Committee hears DLCD technical fixes to recent housing laws, including tribal grant authority and inclusive language change

House Committee on Housing and Homelessness Chair Marsh opened public testimony Feb. 5 on House Bill 2347, a package of technical fixes from the Department of Land Conservation and Development intended to clarify implementation steps for housing laws passed in recent sessions.

The bill, presented by Aurora Jettl, legislative and policy analyst for DLCD, would authorize DLCD to provide technical assistance and housing planning grants to federally recognized Indian tribes, allow metro counties to opt into intergovernmental agreements on urbanizable lands, let DLCD set administrative deadlines for certain city data submittals, clarify rules about prefabricated middle housing, and change statutory wording from "single family/multi family" to "single unit/multi unit" dwellings in land-use statutes.

The measures are described by DLCD staff as technical clarifications rather than program expansions. "This bill makes a few technical amendments... it clarifies that DLCD may provide housing planning grants to tribal governments," Aurora Jettl told the committee. Jettl said the change does not add new program requirements for tribes; it simply provides the department authority to allocate funds. She also described a dash-1 amendment posted on OLIS that, she said, addresses local government comments and streamlines implementation.

Jettl reviewed several elements of the package: aligning the statutory definition of "completeness" for housing development applications with the goalpost rule adopted in Senate Bill 1537; clarifying the applicability of House Bill 4064's preemption of local siting and design standards to prefabricated middle housing (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters and townhouses); moving cross-referenced housing approval responsibilities into chapter 197A to reduce scatter across statutes; and providing an administrative pathway for jurisdictions that want to update code language to "single unit/multi unit." She noted the department began stakeholder engagement in March 2024 and that the dash-1 amendment reflects those conversations.

Committee members asked for clarification on the proposed administrative deadline change. Representative Javity asked why DLCD would not simply change the statutory date to align with other agencies; Jettl replied the department wants flexibility to coordinate with other studies—such as population forecasting with Portland State University—so cities submit data once on a deadline DLCD determines. "The purpose is for us to be able to... coordinate with folks at that point and decide on a deadline that would work for everyone," she said.

Brandon Persinger, legislative affairs manager for natural resources and land use at the Association of Oregon Counties, said AOC did not yet have a formal position but expressed appreciation for DLCD addressing county planning staff concerns in the dash-1 language. "It's a technical issue coming from the planners, but DLCD was gracious enough to hear their concerns and address them in the dash-1," Persinger told the committee.

No formal action or vote was recorded during the hearing. Chair Marsh closed the public hearing after questions and remarks.

Why it matters: DLCD oversees statewide land-use planning and is responsible for implementing multiple housing-related statutes enacted in recent sessions. The clarifications in HB 2347 are intended to reduce implementation friction for cities, counties and tribes and to align statutory language with program practice, which proponents say will streamline permitting and reporting obligations without changing policy outcomes.

What remains unclear: Jettl said a fiscal or revenue impact statement had not yet been issued for the measure as posted; she also said she would follow up with specific statutory deadlines for related population forecasting. The dash-1 amendment is posted on OLIS for committee review.