Loading policy item
SB 1564
This proposal did not become law. The bill would have legally expanded the City of Woodburn’s urban growth boundary to include a specific parcel, mandates its annexation and zoning for at least 600 residential units, and would have required that 30% of those units remain affordable to households earning up to 80% or 130% of area median income for at least 60 years.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The bill would have legally expanded the City of Woodburn’s urban growth boundary to include a specific parcel, mandates its annexation and zoning for at least 600 residential units, and would have required that 30% of those units remain affordable to households earning up to 80% or 130% of area median income for at least 60 years.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to bypass standard land use planning procedures to rapidly increase housing supply while embedding long-term affordability requirements, likely responding to regional housing shortages or state-level density mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Legally compelled to annex the specified land, adopt a master plan meeting the unit count and affordability thresholds, and manage development approvals.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Required to amend its comprehensive plan and coordinate with Woodburn; loses standard land use decision authority over this specific action, with challenges limited to writ of review in Marion County Circuit Court.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gain access to developable urban land but face binding 60-year affordability covenants on 30% of units as a condition of approval.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Potentially gain access to new housing stock priced at or below 80%/130% AMI, contingent on developer compliance with the covenant.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Obligations: Woodburn would have had to annex and zone the land; developers would have had to secure binding affordability agreements before receiving development approval.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Costs/Revenue: Official sources indicate minimal fiscal impact and no revenue impact for state/local governments, though infrastructure costs for 600+ units would have likelied fall on local entities or developers through standard impact fees.
Basis: Official analysis · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement INTRO; Revenue Impact Statement INTRO
Enforcement: The 60-year affordability restriction is legally binding via ORS 456 covenants; compliance would have required ongoing monitoring by the city or a designated housing authority.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Access/Risk: Accelerates development timelines by overriding standard UGB amendment rules, but delays final development until annexation and master plan adoption are complete.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Low- and moderate-income households
Potential effect if enacted: The land is rapidly developed into 600+ units with strict affordability covenants, permanently removing a significant portion of housing from the speculative market and stabilizing rents for low-income families in the region for decades.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Real estate developers and landowners
Developers refuse to build due to the 30% affordability mandate or infrastructure costs, leaving the land undeveloped while the city is legally bound to maintain zoning that would have restricted other uses, effectively freezing the property’s economic potential without delivering housing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would have legally permitted a streamlined UGB expansion with mandated affordable housing. Weak enforcement could have allowed developers to circumvent the 30% affordability requirement through complex ownership structures, short-term leasing loopholes, or failure to maintain income verification over the 60-year period, resulting in de facto market-rate development despite the statutory mandate.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades standard land use planning flexibility and local discretion for accelerated housing production with guaranteed long-term affordability. Upsides include faster delivery of affordable units and reduced regulatory delay; downsides include constrained future zoning options, potential developer resistance, and long-term municipal monitoring burdens.
Potential effect if enacted: Accelerated housing production bypassing standard UGB amendment delays.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Guaranteed long-term affordability for low- and moderate-income households.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Constrained future zoning options and loss of standard land use decision authority for Marion County.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Potential developer resistance due to affordability mandates or infrastructure costs, risking project stagnation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Long-term municipal monitoring burdens to enforce 60-year income verification covenants.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text explicitly mandates annexation, zoning, unit counts, and affordability covenants. Fiscal and revenue analyses are officially documented as minimal/no impact. No sponsor rationale or legislative history is provided in the supplied materials. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment corrects a single tax lot identifier from "052W01D00100" to "052W01D000100" in the statutory boundary description for land being added to the City of Woodburn’s urban growth boundary. If adopted, it ensures the legislative boundary precisely matches the corresponding Marion County tax parcel record, preventing administrative mismatches during annexation and development review without altering any substantive housing, density, or affordability mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The change likely corrects a clerical or typographical error in the original bill text to align with official county assessor records, as tax lot identifiers are standardized alphanumeric codes where minor digit transpositions or missing zeros commonly create non-existent parcels.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Receives precise statutory authority to annex and develop the specified land without ambiguity over parcel identification, streamlining municipal planning and annexation procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have to update comprehensive plan maps and coordinate with the city using the corrected tax lot number for accurate record-keeping, reducing reconciliation costs and mapping errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Gains clarity on which specific parcel is subject to the bill’s development mandates, including annexation requirements, master plan approval, and 30 percent affordability restrictions for 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Receives a legally precise boundary description for any future acknowledgment proceedings or writ-of-review challenges, reducing jurisdictional ambiguity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would eliminate potential title search delays, mapping errors, or jurisdictional disputes during the annexation process by aligning statutory language with county parcel records.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Would reduce administrative and legal costs for county assessors and city planners who would otherwise need to reconcile mismatched parcel numbers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Does not alter affordability thresholds, density requirements, development timelines, or the requirement that Marion County cooperate with the city under ORS 195.020.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Development Applicants
Potential effect if enacted: A developer proceeds directly to annexation and master plan approval without costly surveying or legal petitions to clarify parcel boundaries, accelerating housing delivery in a high-demand area and avoiding holding costs associated with jurisdictional uncertainty.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Landowners and City Planners
If the corrected tax lot number still does not match actual physical parcel lines due to prior county re-parceling or survey adjustments, development could be stalled indefinitely pending a separate boundary adjustment petition, delaying housing supply and creating title defects for adjacent properties.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would legally permit accurate boundary alignment; misapplication arises only if county mapping systems fail to reflect the corrected identifier during annexation processing.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment trades negligible drafting effort for precise administrative clarity, reducing future legal friction but offering no substantive policy benefit beyond accurate parcel identification.
