Summary#

The Housing Accountability and Production Office (HAPO) held its first open forum of 2026 on January 5, introducing team members and providing updates on two legislatively required studies mandated by Senate Bill 1537, both due to the legislature by September 15, 2026. The first study, presented by Palmer Mason, evaluates statewide agency policies and programs affecting housing production, examining approximately nine state agencies across the housing development cycle—from land supply through certificate of occupancy—to identify state-level barriers and opportunities to maximize resources. The second study, presented by Ryan Markwart, focuses on local residential development process improvements, examining land use entitlements, public works and engineering review, and building permit review processes to identify best practices, barriers, and recommendations for legislative action.

HAPO outlined an engagement timeline for the local process improvement study that includes a webinar later in January, focus groups and surveys in February through March, interviews in April, a draft report for public comment in July, and the final report to the legislature by September 15, 2026. Stakeholder engagement will target developers, architects, engineers, contractors, land use professionals, and city/county staff across jurisdictions of all sizes and housing types statewide.

Public comments and questions raised several important themes. Participants from Silverton and other communities emphasized annexation processes as a significant barrier to housing production, which HAPO confirmed would be included in the study. Scott Seagull raised concerns about non-regulatory barriers such as staffing, technology, and management capacity at local governments. Derek Moon urged the office to look at best practices from other states, and Palmer Mason noted they are tracking related efforts in Washington state and Pennsylvania, though the review of out-of-state practices would be limited. Brienne Margolan recommended including land use attorneys in stakeholder groups, highlighted California’s “builder’s remedy” concept as a potential legislative recommendation, and reinforced the annexation concern. A representative from a small city raised challenges around infrastructure costs and outsourced permitting services as barriers to development in smaller communities.

Key Topics#

• Introduction of HAPO Team Members: Joel Matson, Sean Edging, Emily Anderson, Ryan Markwart, Palmer Mason, Rachel Six, and Kieran Turble introduced themselves and their roles within the Housing Accountability and Production Office and DLCD.

• Evaluation of Statewide Policies and Programs on Housing Production: Palmer Mason outlined the first Section 5 study examining approximately nine state agencies’ roles in the housing development cycle, from land supply to certificate of occupancy, seeking to reduce state-level barriers and maximize resources for housing production.

• Local Residential Development Process Improvement Study: Ryan Markwart detailed the second study examining land use entitlements, public works/engineering review, and building permit review processes to identify efficiencies, best practices, and barriers across jurisdictions of all sizes and housing types statewide.

• Stakeholder Engagement Timeline and Plan: HAPO outlined upcoming engagement opportunities including a January webinar, February–March focus groups and surveys, April interviews, a July draft report for public comment, and the September 15, 2026 legislative deadline.

• Annexation as a Barrier to Housing Production: Multiple participants identified local annexation codes and processes as significant obstacles to housing development, with specific examples from Silverton and Lake Oswego, and HAPO confirmed annexation would be included in the study.

• Non-Regulatory Barriers: Staffing, Technology, and Resources: Scott Seagull raised concerns about local government staffing shortages, technology optimization (including the state online permitting system), and management capacity as factors affecting permit processing beyond code and policy issues.

• Looking Beyond Oregon for Best Practices: Derek Moon and Brienne Margolan urged HAPO to examine successful approaches in other states; Palmer Mason noted limited tracking of efforts in Washington, Pennsylvania, and a legislative policy research office meta-review, though a comprehensive national review is not planned.

• California’s Builder’s Remedy as a Legislative Model: Brienne Margolan recommended examining California’s builder’s remedy mechanism as a potential legislative recommendation for cities not meeting housing production goals, while Joel Matson emphasized HAPO’s current collaborative and technical assistance approach over enforcement.

• Inclusion of Land Use Attorneys in Stakeholder Engagement: Brienne Margolan recommended ensuring land use attorneys, particularly those with environmental expertise, are included in stakeholder groups given their technical knowledge of development challenges and regulatory processes.

• Small City and Rural Development Challenges: Lily Morgan highlighted the unique difficulties faced by small communities that outsource permitting and planning services, noting that infrastructure costs—rather than regulatory barriers—are often the primary impediment to housing development.

