Home Builders Association v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.312(5), when a city applies existing ADU standards for the first time to zones in which ADUs were not previously allowed, those existing standards are subject to review for compliance with the statute.

Petitioner appeals two ordinances that amend the Eugene Code (EC) in order to implement amendments to an existing statute. In 2017, the Oregon legislature enacted Senate Bill 1051 (SB 1051), now codified at ORS 197.312(5), which requires certain cities and counties to allow “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.” In June 2018, the city adopted Ordinances 20594 and 20595 (the Ordinances), which (1) amended the EC to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in zones in which ADUs were not previously allowed (New Zones), and (2) incorporated for ADUs in the New Zones the existing standards that applied to ADUs in the zones in which they were previously allowed. These appeals followed.

In Homebuilders Association of Lane County (HBA) and Housing Land Advocates’ (HLA) first assignments of error, these petitioners argue the city failed to evaluate existing EC standards for ADUs and eliminate those that are not “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design” before July 1, 2018, the delayed “operative date” of SB 1051. The city responds and LUBA agrees that, because SB 1051 is silent regarding any requirement, much less deadline, for a city to amend its land use regulations to comply with its provisions, and because LCDC has not adopted any rules specifying a time period for implementation of SB 1051, the city has not improperly construed the law.

In various other assignments of error, petitioners argue several existing EC standards are inconsistent with ORS 197.312(5)’s requirement to “allow” ADUs because (1) some prohibit ADUs on certain types of lots, (2) some are not “regulations relating to siting and design,” and (3) some which are “regulations relating to siting and design” are not “reasonable.” In response, the city argues that, because it did not intend to fully implement ORS 197.312(5) with the adoption of the Ordinances, but rather only intended to amend the EC to “allow” ADUs in partial compliance with ORS 197.312(5), the existing EC standards are not reviewable by LUBA to determine whether they are “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.” HBA and HLA respond and LUBA agrees that, since the city applied the existing standards to a new use—ADUs in the New Zones—for the first time, those existing standards are subject to review for compliance with ORS 197.312(5). However, since the city’s decision does not address and the city adopted no findings evaluating whether the existing EC standards are “reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design” within the meaning of ORS 197.312(5), remand is appropriate for the city to determine whether the existing EC standards that the city applied to the New Zones fall within ORS 197.312(5)’s allowance for local regulation of ADUs. HBA and HLA’s first assignments of error are therefore sustained, in part, and the city’s decision is REMANDED.