Oregon City attorneys brief planning commissioners on 2024–25 land‑use legislation; warn of legal and implementation uncertainty

Missy Ryan, assistant city attorney for Oregon City, presented a high‑level overview of multiple 2024 and 2025 state land‑use bills to the Oregon City Planning Commission on Aug. 25, 2025, outlining new requirements that staff said will change how the city reviews many housing and development applications.

Ryan told commissioners the changes range from mandatory waivers of local design standards on certain housing projects to new deadlines for post‑entitlement engineering review, and include provisions that nullify private covenants that prohibit middle housing. She said the city has begun internal work and expects rule‑making and legal uncertainty to continue as state agencies and courts interpret the new laws.

Why it matters: The measures discussed affect how the city permits and conditions new housing, how many neighbors must be notified of certain proposals, and what review standards the city may apply. Planning staff said several provisions are ambiguous and will require code work, interagency coordination and close monitoring of state rule‑making.

Ryan began by describing the Housing Accountability and Production Office (HAPO) process tied to Senate Bill 1537 (2024), saying Oregon City submitted an exemption request that is under HAPO review. The exemption process, she said, allows cities to demonstrate that their existing waiver procedures are not unduly burdensome so the city need not follow the bill’s automatic waiver rules if the exemption is granted.

On Senate Bill 974 (2025), Ryan said the statute requires cities to waive specified design standards for qualifying housing applications. She listed design elements named in the statute — facade materials and patterns, roof form or decoration, accessory materials and finishes, garage entry materials, window elements, fence types and porch size or design — and warned members the bill is not clear whether the list is exhaustive.

“This legislation in particular is not a model of clarity,” Ryan said during the discussion, responding to commissioners’ questions about fences and garage standards.

Ryan said SB 974 creates a new ‘‘urban housing application’’ track for certain zone changes, planned unit developments (PUDs) and variances. Those applications will be processed with a smaller notice radius — 100 feet — and, where a hearing would formerly be required, the city will instead allow an initial 14‑day public comment period with a single appeal to the city commission. The bill also establishes a 30‑day completeness review and a 120‑day review clock for post‑entitlement engineering and building permits; the engineering clock provision becomes operative on July 1, 2026, Ryan said.

On House Bill 2138 (2025) — the large omnibus housing bill Ryan described as 53 sections — staff highlighted multiple items: elimination of traffic study and off‑site exaction requirements for middle‑housing developments of 12 units or fewer (or where lots were created in the prior five years), bonus units when ADA‑type A or affordable units are proposed within duplexes/triplexes, expanded allowance for single‑room occupancy (SRO) units, and a provision that voids recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) that prohibit middle housing. Ryan said the CC&R provision does not eliminate an HOA’s ability to levy dues or address routine property maintenance; it specifically voids private restrictions that prohibit middle housing on a lot.

Ryan said some provisions of HB 2138 do not take effect until Jan. 1, 2027, a timing that she and staff expect will allow for litigation and rule‑making that could clarify how cities apply the law.

Ryan summarized additional bills and rule‑making tasks assigned to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Department of Administrative Services/building codes division: defining ‘‘unreasonable cost or delay’’ for ADU and SRO approval, amending discretionary criteria for alternative review tracks, developing preapproved building plans and model system development charge rules, and incentivizing cottage‑cluster housing. She said LCDC and state rule‑making will require monitoring over the next two years.

Ryan also reminded commissioners of Oregon’s public meetings and public records rules. She said the Oregon Government Ethics Commission has taken a strict view of serial communications and that electronic exchanges among a quorum — even serial texts or emails — can constitute a public meeting. She warned that violations of public meetings law can expose officials to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation and urged commissioners to consult city attorneys when in doubt.

Staff reaction and next steps: Planning staff told the commission the city is cataloguing which code standards may be affected and will meet internally in September to prepare targeted amendments and guidance for applicants. Ryan and city staff said they will share more detailed direction with commissioners as state agencies complete rule‑making and the HAPO renders decisions on exemption requests.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to continue regular updates and to prepare materials for public notification and the city commission. Ryan said staff and the city attorney’s office will assist commissioners and neighborhood groups as questions arise during implementation.