Senate committee hears bill to require continuing education for land use planners

Senate Committee on Housing and Development members held a public hearing Feb. 19 on Senate Bill 462, introduced by Sen. Suzanne Weber, which would require the Oregon Business Development Department (Business Oregon) to develop a continuing-education course for land use planners in local governments, special districts and state agencies and require completion of the course every two years.

Supporters said the course is intended to reduce conflicts between planners and applicants and to help planners better understand the economics and on-the-ground realities of building housing. "It's a simple bill that would require that the Oregon Business Development Department create a continuing education course for land use planners that would cover important information such as the impact of regulation on the project, the benefits of homeownership and economic principles around development," Weber said.

The bill, as described by proponents, would not create a new licensing regime. Samantha Baer of the Oregon Property Owners Association told the committee SB 462 is narrowly focused on "bridg[ing] the gap of education about home building, the economics of home building and development" and is not intended to replace existing coursework such as that offered through the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). "Oregon currently does not have a licensure and a licensing regulatory body for planners the way that we have the bar," Baer said, adding the measure "does not do that." Baer and Jody Hack, testifying for the Property Owners Association, said they plan to work with stakeholders on technical amendments, including clarifying instructor qualifications, removing unintended exemptions and removing references to testing.

Several municipal and county officials asked for more detail about who would develop and deliver the training and how it would be administered. Alexandra Rang of the League of Oregon Cities said planners in Oregon are already "under resourced and over capacity" and urged that the course design and delivery avoid adding a burdensome new workload. "We have quite the unique system and ... they are already under resourced and over capacity," Rang said. Brandon Persinger of the Association of Oregon Counties said AOC is continuing conversations with bill proponents and hoped an amendment would address county planning departments' concerns.

Builders and industry groups testified in favor, saying on-site exposure and practical examples can change planners' perspectives. Home builder Justin Wood described taking senior planners to a middle-housing job site and said "it was like a light bulb went off" when planners saw practical implications of code provisions. Rich Angstrom, president of the Oregon Concrete Aggregate Producers Association, said his members work regularly with planning processes and supported additional training to reduce delays and appeals.

The Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association, represented by Heather Rockwell, said it was opposed to the bill as introduced and had only recently connected with proponents; the chapter indicated it will provide written testimony outlining specific concerns but is open to amendments. Proponents acknowledged outreach and said they expect to refine instructor qualifications, scope, and delivery options (including online/self-paced formats) in forthcoming amendments.

The committee took no final action on SB 462 at the hearing; members asked staff and bill proponents to provide more detail and potential amendment language. Senators and testifiers stressed the bill’s stated aim — to reduce bureaucratic delays and improve housing outcomes — while acknowledging it would be one of many complementary approaches to increasing housing supply.

Next steps: sponsors said they will work with stakeholders to draft technical amendments addressing instructor qualifications, scope exclusions and format options and will return the bill to the committee for further consideration.