Lawmakers hear wide support and some builders’ concerns on accessibility standards for new housing

The Senate Committee on Housing and Development held a lengthy Feb. 5 public hearing on Senate Bill 444, a proposal that would require the director of the Department of Business and Consumer Services to adopt rules aligning the state building code with accessibility requirements under the federal Fair Housing Act and certain ANSI standards, and would bar the Housing and Community Services Department from funding new subsidized rental developments that do not meet those accessibility standards.

Sen. Deb Patterson, the bill's sponsor, told the committee that the state faces a growing need for accessible housing as the population ages and as a substantial share of households include people who use mobility aids. “Accessible housing is also important for older adults,” Patterson said, and she argued retrofits are costly and limited in effect compared with building accessibility in from the start.

Rep. Courtney Nieron, a co-chief sponsor, and multiple housing‑and‑disability advocates testified in support. Jennifer Knapp, executive director of Community Vision, said developers who plan accessibility from the outset report little-to-no added cost and sometimes realize construction efficiencies. She cited a Portland project, Legion Commons, which the proponents said included 11 Type A (fully accessible) units and whose designers reported minimal extra cost when accessibility was integrated into the project design.

Speakers from Disability Rights Oregon, Barrier Free Oregon, the Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities, Northwest Pilot Project and other advocacy groups described personal experiences and broader research showing a severe mismatch between need and supply. Testimony included these figures: under current national-model building codes applied in Oregon, only about 2% of units in buildings of 20 or more units are required to meet accessibility standards; when single-family and smaller buildings are counted, advocates said that amounts to roughly 0.2% of the state’s total housing stock. Advocates argued SB 444 is a modest but necessary step to raise that supply over time.

Builders and housing providers expressed general support for increased accessibility but also raised concerns about costs and feasibility in certain building types. Zach Lindahl and Multifamily Northwest said the industry broadly supports accessibility goals but warned that added requirements could increase development costs and risk reducing supply. Scott Barry of the Oregon Home Builders Association said one provision as drafted could be read to require elevators in some middle‑housing conversions (three‑ or four‑unit stacked buildings), a change he said could add tens of thousands of dollars per building and discourage such modest-scale infill projects.

Committee members pressed on data and implementation. Mary Kyle McCurdy of 1000 Friends of Oregon said the state lacks comprehensive data on current accessible units and that ONA (the Oregon needs analysis and housing production work) is proceeding alongside code and funding changes. Several committee members and witnesses asked OHCS and building‑code staff to work with proponents on language and implementation details to avoid unintended consequences for small‑scale development while improving accessibility for people with disabilities.

The hearing featured multiple personal accounts from people with disabilities who said accessible housing options are scarce; speakers described being forced to modify units at personal cost, to decline visits with friends who worry about taking accessible units, or to live in housing that risks falls and injury. Several witnesses urged the committee to move forward with SB 444 while refining details to limit undue cost burdens on small projects.

No vote was held; sponsors and supporters said they will continue stakeholder discussions and may return with amendments.