[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6126871,"mediaKeyId","2665395-cb3016a177c63dfcfc8938944c9ce1ce","parentId",2665395,"title","Broad housing reform bill SB 974 draws sharp support and opposition over scope of streamlined approvals","audioSeconds",2928,"startMs",2186990,"endMs",5115143,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2665395-cb3016a177c63dfcfc8938944c9ce1ce&start=2186&end=5115","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2665395-cb3016a177c63dfcfc8938944c9ce1ce/thumbnail_2186990.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6126871/Oregon/Broad-housing-reform-bill-SB-974-draws-sharp-support-and-opposition-over-scope-of-streamlined-approvals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6126871-46c75e4ce8e149090ddc8064a8fcc08f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978518&Signature=KXJa1quraBcdmIY8HZ4QcRYeahL3JodtB70g3sRVtwC1dIUxLGgpvCm8gPx0hpt1QC-Y8-5angzFnugO5P0pGMNITOEt5CrMcZIiFqyq04qqse4wW5AIJVBWjY8Ieo5soip5SYF5XbFmc4r0~rbCTfR9pUeQ~kyV28jxQe6ENsKTbRtls15A9tce-xvrUnG44swQZtJNzFzWwNi7nkJTNrA9MPaV241LZP3hT7Cy7vo8pp-rRazFFg5vB9cIrbkSajkn-H2luNfpGfMhEIa1bEmoM8Tx7T~v3UR4vK1LXe0tzofKzLfiEF5zi4ZNR9dhbrkcuhjLWPlliH6u65j17g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-03-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Housing and Development held an extended public hearing Feb. 27 on Senate Bill 974 (dash 1), a package of changes aimed at accelerating housing approvals inside urban growth boundaries and limiting some local review processes.

Senator **** Anderson, the bill sponsor, said the bill builds on prior housing legislation and the governor’s housing goals and seeks to “reduce those barriers, streamline the approval process, and incentivize housing development within our urban growth boundaries.” He told the committee stakeholders had worked with his staff and that a dash‑2 amendment was being drafted to address local government concerns.

Key measures in the dash‑1 amendment, as described by proponents and sponsors, include reclassifying “urban housing applications” as limited land‑use decisions, creating a 120‑day deadline for final engineering and final plat approvals, narrowing some design‑review requirements and authorizing reimbursement of prevailing applicants’ attorney and engineering fees when appeals are overturned. Proponents said these changes would curtail frivolous appeals, reduce unpredictable delays and lower costs.

Supporters included the Oregon Home Builders Association and the Oregon Realtors. Jodi Hack of the Home Builders Association said the bill “is a pragmatic common sense solution that makes the approval process more efficient and predictable.” Jason Mayer of Portland Homes and other builders said long timelines — often three to four years from master plan to first finished home — force developers to pay for engineering and planning earlier and take added risks.

Multiple industry witnesses urged the committee to adopt the bill with the forthcoming technical amendments. Tony Kelly, president of Oregon Realtors, said the bill’s provisions to bar local authorities from requiring specific building materials for aesthetic purposes would remove thousands of dollars in added costs for new homes.

Opponents included the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), 1000 Friends of Oregon, Central Oregon Land Watch and several city officials. Alexandra Ring of the League of Oregon Cities said the base bill “would fundamentally change how our building permitting works” and warned it would increase permit costs, denials and legal risk without further fixes. Jody Hack and others noted ongoing negotiations but requested that the committee allow review of forthcoming amendments.

Central Oregon Land Watch and 1000 Friends of Oregon raised specific concerns that the bill’s definition of “urban housing application” in section 8 could be read to convert broad legislative actions — including comprehensive plan or UGB expansions and zoning map changes — into limited land‑use decisions, which would reduce public hearings and public participation for significant community decisions. Corey Harlan of Central Oregon Land Watch said the bill as written “is not about how to streamline locating housing on lands within UGBs already zoned for residential use” and instead “goes beyond” that scope.

Local city officials described operational issues in applying a strict statutory timeline to iterative engineering and permit reviews. Colin Stevens, Bend’s community and economic development director, explained that building and engineering reviews are typically iterative: “If something is submitted and it is perfect to begin with, we will get it out the door. But if it's not, there's a long back and forth process to make sure that it is.” He warned that making a first review into a hard statutory decision would require denials and re‑submittals, increasing contention.

Several witnesses asked for clarification that the limited‑decision classification apply only to quasi‑judicial, site‑specific applications inside UGBs — not to broad legislative code or comprehensive plan changes. In response, Samantha Baer of the Oregon Home Builders Association, who said she had worked on the draft dash‑2 amendment, told the committee the forthcoming draft would clarify that limited land‑use treatment applies to quasi‑judicial applications on parcels already zoned or planned for residential use inside UGBs, not to comprehensive plan changes.

