Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />February 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 <br />Group 2: Denoted with a yellow symbol on Attachment A, staff requests City Council discussion of these regulations due to uncertainty of the regulations’ relationship to siting or design, or its reasonableness. While staff attempted to identify the relationship of each to siting or design, council should weigh in on that question. Staff is seeking council direction as to whether the regulation should be moved into the green group or into the red group for purposes of preparing the remand ordinance for public hearing. <br />Group 3: Denoted with a red symbol on Attachment A, staff believes these regulations will be found by a court to be unrelated to siting or design, or to be an unreasonable regulation. For that reason, staff recommends that the regulation be shown as eliminated from the code in the proposed ordinance and recommend City Council carefully consider public testimony addressing the regulation for its final decision. The intended process for the work session is to first discuss, if needed, any items council wishes to specifically address from Group 1, then to discuss each regulation from Groups 2 and 3 with a straw poll to clarify council’s intent with respect to each of those regulations. The attached matrix (Attachment A) addresses the regulations raised in the LUBA appeal and includes a brief summary of each regulation, applicable Eugene Code sections, and an initial staff evaluation as to whether it relates to siting or to design, and the City’s policy reason for the regulation. The policy reason for the regulation is intended to assist council in considering whether the regulation is reasonable. The terms “reasonable,” “siting” and “design” are not defined in state law or in the Eugene Code, nor is there any useful textual, contextual or legislative history of the terms associated with Senate Bill 1051. In these circumstances, the City Attorney’s office recommends the council use the same definitions a court would use, those from the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002). Based on that advice, staff suggest council use the following definitions. “Site” (“siting” is not defined) is defined as relevant here to mean “the local position of building, town, monument or similar work either constructed or to be constructed, esp. in connection with its surroundings;” “a space of ground occupied by or to be occupied by a building;” and “land made suitable for building purposes by dividing into lots, laying or streets and providing facilities (as water, sewers, power supply).” Given this definition and the new law’s explicit grant of local regulation, it would be reasonable to find that “regulations relating to siting” include both: (1) regulations that specify the necessary lot characteristics for the siting of an accessory dwelling; and (2) regulations that specify where, on such a lot, an accessory dwelling may be sited. “Design” is defined as “a scheme for the construction, finish, and ornamentation of a building as embodied in the plans, elevations, and other architectural drawings pertaining to it.” It would be reasonable, for example, to find that “regulations relating to design” include regulations that address height and size. “Reasonable” is defined as “being or remaining within the bounds of reason; not extreme; not excessive ***; not demanding too much.” While it there is no way to know how a court will apply this definition (e.g. “reasonable” from whose perspective?), staff suggest the council incorporate it into the analysis by considering whether a regulation is so important for addressing a legitimate government concern that it justifies the limitation it may place on the number of accessory dwelling units that may be established in the City.