City Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 6:18 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Further testimony on Wilson Measure 49 claim Alissa, Please enter this e-mail into the record. I apologize with the multiple e-mails; however, I'm hoping this will allow staff as much time as remains to produce your report. Just when I think I've uncovered most of the problems, something new pops up. In this case, I read an excerpt (item #4) from the staff completeness letter that said, in part: "Under staffs \[sic\]review, it appears that a primary residential use and a secondary dwelling were allowed were allowed under the previous regulation, and that the same uses are allowed under Ordinance No. 20526." Staff's conclusion was correct. However, for some reason, staff did a "180" after Bill Kloos responded that "... under the new regulation, the existing dwelling would have to be decommissioned as a secondary dwelling. This impacts the market value, as reflected in the appraisals." Kloos's comments sidestepped the staff conclusion. The existing structure is currently the primary dwelling and has never been certified as an SDU, so his comment is false and misleading that it would have to be "decommissioned as a secondary dwelling." Just the opposite is true: To use the structure as an SDU, the owner would have to go through an approval process to have it "commissioned" as an SDU in the first place. Furthermore, the appraisals did not mention "decommissioning" in any way, and it is false that a "decommissioning" would impact market value. More importantly, nothing in Kloos's statement addresses the correct point that staff made: Under the current regulations, the owner could develop a primary dwelling and an SDU through a number of different, legal and practical means. For example: A new structure with an attached or detached (new) SDU could be built; the existing structure could be maintained as, or expanded into, a primary dwelling and a new SDU built; the existing structure could be altered to comply with current regulations. Unfortunately, after getting it right at first, staff went off track in the AIS stated went off track, apparently following Kloos's misleading statements. "Stated another way, prior the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Claimants could have converted the existing residence to a detached secondary dwelling unit and constructed another, primary, residence on the subject property. In fact, in June of 2014, Claimants sought a building permit to do just that. However, because Ordinance No. 20526 went into effect on April 12, 2014 (approximately two months prior to the Claimants seeking a 1