, legislators placed much of the content of HB 2007 into Senate Bill (SB) 1051, which then passed, and was signed into law by Governor Brown on August 15, 2017 (codified in amendments to Oregon Revised Statute 197.312). In addition, a scrivener’s error1 was corrected through the passage of HB 4031 in 2018.

Among the provisions of SB 1051 and HB 4031 is the requirement that cities and counties of a certain population allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as described below:

a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas within the urban growth boundary that are 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.

This requirement became effective on July 1, 2018 and subject cities

and counties must now accept applications for ADUs inside urban growth boundaries (UGBs).

On August 8, 2019, Governor Brown signed HB 2001, which

established that off‐street parking and owner‐occupancy requirements are not “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.” This means that, even if a local development code requires off‐street parking and owner‐occupancy, as of January 1, 2020, local jurisdictions may not mandate off‐street parking spaces for ADUs nor require a property owner to live in either a primary or

1 The scrivener’s error in SB 1051 removed the words “within the urban growth boundary.” HB 4031 added the words into statute and thus limited the siting of ADUs to within UGBs. As a result, land within a city with a population greater than 2,500 but that is not within a UGB is not required by this law to be zoned to allow accessory dwelling units. For counties with a population greater than 15,000, only those unincorporated areas within a UGB are required by this law to be zoned to allow accessory dwelling units.



accessory dwelling. The law provides an exception for ADUs that are used as vacation rentals, which may be mandated to provide off‐street parking or have owner‐occupancy requirements.

Some local governments in Oregon already have ADU regulations

that meet the requirements of SB 1051 and HB 2001, however, many do not. Still others have regulations that, given the overall legislative direction to encourage the construction of ADUs to meet the housing needs of Oregon’s cities, are not “reasonable.” The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) is issuing this guidance and model code language to help local governments comply with the legislation. The model code language is included at the end of this document.

Guidance by Topic The purpose of the following guidance is to help cities and counties implement the ADU requirement in a manner that meets the letter and spirit of the law: to create more housing in Oregon by removing barriers to development.

Number of Units The law requires subject cities and counties to allow “at least one

accessory dwelling unit for each detached single‐family dwelling.” While local governments must allow one ADU where required, DLCD encourages them to consider allowing two units. For example, a city or county could allow one detached ADU and allow another as an attached or interior unit (such as a basement conversion). Because ADUs blend in well with single‐family neighborhoods, allowing two units can help increase housing supply while not having a significant visual impact. Vancouver, BC is a successful example of such an approach.

Siting Standards In order to simplify standards and not create barriers to development of ADUs, DLCD recommends applying the same or less restrictive development standards to ADUs as those for other accessory buildings. Typically that would mean that an ADU could be developed on any legal lot or parcel as long as it met the required setbacks and lot coverage limits; local governments should not mandate a minimum lot size for ADUs. So that lot coverage requirements do not preclude ADUs from being built on smaller lots, local governments should review their lot coverage standards to make sure they don’t create a barrier to development. Additionally, some jurisdictions allow greater lot coverage for two ADUs. To address storm water concerns, consider limits to impermeable surfaces rather than simply coverage by structures.

Any legal nonconforming structure (such as a house or outbuilding


pault

Highlight


that doesn’t meet current setback requirements) should be allowed to contain, or be converted to, an ADU as long as the development does not increase the nonconformity and it meets building and fire code.

Design Standards Any design standards required of ADUs must be clear and objective

(ORS 197.307[4]). Clear and objective standards do not contain words like “compatible” or “character.” With the exception of ADUs that are in historic districts and must follow the historic district regulations, DLCD does not recommend any special design standards for ADUs. Requirements that ADUs match the materials, roof pitch, windows, etc. of the primary dwelling can create additional barriers to development and sometimes backfire if the design and materials of the proposed ADU would have been of superior quality to those of the primary dwelling, had they been allowed. Other standards, such as those that regulate where entrances can be located or require porches and covered entrances, can impose logistical and financial barriers to ADU construction.

