Loading policy item
HB 4113
This proposal did not become law. The bill would have directed the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to conduct a study on housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation, submit findings to legislative interim committees by September 15, 2027, and automatically expire on January 2, 2028. It would have created no new regulations, funding streams, or mandatory conditions; it only would have imposed a temporary research and reporting obligation on DLCD.
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 directed the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to conduct a study on housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation, submit findings to legislative interim committees by September 15, 2027, and automatically expire on January 2, 2028. It would have created no new regulations, funding streams, or mandatory conditions; it only would have imposed a temporary research and reporting obligation on DLCD.
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 aims to evaluate whether incentive-based development models can legally align housing production goals with land conservation objectives, potentially informing future legislative action.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Bears the sole administrative obligation to design, fund internally, and execute the study, and to draft and submit a report by the statutory deadline without additional appropriations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have received the DLCD report for review and potential future legislative consideration, but face no immediate procedural changes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Indirectly affected only if the study's findings trigger future legislation; currently experience no changes to zoning, permitting, eligibility, or regulatory obligations.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
DLCD would have had to allocate existing staff time and internal resources to conduct the study, creating an unfunded administrative burden. No immediate changes occur to housing credits, conservation easements, or development approvals. Public access to findings would have depended on standard transparency rules governing report submission. The hard sunset ensures no lingering statutory authority after January 2028.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
State housing and conservation policy framework
The study would have identified a legally sound, scalable model where density bonuses or tax incentives are exchanged for permanent conservation easements, significantly accelerating both housing production and ecological preservation without state expenditure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
DLCD operational capacity and local land use planning
DLCD would have diverted critical staff resources from core statutory duties to conduct the study, delaying essential land use planning support for local governments, while the final report would have yielded only theoretical recommendations that trigger no legislative action before the January 2028 sunset.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would have legally permitted DLCD to research and recommend policy; it does not authorize mandatory conservation conditions on housing development or create new regulatory frameworks. A potentially unlawful outcome could have arised if DLCD or future agencies misinterpret the study's scope as implicit authority to impose de facto land conservation mandates on private developers without legislative enactment, or if administrative duty creep would have expanded the study beyond its statutory bounds into unappropriated rulemaking.
Sources · Introduced
The measure trades immediate unfunded administrative costs and resource diversion for DLCD against the potential long-term policy clarity of understanding how housing and conservation goals could have been legally aligned. Upsides include evidence-based policy development and preserved legislative flexibility; downsides include delayed action on land use challenges, internal resource strain, and a hard sunset that might have leaved recommendations unimplemented.
Potential effect if enacted: Evidence-based policy development and preserved legislative flexibility.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Delayed action on land use challenges, internal resource strain, and a hard sunset that might have leaved recommendations unimplemented.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text is explicit about its scope, deadline, sunset provision, and lack of funding or regulatory mandates. No supporting analysis or testimony was provided to expand the scope. 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.
The amendment would replace a legislative study with binding statutory authority allowing eligible owners of designated Metolius River Basin resort sites to develop up to 960 residential units in nearby rural counties, contingent on transferring conservation easements or title for stewardship, meeting strict affordability and environmental standards, and receiving county and DLCD approval. Potential effects could include creating a narrow, highly regulated pathway for high-density housing in specific coastal and rural jurisdictions while permanently restricting the underlying resort lands, shifting development rights from historical claimants to projects with mandatory 60-year affordability covenants and sustainability mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
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 aims to balance rural housing supply with environmental stewardship by coupling new residential development rights with permanent land conservation and affordability requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a statutory pathway to develop residential projects on nearby land by relinquishing development rights or granting conservation easements, subject to strict eligibility windows and DLCD notification deadlines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Assume conditional use review authority, conceptual plan adoption duties, public hearing requirements, and mandatory DLCD compliance coordination within fixed statutory timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain potential access to housing units legally restricted to purchase or rent at 130 percent or less of area median income for a minimum of 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Receive permanent protection of resort site lands through title transfers or conservation easements, mandatory public access to non-developed portions, and legally enforceable environmental performance standards for adjacent developments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Developers would have to secure joint agreements with resort site owners, fund all infrastructure extension and capacity costs, and meet stringent reclaimed water, potable water reduction, stormwater management, and impervious surface limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Eligibility is locked to a narrow historical notification window (prior to June 29, 2010, renewed by June 29, 2017), limiting the pool of potential applicants to specific legacy claimants.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Counties would have to adopt conceptual plans after public hearings and consultation with the nearest city, then submit them to DLCD within 21 days for compliance review within 60 days.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Enforcement relies on DLCD approval or remand authority, county monitoring of affordability covenants and environmental operations manuals, and judicial review under ORS 183.484 standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Regional housing market and conservation trust
