Agenda Packet 1-21-20 Work Session

Home Browse Search

January 21, 2020, Work Session – Item 1 was expressed by some that Eugene is not doing enough to comply with the intent of the 2017 law. Testimony from others expressed concern that the actions could reduce existing neighborhood protections. A link to the written testimony is provided at Attachment F to this AIS. Council action on the draft ordinance was originally scheduled for June 2019; however, the work session was postponed to allow two pending actions regarding accessory dwellings to be resolved at the State level. On June 6, 2019, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals issued an Order in another case challenging the City’s standards. On June 30, 2019, the Oregon Legislature adopted House Bill 2001 (“2019 law”) which amended the 2017 law. These actions and their impact on the draft ordinance are discussed below. LUBA Order (June 6, 2019) For purposes of the council’s work session, it is sufficient to summarize LUBA’s order in LUBA No. 2019-028 as follows: a proposal to build a second rental dwelling on the same lot as an existing rental dwelling meets the 2017 law’s definition of an “accessory dwelling unit” because location on the same lot is sufficient to show the second dwelling will be “used in connection with” the first. The City’s land use code must be revised as necessary to apply only reasonable regulations relating to siting and design to such a proposal. In this case, LUBA rejected the City’s interpretation of the 2017 law’s definition of “accessory dwelling unit.” The City’s decision (a Zone Verification) found the applicant’s proposal to build a second house did not meet the definition because the second house would not be “accessory to or used in connection with” the existing rental house on the site, as the law’s definition requires. The City pointed out that the houses would be rented separately without their shared landlord onsite, that there would be no physical connection between the two rental houses and no shared facilities. LUBA imposed a different interpretation of the law’s definition. LUBA found that a second rental houses’ location on the same lot as the existing dwelling is enough of a “connection” to satisfy the state law’s “very low threshold for establishing a connection.” No additional “connection” is necessary for the law to apply. LUBA took particular issue with the City’s notion that owner-occupancy could establish the required connection. LUBA made it clear that “neither residence must be occupied by the owner in order for the residential use of the two structures to be in connection with each other.” The City appealed LUBA’s decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals. However, after the legislature passed HB 2001 on June 30, 2019, the City voluntarily dismissed the appeal because the 2019 law makes it even clearer that the legislature intends to prohibit cities from requiring owner-occupancy (see discussion of the 2019 law, below). In light of LUBA’s Order, staff recommends elimination of all owner occupancy requirements pertaining to location of a second dwelling on a lot. Based on the council’s pre-hearing straw poll, this change was already incorporated into the draft ordinance. See draft ordinance at Attachment A to this AIS. 2019 Law / House Bill 2001 (June 30, 2019) The 2019 legislature revised the 2017 law in two ways. First, it adds an explicit prohibition on city regulations that require owner-occupancy. Second, it adds an explicit prohibition on city