Full Transcript#

Housing Accountability and Production Office Open Forum, January 5, 2026#

[00:00:22] Joel Matson: Well, good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining our first open forum for the Housing Accountability and Production Office here of 2026. We’ll wait just a couple of moments as folks filter in to this open forum meeting.

[00:01:29] Well, let’s go ahead and get started as folks may continue to filter into this meeting. Good afternoon again. My name is Joel Matson, the manager of the Housing Accountability and Production Office, and great to be here with you all this afternoon at our first open forum of 2026. And I want to take a minute to introduce our HAPO teammates that are joining us here this afternoon. So I’m just going to go with who I see on the screen and then we’ll open it up in case I’m missing anybody else from there. So Sean, do you mind introducing yourself?

[00:02:06] Sean Edging: Yeah, thanks Joel. Hi folks. My name is Sean Edging. I’m a housing planner at the Housing Accountability and Production Office. Do you want me to pass it to the next person or just back to you?

Joel Matson: I’ll keep going. Emily, please.

[00:02:18] Emily Anderson: Hi everybody. My name is Emily Anderson. I’m the administrative specialist with HAPO.

Joel Matson: Thanks Emily and Ryan.

[00:02:27] Ryan Markwart: Good afternoon folks. Ryan Markwart and I’m a housing planner with HAPO.

Joel Matson: Thanks Ryan. Palmer.

[00:02:36] Palmer Mason: Thanks Joel and good afternoon everyone. Palmer Mason, I’m DLCD’s inter agency coordinator. I’m actually located in the director’s office but I spend most of my time on housing production and working with the Housing Accountability Production Office. Thanks.

Joel Matson: Rachel.

[00:02:54] Rachel Sacks: Hi everyone. I’m Rachel Sacks. I’m a housing planner with the Housing Accountability and Production Office.

Joel Matson: Thanks Rachel. Kieran.

[00:03:03] Kieran Turble: Yeah, everyone. I’m Kieran Turble with HAPO.

[00:03:09] Joel Matson: Thank you. And I think that’s all I see from the DLCD HAPO teammates. I want to give an opportunity if I’ve missed anybody or that may be on here not as a presenter to come off mute and introduce themselves as a core member of the HAPO team whether at DLCD or within the Building Codes Division.

[00:03:35] All right. Well, thanks for allowing us to run through quick introductions. Again, part of the purpose of these meetings is these open forums is to allow for engagement across our team. We are focusing on specific topics at each of these open forums. So if we go to the next slide, we can highlight the agenda here for this afternoon. We just completed the introduction of core HAPO teammates. We intend to spend a little bit of time presenting and sharing out where we’re at today with some of the legislatively required reports that were directed of our office. So what we refer to as part of the section 5 of Senate Bill 1537, both the evaluation of state policies and programs on housing production as well as the study that’s focused on the local residential development process improvement opportunity. And of course, as always, we’ll allow for time for question and answer and we’ll field those as best as we’re able. Also, just a quick note, this is our for those that have joined us previously, we’ve utilized the Zoom platform. And we’re trying this new Teams approach. So we’re hopeful that this allows for more interactive engagement. We will transition from kind of the presentation mode to a more open format here when we get to the Q&A portion of today’s open forum. So again, thank you so much for joining us here this afternoon. And with that, I’m going to hand it over to it looks like Palmer to dive in on some of our activities here.

[00:05:18] Palmer Mason: Yeah, thanks Joel. And again, for the record, Palmer Mason, I’m the DLCD inter agency coordinator. So Senate Bill 1537 of course was the enabling legislation for HAPO and among the responsibilities that statute gave HAPO was conducting research on housing production. And in section five as Joel mentioned the legislation specifically called out several studies and we’re here today to talk about those studies. In those cases, all those studies are due to the legislature no later than September the 15th, 2026. The two studies that we’re going to talk about are first the evaluation of statewide policies and programs on housing production. Those are a couple of slides that I’ll be covering and it’ll be sort of a shorter discussion and synopsis of that study. And then the second study is the local residential process improvement study and Ryan will lead those slides and it’s a little bit longer slide presentation and discussion about that particular study. And I think we can move on to the next slide. Thank you. So first this evaluation of statewide policies programs on housing production.