A qualifying resort site owner successfully transfers title to a conservation trust, permanently protects critical Metolius Basin habitat, and would develop a fully compliant 960-unit community that resolves a regional housing shortage while generating long-term affordable inventory and meeting all sustainability mandates without public subsidy.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
County fiscal stability and intended residents
Potential effect if enacted: A county approves a project that narrowly meets the 35 percent impervious surface limit and 20 percent potable water reduction through costly technical fixes, but fails to secure adequate off-site resource enhancement funding or enforce the 60-year affordability covenant, resulting in long-term financial strain on the municipality, ecological degradation, and displacement of intended low-income residents.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on statutory enforcement mechanisms versus operational gaps in monitoring and classification.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades permanent rural land conservation and mandated affordable housing for a highly regulated, narrow pathway to high-density residential development in specific coastal and rural counties. Upsides include guaranteed habitat protection, long-term affordability, and strict environmental performance standards. Downsides include restricted eligibility, heavy regulatory burdens on counties and developers, potential infrastructure costs passed to the public or project, and limited geographic scope that may not address broader regional housing needs.
Potential effect if enacted: Guaranteed habitat protection through permanent conservation easements or title transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Long-term affordable housing inventory restricted to households at 130 percent or less of area median income for 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Strict environmental performance standards including reclaimed water use, potable water reduction, on-site stormwater management, and impervious surface limits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Eligibility restricted to a narrow historical notification window, excluding most current landowners.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Heavy regulatory and administrative burdens on counties and DLCD, including fixed review timelines and conceptual plan requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Infrastructure and sustainability costs may be passed to developers or municipalities, potentially limiting project viability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Limited geographic scope would restrict the measure to five counties and specific Metolius Basin resort sites, reducing broader regional housing impact.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text. No enacted provisions, fiscal data, or staff analysis were provided; all implications are derived from statutory language and standard implementation mechanics. 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.
If adopted, this amendment would replace a study mandate with a binding statutory framework allowing counties to approve one conservation-offset housing opportunity per county. It ties eligibility to owners of undeveloped Metolius resort sites, mandates that at least half of the units remain affordable for sixty years, would impose strict environmental and sustainability standards, would restrict development locations away from protected resources, and shifts the Department of Land Conservation and Development from a study role to a mandatory review and approval authority.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
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 amendment appears designed to convert existing land-use opportunities tied to the Metolius River Basin management plan into a structured mechanism for producing affordable housing while mandating conservation offsets, addressing both regional housing supply constraints and environmental stewardship goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Gain a statutory pathway to monetize or transfer development rights through conservation agreements, but would have to execute joint applications and grant easements that limit future use.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain authority to approve one such opportunity per county, process conditional uses and land divisions, adopt conceptual plans, and charge processing fees, while assuming mandatory review timelines.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain guaranteed access to at least fifty percent of residential units priced at or below one hundred thirty percent of area median income for a minimum of sixty years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts from a study-only mandate to a binding oversight role with mandatory sixty-day review windows, approval or remand authority, and judicial review exposure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Benefit from permanent conservation easements, stewardship organizations, and habitat restoration requirements, but face potential development pressure on rural lands near urban growth boundaries.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Developers would have to secure joint agreements with Metolius resort site owners, meet strict geographic constraints (within two miles of an urban growth boundary or existing destination resort, excluding protected resources), and comply with elevated sustainability mandates including reclaimed water irrigation, twenty percent potable water reduction, on-site stormwater management, and environmental operations manuals. County processing fees are permitted, but affordability covenants and conservation easements would increase long-term compliance costs. DLCD oversight shifts to a mandatory approval process with strict sixty-day deadlines, creating potential administrative bottlenecks if review capacity is insufficient.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Regional housing and conservation stakeholders
Potential effect if enacted: A county successfully leverages a Metolius resort site transfer to construct nine hundred sixty affordable units in a sustainable, conservation-offset development. Permanent easements protect adjacent rural land, environmental monitoring ensures long-term ecological viability, and the sixty-year affordability covenant permanently addresses regional housing shortages without straining public infrastructure.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Rural landowners and environmental resources
Potential effect if enacted: A developer exploits the joint-application requirement to pressure a Metolius site owner into an unfavorable easement. Development concentrates near sensitive ecological zones despite exclusion rules, affordability covenants degrade over decades due to weak monitoring, and conservation offsets become nominal paperwork rather than enforceable habitat protections, resulting in irreversible rural land conversion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on whether enforcement mechanisms (covenant recording, easement monitoring, DLCD remand authority) are actively maintained or allowed to erode through administrative inaction or creative land classification.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades expanded rural housing production and permanent land conservation for increased regulatory complexity, higher development costs, and concentrated approval authority over DLCD and specific counties.
