Philomath planning commission receives training on bias, ex parte and new housing laws; staff warned to adopt clear, objective code changes

City attorney Ashley DeGill led a joint work session training for the Philomath City Council and Planning Commission on July 28, covering Oregon land‑use fundamentals, quasi‑judicial standards, ex parte contacts, conflicts of interest, and several 2025 legislative changes that are expected to change how local housing applications are handled.

“Oregon has 19 statewide planning goals,” DeGill said in her overview of the statutory framework that informs local comprehensive plans, zoning and land‑use decisions. She stressed that local plans and ordinances must be consistent with those state goals and that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) acknowledges local comprehensive plans.

Quasi‑judicial procedures, bias and ex parte contacts

DeGill distinguished legislative actions (policy choices) from quasi‑judicial actions, which require neutral adjudication. Drawing on LUBA (the Land Use Board of Appeals) decisions, she described conduct that can suggest bias or animus and advised officials on judicial review risks. "Bias exists if a decision was the product of positive or negative bias rather than independent review of the facts and law," she said.

DeGill defined ex parte contacts broadly (site visits, unsolicited emails or off‑record conversations) and instructed that officials must disclose the substance of such contacts on the record during a hearing; multiple or substantive ex parte contacts can create an appearance of bias that LUBA will review on appeal.

Conflict of interest and public‑meeting rules

DeGill explained the difference between an actual conflict (which requires recusal) and a potential conflict (which requires disclosure but does not mandatorily require recusal). She also reviewed Oregon public‑meeting law, warning that serial communications (email chains or intermediated messages) can constitute a public meeting and should be avoided; staff and managers are appropriate conduits for scheduling and non‑deliberative information.

Appeals, remand and recordkeeping

Officials were reminded of key timing rules: the local process must preserve a complete evidentiary record for appeals and interested parties generally have 21 days to appeal final local decisions to LUBA; the 120‑day rule for final local action also applies. DeGill advised staff to request applicant extensions in writing if the city approaches statutory deadlines.

2025 legislative changes and local implications

DeGill summarized recent bills likely to affect local land‑use practice: Senate Bill 974 (establishing timelines and expanding the list of limited land‑use decisions), House Bill 2138 (expanding middle housing permissibility and requiring clear/objective standards for housing and tree removal), and HB 3144 (limiting enforceability of private covenants that bar ADUs or manufactured housing in some contexts). She warned that the changes may move some up‑zones, PUDs and other actions to staff‑level decisions or the limited land‑use process, reducing opportunities for local hearings unless local code retains appeal paths.

Council and commissioner response and next steps

Commissioners asked how the city’s code and practices should adapt to remain compliant while preserving public engagement; DeGill recommended drafting clear and objective criteria (which can be time‑consuming and require expert input) and said staff can bring draft code changes for public work sessions and formal hearings. No code changes were adopted at the meeting; staff will follow up with draft language and a schedule for public review.

"If you think that…you're potentially involved somehow, then again, it's just better to over‑disclose," DeGill advised, urging transparency and pre‑hearing disclosure when contacts or relationships might create an appearance of bias.

The session concluded with announcements and scheduling for future council and planning commission meetings.