Public Utilities Development codes that require ADUs to have separate sewer and

water connections create barriers to building ADUs. In some cases, a property owner may want to provide separate connections, but in other cases doing so may be prohibitively expensive.

System Development Charges (SDCs)

Local governments should consider revising their SDC ordinances to match the true impact of ADUs in order to remove barriers to their development. In fact, HB 2001, passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2019, requires local governments to consider ways to increase the affordability of middle housing types through ordinances and policies, including waiving or deferring system development charges. ADUs are not a middle housing type, but if a local government is reviewing its SDCs for middle housing, that would be a good time to review ADU SDCs as well. ADUs are generally able to house fewer people than average single‐family dwellings, so their fiscal impact would be expected to be less than a single‐family dwelling. Accordingly, it makes sense that they should be charged lower SDCs than primary detached single‐family dwellings. Waiving SDCs for ADUs has been used by some jurisdictions to stimulate the production of more housing units.



This page intentionally left blank.



Accessory Dwellings (model code)

Accessory dwellings, where allowed, are subject to review and approval through a Type I procedure[, pursuant to Section ,] and shall conform to all of the following standards:

[A. One Unit. A maximum of one Accessory Dwelling is allowed per legal single-family dwelling. The unit may

be a detached building, in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g., above a garage or workshop), or a unit attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or the conversion of an existing floor).

/ A. Two Units. A maximum of two Accessory Dwellings are allowed per legal single-family dwelling. One unit

must be a detached Accessory Dwelling, or in a portion of a detached accessory building (e.g., above a garage or workshop), and one unit must be attached or interior to the primary dwelling (e.g., an addition or the conversion of an existing floor).]

B. Floor Area.

1. A detached Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area, or [75-85]

percent of the primary dwelling’s floor area, whichever is smaller.

2. An attached or interior Accessory Dwelling shall not exceed [800-900] square feet of floor area, or [75-85] percent of the primary dwelling’s floor area, whichever is smaller. However, Accessory Dwellings that result from the conversion of a level or floor (e.g., basement, attic, or second story) of the primary dwelling may occupy the entire level or floor, even if the floor area of the Accessory Dwelling would be more than [800-900] square feet.

C. Other Development Standards. Accessory Dwellings shall meet all other development

standards (e.g., height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) for buildings in the zoning district, except that:

1. Conversion of an existing legal non-conforming structure to an Accessory Dwelling is allowed, provided that the conversion does not increase the non-conformity;

Note: ORS 197.312 requires that at least one accessory dwelling be allowed per detached single-family dwelling in every zone within an urban growth boundary that allows detached single-family dwellings. The statute does not allow local jurisdictions to include off-street parking nor owner-occupancy requirements. Accessory dwellings are an economical way to provide additional housing choices, particularly in communities with high land prices or a lack of investment in affordable housing. They provide an opportunity to increase housing supply in developed neighborhoods and can blend in well with single-family detached dwellings. Requirements that accessory dwellings have separate connections to and pay system development charges for water and sewer services can pose barriers to development. Concerns about neighborhood compatibility and other factors should be considered and balanced against the need to address Oregon’s housing shortage by removing barriers to development.

The model development code language below provides recommended language for accessory dwellings. The italicized sections in brackets indicate options to be selected or suggested numerical standards that communities can adjust to meet their needs. Local housing providers should be consulted when drafting standards for accessory dwellings, and the following standards should be tailored to fit the needs of your community.



2. No off-street parking is required for an Accessory Dwelling;

3. Properties with two Accessory Dwellings are allowed [10-20%] greater lot coverage than that allowed by the zone in which they are located; and

4. Accessory dwellings are not included in density calculations.

Definition (This should be included in the “definitions” section of the zoning ordinance. It matches the definition for Accessory Dwelling found in ORS 197.312)

Accessory Dwelling – An interior, attached, or detached residential structure that is used in connection with, or that is accessory to, a single-family dwelling.