Potential effect if enacted: Streamlined annexation and master plan approval processes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Reduced litigation risk from boundary or jurisdictional ambiguity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Zero impact on housing supply timelines or affordability outcomes if underlying county records remain misaligned.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Continued reliance on county assessor accuracy, meaning the correction alone cannot resolve pre-existing survey or parcelization errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The amendment is a narrow technical correction to a tax lot identifier. Its effect is limited to statutory precision and does not alter substantive policy, fiscal impact, or revenue projections. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
The proposed amendment would shift the eastern boundary of the land added to Woodburn’s urban growth boundary by changing the referenced Marion County tax lot number from 052W01D00100 to 052W01D000100. If adopted, this technical change would alter the precise geographic scope of the expansion, thereby including or excluding specific parcels from the mandatory annexation, master plan approval, and 30% long-term affordability requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The sponsor likely identified a surveying or mapping discrepancy in the original bill that misidentified the eastern boundary parcel, and the amendment corrects the identifier to align with the intended project footprint.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would have to annex the corrected parcel(s) and apply a master plan meeting the statutory unit threshold and affordability covenant to the revised boundary.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have to update its comprehensive plan and coordinate with the city to facilitate site development, though these actions are statutorily shielded from standard land use challenge procedures.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Face mandatory UGB inclusion, binding 60-year affordability covenants on 30% of residential units, and a requirement to deliver at least 600 units before development approval.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: may experience accelerated housing supply and targeted affordability if the corrected boundary captures viable development acreage, or delayed delivery if it inadvertently includes constrained parcels.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would require precise surveying and GIS verification to implement the new tax lot boundary before annexation could proceed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would impose a binding development condition that 30% of residential units would have to be affordable for at least 60 years, with rent capped at 80% AMI or purchase price at 130% AMI.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts development timing until the city approves a master plan, creating a regulatory checkpoint that may delay project financing and construction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Carries minimal state or local fiscal impact and no revenue impact per official legislative analysis.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement INTRO; Revenue Impact Statement INTRO; IS_Impact SB 1564 INTRO; IS_Impact SB 1564 INTRO; IS_Impact SB 1564 1
Developers and Housing Providers
Potential effect if enacted: The corrected boundary aligns exactly with a pre-permitted, shovel-ready site free of environmental constraints, enabling immediate delivery of 600+ units with guaranteed affordability compliance and no litigation over parcel boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
City and County Planners
Potential effect if enacted: The corrected boundary inadvertently captures land with critical infrastructure easements, wetlands, or existing utility corridors, triggering mandatory mitigation requirements, delaying annexation indefinitely, and exposing the city to costly legal challenges under ORS 197 despite the writ-of-review limitation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The law sets clear affordability thresholds and duration; abuse would stem from administrative misapplication rather than statutory permission.
Sources · Introduced
Expanding Woodburn’s urban growth boundary with targeted affordability mandates accelerates housing production but permanently would restrict land use flexibility and would impose long-term compliance costs on developers and the city.
Would guarantee a minimum of 600 residential units with 30% locked into long-term affordability, directly addressing regional housing shortages.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Streamlines annexation and comprehensive plan amendments through statutory override, reducing standard land use review delays.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The 60-year affordability covenant and fixed AMI thresholds may become economically misaligned with future market conditions, limiting adaptive reuse or redevelopment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Mandatory master plan approval and unit thresholds may deter private investment if infrastructure funding or market absorption rates are insufficient.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The amendment is a precise technical correction to a parcel identifier. The statutory framework, affordability requirements, and fiscal analysis are explicitly stated in the supplied documents. Missing geographic and administrative data limits certainty on implementation scale. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
14 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill is the only adopted version available; proposals do not establish a qualifying replacement.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill is the only adopted version available; proposals do not establish a qualifying replacement.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197A. 5 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, ORS chapter 197, any 6 statewide land use planning goal or any rule of the Land Conservation and Development 7 Commission: 8 (1) The City of Woodburn’s acknowledge”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197A. 5 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, ORS chapter 197, any 6 statewide land use planning goal or any rule of the Land Conservation and Development 7 Commission: 8 (1) The City of Woodburn’s acknowledge”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The unadopted parcel correction is not a substantive replacement.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197A. 5 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, ORS chapter 197, any 6 statewide land use planning goal or any ru”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for SB 1564 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 1 of the printed bill, line 13, delete “052W01D00100” and insert 2 “052W01D000100”.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Senator Kim Thatcher, Representative Lesly Muñoz
Regular sponsors: Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Kevin Mannix
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
14 events
Full timeline
14 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR E · Adds specified lands to the City of Woodburn's urban growth boundary.
IS_Impact SB 1564 1
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -1 proposed
IS_Impact SB 1564 INTRO
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 1 · Room HR E · Adds specified lands to the City of Woodburn's urban growth boundary.
Amendment -1 proposed
IS_Impact SB 1564 INTRO
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Housing and Development.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
unlawful operations, including House Bill 3000 (2021), House Bill 4074 (2022), Senate Bill 1564 (2022), Senate Bill 326 (2023), and House Bill 4121 (2024). Unlicensed producer
“Adds specified lands to the City of Woodburn's urban growth boundary.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.