House committee hears changes to SB 974A: shot clocks, up‑zoning process and temporary design‑review waivers

The House Committee on Housing and Homelessness opened a public hearing May 19 on Senate Bill 974A, a package of amendments that would set engineering “shot clocks,” create a fast‑track process for certain residential up‑zones and temporarily limit some local design‑review requirements.

The changes in the A5 amendment would lengthen completeness and review deadlines for engineering approvals, allow applicant‑requested extensions, push an operative date to July 1, 2026, and add a temporary waiver of some aesthetic design standards through the end of 2032, proponents told the committee.

Why it matters: Supporters say the bill would shorten the time between entitlement and construction for housing projects already inside urban growth boundaries. Cities and preservation groups warned the committee that language on mixed‑use zones, notice and design waivers needs tightening to protect infrastructure, jobs land and historic neighborhoods.

The amendment would align engineering review timing with existing land‑use shot‑clock statutes, increasing the completeness review from 14 days to 30 days and the full review from 90 days to 120 days, with applicant‑controlled extensions “up to 245 days,” Legislative Counsel Robert Margaret explained to the committee. The amendment also removes engineering fees from potential recovery under the bill’s attorney‑fee provisions, proponents said.

Samantha Baer, with the Oregon Home Builders Association and the Oregon Property Owners Association, said the package is designed to “streamline up zoning” for residential parcels and to limit the bill’s reach to rezones that increase density. She told the panel the amendment removes ability to lower minimum density and that proponents had “made clear that that does cannot waive important siting criteria like setbacks, or building height.”

Hayden Homes Vice President Deborah Fleggen described how developers expect the bill to speed building timelines. “We believe that right now, it's it's taking between 3 and 4 years to have that happen by using SB's 9 74 shot clocks, the hundred and 20 days time frame. We believe that this would reduce it down to 2 years in regards to the time that you'd be able to start your first home,” Fleggen told the committee.

Cities and land‑use attorneys pressed for clarifications about up‑zones that change a zone map color that also serves as a comprehensive plan map in some jurisdictions. Chris Crane, a land‑use attorney, said: “you can't apply your comprehensive plan in the context of a limited land use decision,” and explained sponsors intend a new, separate statutory section that would look like the limited‑decision procedure but expressly allow application of the comprehensive plan for these residential zone changes.

Representative questions focused on how the expedited process would work in practice. Crane and others said the amendment would allow many residential up‑zones to be decided administratively (type 2 staff decision), with local jurisdictions able to provide an internal appeal if they choose. The committee also heard that statutory notice minima would remain in place: as explained by Crane, current ORS notice rules require notifying property owners within 100 feet inside a city, 250 feet for sites inside a UGB but outside the city, and 500 feet for sites outside the UGB.

Preservation and neighborhood advocates asked the committee to preserve local design protections. Nicole Posard, executive director of Restore Oregon, said the enrolled language that previously limited the design‑review waiver to projects of 20 lots or more had been altered and asked the committee to restore the 20‑lot threshold to avoid exposing smaller historic neighborhoods to waivers. Sam Baer said the dash‑5 text had been changed to focus on 20 units and acknowledged past confusion between “lots” and “units.”

Other points discussed: - Effective date and litigation: Representatives asked how the seven‑year design‑waiver sunset would work if the law is litigated. Legislative Counsel said the law that applies when an application is submitted would govern that application while it is pending, even if litigation continues for multiple years. - Scope limits: Sponsors repeatedly stressed the amendment is limited to residential up‑zones (increasing density) and is not intended to allow waivers of state or federal public‑health or water‑quality requirements; Baer said the bill “definitely [is] not trying to do that.” - Mixed‑use employment zones: Cities urged tightened language so primarily commercial zones are not converted to predominant residential use.

The committee carried over two work sessions (SB 586A and SB 974A) to its next meeting on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, and closed the public hearing on SB 974A after public testimony from builders, city representatives, preservation groups and land‑use advocates.

Looking ahead: Sponsors said a dash‑6 amendment was already in preparation to fix remaining ambiguities on fee recovery language, the threshold for design‑review waivers and mixed‑use zone text. The committee is expected to take up the amended bill at the May 21 meeting.