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: JEROME Emily NSent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 3:25 AMTo: HANSEN Alissa H; GEPPER Jeffrey ASubject: Fwd: Gordon Howard's flawed suggestion for a "detached duplex"Attachments: Density Evaluation of the JWN Proposed Amendments for the S-JW Zone.pdf


Emily Newton Jerome Deputy City Attorney x5322 This message is a confidential communication under the attorney‐client or attorney work product privilege. This message should not be forwarded or copied without first checking with me. Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Conte <[email protected]> Date: July 20, 2021 at 8:37:48 PM PDT To: JEROME Emily N <EJerome@eugene‐or.gov> Cc: SEMPLE Emily <ESemple@eugene‐or.gov>, Ted Coopman <[email protected]>, MEDARY Sarah J <SMedary@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: Gordon Howard's flawed suggestion for a "detached duplex"

[EXTERNAL ]

Emily, I'm apprised of Gordon Howard's message regarding "accessory dwellings." Bill Kabeiseman will deal with Gordon's laughable attempt at pseudo-legal interpretations; or as it would be viewed on appeal, if necessary, his attempt to "insert what has been omitted." (BTW, you do realize, of course, that he's claimed that ORS 197.646 requires the City to amend the Metro Plan to make it consistent with his rewriting of the statutes. That simply adds another arrow in the quiver of a potential appeal.) However, I will explain why his proposal to "resolve" "the specific issue on Eugene’s west side [by] designating the two individual detached dwellings on a single lot or parcel as a 'detached duplex'" further displays his ignorance of the code and the law. It appears he's referring to the S-JW Zone's "standard" lot size of 4,500 to 8,999 s.f., on which the current code allows one or two dwellings. Just ask yourself, how would a property owner be allowed to develop only one dwelling with his approach? Obviously, that situation would


2

then have to allow an "accessory dwelling," which is in fact, exactly what the JWN proposal allows: "1 one-family dwelling and optionally 1 accessory dwelling [or] one duplex." Problem solved. No need to bastardize another word in the English language by conjuring up a "detached duplex." The plain ol' real duplex (i.e, as the Eugene Code defines it -- "a building") moots any issue of meeting minimal density. And, if staff were to persist in the bogus "Measure 56" red herring, a detached duplex wouldn't pass muster either. BTW, as the attached analysis demonstrates, the JWN proposal would meet both min and max MDR limits regardless of whether or not "accessory dwellings" are counted. The same cannot be said of the staff proposal because, if the Council were to buy Howard's lame argument, the issue would be decided by LUBA or the Court of Appeals not DLCD or the City Council. At some point it would be helpful if the adults were in the room, but I hold out little hope for that. No need to reply. Paul _________________ Earth Advantage Accreditations: * Sustainable Homes Professional * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist


All residential zones must conform with the comprehensive plan. That includes conforming with the Metro Plan residential density designations.

Most of the area encompassed by the S-JW Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone is designated “Medium Density Residential”; a portion is designated “Low Density Residential.”

The Metro Plan requires conformance with the following density ranges:

Policy A.9 Establish density ranges in local zoning and development regulations that are consistent with the broad density categories of this plan.

Low density: Through 10 dwelling units per gross acre (could translate up to 14.28 units per net acre depending on each jurisdictions implementation measures and land use and development codes)

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) (See page III-A-8)

When the S-JW Zone was approved unanimously by the Eugene City Council and acknowledged by DLCD, the formally adopted findings relied on an lot-specific analysis of the S-JW Zone’s allowable density:

“The proposed zone is consistent with the Metro Plan density range for Medium density [sic] Residential development. The zone will provide for a maximum density level of approximately 15 units per net acre (see detailed density analysis under Goal 10 findings, below, and in testimony submitted by Paul Conte, October 12th, 2009). This policy choice develops a new zone to implement a portion of the medium density refinement plan and Metro Plan designations, consistent with other policy direction established for the areas in each refinement plan, and through the Infill Compatibility Standards process.” See Findings, Page 3.

