The House Committee on Housing and Homelessness on May 21 adopted the A‑8 amendment to Senate Bill 974A and voted to move the bill to the House floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

Committee Chair Marsh opened the work session on SB 974A and called for proponents to explain recent amendments. Samantha Baer of the Oregon Home Builders Association described the A‑8 as addressing “final major concerns” raised by cities and said the amendment narrows eligibility to areas that are “primarily residential in nature.”

The amendment creates a new, separate statutory chapter that mirrors the limited land use decision process to allow an expedited review for upzoning in residential or planned‑for‑residential areas while avoiding conflicts with other land‑use statutes. Baer said the goal was to preserve comprehensive plan requirements such as transportation planning while allowing a more streamlined decision timetable.

Alexandra Ring, who spoke for proponents in the hearing, told the committee that mixed‑use zoning is defined differently by city code and is “not necessarily defined in statute,” and said the bill’s intent is to target zones where standalone residential uses are allowed. Ring said proponents would place legislative intent on the record and provide a joint floor letter to clarify remaining ambiguities.

Members pressed on several substantive points. Representative Fragola asked whether “mixed residential use” has a legal definition; Ring reiterated it varies by city and said proponents will clarify intent. Representative Gamba raised tree‑canopy and stormwater concerns, asking whether the amendment would undermine local tree codes or stormwater controls. Baer and other proponents responded that the amendment does not eliminate local comprehensive plan or land‑use requirements, that canopy requirements tied to multifamily development had been removed from the bill, and that protections for state and federal water quality were retained after discussions with Clean Water Services.

The amendment also removed the section addressing attorney’s fees and, earlier, engineering fees; proponents said existing law would control any award of fees in litigation (for example, a writ of mandamus) and that the bill now references existing fee law rather than creating new fee entitlements.

Vice Chair Breese Iverson moved adoption of the A‑8 amendment. A roll call on the amendment recorded several ayes and one explicit no; the chair announced the amendment adopted. Vice Chair Breese Iverson then moved SB 974A as amended to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation; the committee voted and the motion passed.

The committee transcript shows both discussion and formal actions: proponents described the substance of the A‑8 changes, members asked for clarifications about scope, trees and stormwater, and the committee adopted the amendment and advanced the bill. The measure now proceeds to a floor vote, with Vice Chair Breese Iverson listed as the member who will carry the bill on the House floor.

Looking ahead, Chair Marsh asked members to prepare interim ideas for housing work the committee may take up before the next session.