The committee did not vote. Senators and stakeholders indicated they will continue to negotiate technical fixes; the sponsor said a dash‑2 is under legislative counsel review and anticipated additional amendments and hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Housing and Development 03/17/2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","SB 974 (dash 1) would reclassify many housing approvals as limited land‑use decisions, set 120‑day timelines for engineering and plat approvals and curb some local design review; supporters said the bill will speed housing while opponents warned it could restrict public participation and sweep in high‑impact land‑use changes.","taxTitle","Housing and Development, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17873,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6126875,"Senate panel hears support and concerns for 45‑day permit ‘shot clock’ in SB 6",2195,5760,2201205,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2665395-cb3016a177c63dfcfc8938944c9ce1ce&start=5&end=2201","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2665395-cb3016a177c63dfcfc8938944c9ce1ce/thumbnail_5760.jpg","/articles/6126875/Oregon/Senate-panel-hears-support-and-concerns-for-45day-permit-shot-clock-in-SB-6","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6126875-4bb349755b0a526ba6200209f9cf6e57/orig.mp4?Expires=1770978518&Signature=jJvO9tWXWZ5nGwnmp939yZ~NVTD3Nsj~g7XUs3myqTNlzgKTtbis08awVxUxYpOq-HMThyCgjtUNtZShX5xjaIQZzRz4Gio9QZbvEEQiSS~~urpvnNB8s-j62BGC0sRFgsLzaVu9iLo3~3ypTrsyWtcfl5aWbp7D7u6JSJaCw7eBMUxbak6wdFjI7vCDPCyxB0t3ulz7h9PxfaRQZ70Z-fBsDUkMjR5I6OIumv049Cb8Q8PwE0Li-MeL~qiunGApDRZiMkMZZ5nGbC2ST4BCF~tm-orVFx1HefI-F75D3blrp6mBWpLh49zLRJcD-Yoh13YKFkM6Umf9tWwF1-18rg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Oregon Senate Committee on Housing and Development opened a public hearing Feb. 27 on Senate Bill 6, which would require agencies and officials who administer the state building code to approve or deny a complete building‑permit application within 45 days.

The measure drew backing from home builders and trade groups, who said permitting delays drive up project costs and slow housing production. Senator **** Anderson (Senate District 5), the bill sponsor, described SB 6 as a targeted timeline for residential permits: “Simply put, SB 6 will put for a 45 day time cap on housing building permits in Oregon.”

Proponents said the change would create predictability for builders and reduce holding and financing costs. Zach Lindahl of Multifamily Northwest said delays increase interest, labor and material costs and “a streamlined permitting process will help developers bring badly needed housing online sooner.” Deb Flagan, vice president of Hayden Homes and Simplicity Homes, told the committee her companies have pulled building permits in 130 of Oregon’s roughly 242 cities and reported wide variance in review time: 50 cities (about 42%) completed permits in fewer than 45 days while others took 60 to 300 days. “A 45 day time limit for permit reviews would have a direct and immediate impact on Oregon’s housing crisis,” Flagan said.

Builders and local developers repeated that permitting unpredictability raises project costs and curbs housing supply. Travis Snyder, owner of Snyder Creek Development, said the bill “doesn’t lower any standards and it doesn’t cut any corners. It simply ensures accountability in the permitting process.”

Opponents — including the Oregon Building Officials Association (OBOA), the city of Eugene, the League of Oregon Cities and the Association of Oregon Counties — urged caution and changes, saying the bill as introduced is too broad and fails to account for approvals outside building departments. Matt Rozelle, the building official for Clackamas County speaking for OBOA, said the bill “should apply to single family and residential lots and middle housing only,” and that it does not consider other approvals such as land use or work by the Oregon Department of Transportation. Eugene intergovernmental relations manager Ethan Nelson said the state lacks statewide data showing the problem is systemic and requested more municipal input before broad statutory changes.

County and city officials also raised practical concerns. Brandon Persinger of the Association of Oregon Counties said counties must follow the state building code and that “if the state would like county building officials to process building permits faster, the Building Codes Division needs to require the review of less materials.” Alexandra Ring of the League of Oregon Cities said many applications arrive incomplete and staff often work with applicants to reach final approval; she warned the bill would increase costs, denials and legal risk unless revised.

Senator Anderson and witnesses acknowledged changes are coming: the sponsor said a dash‑1 amendment intends to narrow scope and clarify completeness standards, and participants referenced planned further technical edits. The committee was also told by legislative staff that no statewide statutory timeline for all building‑permit decisions currently exists in statute, though rules or local practices may set timelines in some jurisdictions.

The hearing record shows a split between industry groups pushing for a hard timeline to reduce carrying costs and local governments urging narrower scope, clearer definitions of a “complete” application and coordination with outside agencies. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing and invited additional written comment and follow‑up amendments.

Details drawn from testimony include the bill’s 45‑day limit for building permits and an element in the sponsor’s description that would require special jurisdictions such as ODOT to act on their portion of an application within 10 business days. Supporters and opponents said they would continue negotiating changes in forthcoming amendments.","Supporters told the Senate Committee on Housing and Development that a 45‑day limit for residential building‑permit decisions would cut costs and speed housing delivery; building officials and cities warned the bill as introduced is too broad and does not account for other required reviews.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Broad housing reform bill SB 974 draws sharp support and opposition over scope of streamlined approvals

Senate panel hears support and concerns for 45‑day permit ‘shot clock’ in SB 6