Potential effect if enacted: Guaranteed long-term affordability for half the units, mandatory environmental stewardship through baseline studies and habitat restoration, permanent conservation offsets via recorded easements, and targeted location constraints that avoid protected open space, estuarine resources, beaches, dunes, and prime farm soils.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: High compliance costs may deter developers, strict geographic limits reduce viable site availability, joint-application requirements create dependency on Metolius resort site owners, and DLCD oversight shifts to a binding approval role without clear fiscal backing or expanded administrative capacity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly defines eligibility, development standards, affordability requirements, geographic constraints, and DLCD review procedures. The analysis is grounded solely in the provided statutory language without external speculation. 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.
If adopted, the amendment would replace the existing small-scale recreation community pathway with a conservation-offset housing opportunity program that would allow counties to approve one or two developments per jurisdiction, increases the maximum residential unit cap from 240 to 960, mandates that at least half of those units carry 60-year affordability covenants for households earning 130 percent or less of area median income, and would require developers to secure permanent conservation easements on designated Metolius resort sites with guaranteed public access. Potential effects could include expanded rural housing supply tied to ecological offsets, shifted infrastructure and sustainability compliance costs to private developers, and new conditional use review and fee-setting authority for participating counties.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
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 text restructures a former recreation-focused land-use exception into a housing-and-conservation offset model, explicitly raising unit caps, imposing long-term affordability mandates, and requiring conservation easements with public access provisions. This structural shift suggests a policy objective to expand rural housing capacity while using permanent ecological protections and developer-funded stewardship as regulatory trade-offs for overriding standard land use goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain a statutory pathway to transfer development rights and secure conservation easements that limit future resort-style development while enabling housing partnerships.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain authority to approve one or two opportunities, adopt conceptual plans, review applications as conditional uses, and charge processing fees, but would have to enforce new affordability, sustainability, and ecological compliance standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gain eligibility for at least 50 percent of residential units priced or rented at or below 130 percent of area median income for a minimum of 60 years.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gains a 60-day statutory review window, remand authority for noncompliant submittals, and oversight of judicial review procedures under ORS 183.484.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Developers would have to execute joint agreements with Metolius resort site owners, fund conservation easements under ORS 271, meet a 960-unit cap, achieve minimum density of 10 units per net residential acre, and establish environmental operations manuals, volunteer management programs, and annual performance audits.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Private entities bear costs for off-site resource enhancements (previously $1.5M requirement removed), reclaimed water systems, potable water reduction infrastructure, on-site stormwater management, and 60-year affordability covenant administration. Counties incur administrative costs for conditional use reviews, conceptual plan adoption, and DLCD coordination but may recoup processing fees.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Only owners of land mapped eligible for destination resort siting under ORS 197.455 by Jefferson County who renew prior elections qualify. Public access is legally guaranteed to undeveloped portions of the conserved Metolius site.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Compliance relies on county conditional use would permit, recorded conservation easements, DLCD submittal reviews, and judicial review limited to counties or owners under ORS 183.484. Long-term affordability and stewardship monitoring depend on covenant recording and developer reporting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Rural communities and conservation stakeholders
A developer successfully pairs a large, ecologically sensitive Metolius resort site with a 960-unit conservation-offset housing opportunity in a constrained rural county. The project delivers middle-income and affordable housing at high density, permanently protects critical habitat through a recorded easement with public trails, meets all sustainability and water-reduction standards, and would establish a funded stewardship nonprofit that restores regional ecosystems while generating long-term tax base growth without impacting prime farmland or state parks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Ecological resources and public utilities
Potential effect if enacted: A county approves an opportunity near a protected ecological corridor by narrowly interpreting significant resource boundaries. The developer minimizes actual conservation value through restrictive easement terms, circumvents affordability requirements via short-term rental classifications, fails to maintain mandated water-reduction or stormwater standards, and shifts infrastructure extension costs to public utilities while claiming statutory conservation-offset status, effectively undermining statewide land use goals.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction rests on whether recorded easements, covenant enforcement mechanisms, and county plan compliance checks are rigorously applied versus exploited through narrow interpretations or administrative neglect.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades strict geographic and recreational restrictions for expanded housing capacity and mandatory conservation offsets, shifting regulatory burden to developers while guaranteeing long-term affordability and ecological protections.