“Information in the record shows there is currently an overall density of approximately 10 dwelling units per net acre in the S-JW area (Paul Conte, October 12th, 2009). Most of the affected lots contain a single dwelling; some contain duplexes and a small percentage contains multi-family development. The proposed S-JW standards provide for an overall potential density of approximately 15 dwelling units per net acre, according to analysis submitted into the record by Paul Conte and verified by city staff (October 12th, 2009). This figure implements the medium density residential plan designation as described in Metro Plan Policy A9 (see findings above). [Emphasis added.]

“Staff prepared a density comparison map to graphically show the increase in dwellings allowed on each lot under the proposed standards. This map illustrates where additional development would be allowed, based on lot size; the total allowable increase in units is approximately 40% over what exists today.


“Based on the findings above, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.” Ibid. Pages 9-10.

Using the same model that was "verified by city staff," as stated in the adopted findings in the ordinance adopting the S-JW Zone, an analysis was conducted of the JWN proposal for S-JW code amendments that would ensure conformance with statutory requirements for “accessory dwellings.” Because Planning Division staff assert (notably, without any legal basis) that “accessory dwellings” cannot be counted in calculation of density, the analysis was performed for two cases: with and without counting “accessory dwellings.” The results follow:

NET DENSITY

Counting Accessory Dwellings

Total allowed dwellings (without lot divisions): 1,156 current vs. 1,401 with WN proposed amendments -- an increase of 245 dwellings or 21.2%.

Net Density: 14.59 current density would be increased to 17.61 with JWN proposed amendments.

NOT counting Accessory Dwellings

Total allowed dwellings (without lot divisions): 1,156 current vs. 1,252 with WN proposed amendments -- an increase of 245 dwellings or 8.0%.

Net Density: 14.59 current density would be increased to 15.75 with JWN proposed amendments.

GROSS DENSITY

The gross S-JW Zone area is approximately 120 Acres.

Counting Accessory Dwellings

With allowable dwellings of 1,401, the density would be approximately 11.7 dwellings per gross acre.

NOT counting Accessory Dwellings

With allowable dwellings of 1,252, the density would be approximately 10.4 dwellings per gross acre.

CONCLUSION

The JWN proposal for S-JW Zone amendments conforms to the Metro Plan’s Medium Density Residential range both in gross and net ranges, irrespective of whether “accessory dwellings” are counted.

This analysis was conducted on July 17, 2021, by Paul Conte. The analytic model is available for review by contacting Paul Conte at [email protected].


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: GEPPER Jeffrey ASent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 1:20 PMTo: Mckenzie JamesSubject: RE: ADU Land Use Code Amendments

The Council is scheduled to hold another meeting on September 15th at 5:30 during their work session. They could take action during that session. However, there is a chance they will once again not come to a conclusion on the ordinance during that session. If this is the case, another meeting will be scheduled in October. Sorry I can’t provide a more firm set of expectations, but it is difficult to anticipate Council’s decision on this topic. Jeff Gepper Senior Planner (he/him) City of Eugene | Planning & Development jgepper@eugene‐or.gov 541.682.5282 Messages to and from this e‐mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law.

From: Mckenzie James <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:07 AM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: Re: ADU Land Use Code Amendments

[EXTERNAL ]

Hi Jeff, I was so disappointed and frustrated that the Council failed to vote on the ADU Codes at their July 12 meeting. Do you have any idea when we may expect the council to actually do something? Are the council members not aware that what they do affects actual people with real life challenges? It seems that whenever something comes up for the City of Eugene it is a very privileged few that end up deciding how the rest of us will be allowed to live our lives. Thank you for any information you might be able to give me regarding the scheduling of my future. Best, Mckenzie Mckenzie James 3672 Harlow Road Eugene, OR 97401 541‐221‐8682