Increases rural housing supply, locks in permanent conservation easements with public access, mandates substantial affordability, and would enforce modern sustainability standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would remove protective geographic caps, would impose complex compliance and monitoring obligations on counties and developers, and would create potential for inconsistent enforcement of conservation and affordability requirements across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Increases rural housing supply, locks in permanent conservation easements with public access, mandates substantial affordability, and would enforce modern sustainability standards.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would remove protective geographic caps, would impose complex compliance and monitoring obligations on counties and developers, and would create potential for inconsistent enforcement of conservation and affordability requirements across jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded exclusively in the supplied proposed amendment text. No enacted status, fiscal data, or staff analysis was provided; all implications are derived from statutory language changes and standard land-use implementation patterns. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
10 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Proposed replacement only
Each proposed amendment deletes the short study bill and inserts extensive operative Metolius land-use provisions. None is established as adopted in the packet.
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: substantially changed.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Proposed replacement only
Each proposed amendment deletes the short study bill and inserts extensive operative Metolius land-use provisions. None is established as adopted in the packet.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall study housing 5 development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation. The department shall submit 6 a report in the manner provided by ORS 192.245, and may include recommendations for leg- 7 islation, to the in”
Introduced
“Delete lines 4 through 9 and insert: 4 “SECTION 1. Section 2, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009, is amended to 5 read: 6 “ Sec. 2. As used in sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009 [of 7 this 2009 Act]: 8 “(1) ‘Management plan’ means the management plan for the Metolius 9 River B”
Amendment -1
“Delete lines 4 through 9 and insert: 4 “SECTION 1. Section 2, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009, is amended to 5 read: 6 “ Sec. 2. As used in sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009 [of 7 this 2009 Act]: 8 “(1) ‘Management plan’ means the management plan for the Metolius 9 River B”
Amendment -2
“Delete lines 4 through 9 and insert: 4 “SECTION 1. Section 2, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009, is amended to 5 read: 6 “ Sec. 2. As used in sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009 [of 7 this 2009 Act]: 8 “(1) ‘Management plan’ means the management plan for the Metolius 9 River B”
Amendment -3
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Proposed replacement only
The proposal replaces research with a particular land-use entitlement, but remains proposed with no adopted bill version.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall study housing 5 development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation. The department shall submit 6 a report in the manner provided by ORS 192.245, and may include recommendations for leg- 7”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Section 2, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009, is amended to 5 read: 6 “ Sec. 2. As used in sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009 [of 7 this 2009 Act]: 8 “(1) ‘Management plan’ means the management plan for the Metolius 9 River Basin that was recommended to the Legislat”
Amendment -1
“conservation-offset housing opportunities as specified in 5 sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon Laws 2009. 6 “(2) On or before January 1, 2037, the owner of a Metolius resort site 7 may apply to a county fo”
Amendment -1
“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 HB 4113 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
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. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 4 through 9 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -2
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 15, ORS 183.484, ORS 197.455, ORS 197.732, ORS 215.010, Program administration, Effective date.
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -3
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 15, ORS 183.484, ORS 197.455, ORS 197.732, ORS 215.010, Program administration, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Ken Helm
Regular sponsors: Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, Representative Emerson Levy, Senator Dick Anderson, Representative Tom Andersen, Representative Kevin Mannix, Representative Court Boice
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
10 events
Full timeline
10 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Possible Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR 40 · Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -2 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 3 · Room HR 40 · Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Housing and Homelessness.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 11 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 12 standards]: 13 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 12 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 13 standards]: 14 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
pportunity authorized under sections 2 to 5, chapter 636, Oregon 12 Laws 2009 [(Enrolled House Bill 2228), must meet the following development 13 standards]: 14 “[(a)] (1) [The communi
“Requires the Department of Land Conservation and Development to study housing development opportunities conditioned upon land conservation.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.