2

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:52 PM Mary Scarpinato <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeff, Thanks so much for the phone call and your concern. It is much appreciated. Often I feel that no one is listening and I want to let you know that your work and reaching out to me did matter. thanks in advance for submitting the below to the City Council. To the City Council of Eugene, I am 66 years old and ready to retire. However, there is no way I can do so unless I have some source of income other than social security. To this end, I have always planned to turn two rooms in my home into a small apartment to bring me some rental income. I have been unable to do this to date because of the Eugene ADU codes. I have been waiting for what seems like an unacceptable amount of time for the city of Eugene to comply with state law. My architect has drawn up the plans. My contractor has agreed to fit me in. Yet, here I sit awaiting the time when Eugene will allow me to begin construction. Please move forward swiftly and bring Eugene Codes regarding ADUs in line with state law. Eugene is sorely in need of affordable housing, and I am in dire need of additional income in order to retire after 50 years of non-stop work. Thank you, Mckenzie James 3672 Harlow Road Eugene, OR 97401 541‐221‐8682

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:19 PM GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> wrote:

Hi Mckenzie,

Thank you for the phone conversation. I am sorry to hear that the delay in the implementation is affecting your goals and future.

One thing we didn’t discuss was the timeline for implementation. I am working to try and find the soonest date on the City Council’s calendar to bring them an updated ordinance after all the testimony received during and after the public hearing. My goal is to have a work session with the Council in July. However, this does not mean it will be approved at that time, as the Council may request additional changes or time to deliberate on the subject.


3

Thanks again for reaching out.

Jeff Gepper




541.682.5282

COVID‐19 Update: City of Eugene Planning & Development Department offices are operating. However, in order to protect the health and wellbeing of our community I may be working remotely or working non‐traditional hours. We appreciate your patience as our reply to email and voicemail may be slightly more delayed than normal.


From: Mary Scarpinato <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 10:25 AM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Subject: ADU Land Use Code Amendments

[EXTERNAL ]

Dear Mr. Gepper,

I am rather impatiently awaiting changes to Eugene's ADU codes to bring them in compliance with State law. I cannot retire until an apartment in my home is permitted and completed. It is very difficult for me to know my future plans are completely out of my control.

Do you have a sense of when Eugene might finally comply?

Thank you,


4

Mckenzie James

3672 Harlow Road Eugene, OR 97401 541‐221‐8682


1

GEPPER Jeffrey A

From: GEPPER Jeffrey ASent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:14 AMTo: Paul ConteCc: Ted CoopmanSubject: RE: Request for density analysis(es) re "accessory dwelling" code amendments

Good Morning, Just to clarify, you looking for a staff analysis of the estimated number of accessory dwelling units that could be allowed in the S‐JW if staff proposal were to be approved (i.e. a numeric outcome of maximum development potential). If I am correct in my understanding, staff has not performed this type of analysis for the S‐JW, nor any other special area zone, base zone, or neighborhood as it related to complying with state law for accessory dwelling units. Thanks, Jeff Gepper Senior Planner (he/him) City of Eugene | Planning & Development jgepper@eugene‐or.gov 541.682.5282 Messages to and from this e‐mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law.

From: Paul Conte <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 1:32 PM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A <jgepper@eugene‐or.gov> Cc: Ted Coopman <[email protected]> Subject: Request for density analysis(es) re "accessory dwelling" code amendments

[EXTERNAL ]

Jeff, Could you please provide me any analysis(es), whether in final, draft, preliminary, or outline form, that addresses estimated allowable new dwellings and the resulting net and/or gross residential density for the area encompassed by the Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone under different versions of the zone's code, including, but not limited to: a) the current version, b) as would be in effect if staff's proposed code amendments were adopted, and c) as would be in effect if the JWN's most recent proposed code amendments were adopted. If available, I would like analyses under the alternative assumptions for proposed amendments: a) that "accessory dwellings" are counted, versus b) that "accessory dwellings" are not counted. Hopefully, this request is clear. It's important to know how many new dwellings would be allowed under each of the two amendment proposals, both for compliance requirements and for potential benefits and detriments. For any of the above analyses for which there are relevant data files (e.g., Excel), I would like those, as well.


2

As a courtesy, I would appreciate your letting me know when you would be able to provide the requested materials. Thank you. Paul Conte _________________ Earth Advantage Accreditations: * Sustainable Homes Professional * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist


Documents

GEPPER Jeffrey A