[00:06:31] This particular study here is a study that’s focused on state agency programs and policies. And the purpose here is to look at opportunities to reduce state level barriers to housing and where can the state maximize its resources, programs, technical assistance and financing to increase production. You might imagine that we could conceivably evaluate dozens and dozens of agencies, but we have tried to narrow the focus to the agencies consistent with the statute that we think have the greatest impact on housing production. And so those are the state agency policy programs that relate to the housing development cycle. And we define that from land supply all the steps and all the different responsibilities agencies have to the point of issuing the certificate of occupancy. So it covers about nine state agencies and we also add in Regional Solutions because they tend to have a role in helping housing projects navigate through the process and it covers a lot of the things that you might expect in that development cycle. So land and infrastructure readiness and availability, regulatory reviews, both from an ODOT and a transportation or from a transportation and environmental perspective, as well as various programs from Oregon Housing and Community Services again, ODOT, DEQ, where the state provides technical assistance and financial assistance to support housing production. So that is that study in a nutshell. I know Joel indicated we were going to take most of our questions at the end of the presentation, but I’ll pause there and see if there are any a question or two that I might quickly answer before we transition into the next study.

[00:08:46] And as Joel indicated, we’re working through the technical part of using Teams. I’m not seeing any hands or questions, so I’ll pass it over to Ryan.

[00:09:01] Ryan Markwart: Great. Thanks, Palmer. And things are kind of appearing frozen on my side of things. Can somebody confirm that I’m coming through and folks can hear me?

Joel Matson: We can hear you, Ryan.

[00:09:16] Ryan Markwart: Okay, I will continue. Great. So, yeah, thanks Palmer and again Ryan Markwart, housing planner with HAPO. And I’ll be giving a quick overview here of the local residential process improvement study portion of the section 5 reports. And so the purpose on the reports here as it says on the slides is identifying improvements in the process efficiency, local best practices and other ways to accelerate and improve the efficiency of the development process for residential development. As well as developing recommendations for changes to reduce the complexity, delay or costs that inhibit housing production. That language is kind of paraphrased from the Senate Bill 1537 statutory direction about what the charge is to HAPO as far as what’s to be included in the study and what sort of recommendations the legislature has directed us to look at. So that’s the very broad purpose is kind of looking at the process improvements within that residential development review process. Specifically the topic areas that are going to receive some individualized attention within the study are land use. So that’s kind of the planning side of things. The entitlements, anything that’s sort of covered by a zoning code or development code. Public works and engineering review. So kind of the infrastructure that’s involved with housing developments. And then the building permit review process. So everything that’s reviewed by the building official for the local jurisdiction. So those areas are going to get kind of called out and receive specific attention within this overall residential development process pipeline.

[00:11:10] So the engagement that we’re looking at for the process improvement study is summarized on this slide. So the stakeholders that we’re looking to engage with include developers, architects, engineers, and general contractors. So sort of those professionals that are directly involved with the production and construction of housing on a piece of property. We’re also looking at engagement with professionals who work on land use entitlements. So kind of the planning approvals necessary before site development can commence. And then also looking at engagement with city and county jurisdiction staff. And again that will be with both planning, public works and building permit review. As far as the types of residential development that we’re going to be looking at in this study, we’re casting a very wide net. So geographically, we’re looking at all areas of the state. We’re looking for engagement and learning more about what the development process looks like in the whole array of contexts from very large jurisdictions down to smaller jurisdictions. And looking at a variety of different housing types. So market rate, regulated affordable housing, different housing typologies, ADUs, multi-units. So again casting just a very wide net as to what constitutes the residential development that we’re looking at in the study. The engagement opportunities that are going to be coming up here this spring are kind of on the right side of the slide there. So we’re going to have a webinar on this study coming up later this month. Focus groups and a survey that will be February through March of this year. And then interviews with specific parties in April. So those are the upcoming engagements for the process.

[00:13:12] As far as the other timeline or kind of the further outlook for the study, again, the engagement kind of occurring this spring, and then we’re targeting a report for public comment to be issued in July, and having a fairly good amount of time for folks to be able to review and provide comment to us on that draft report in preparation then for that final report to be presented to the legislature September 15th, 2026. So, kind of on that same schedule as the process that Palmer was mentioning. And last couple of slides here and then we can kind of turn it back over for question and answer. So the anticipated outcomes of you know where this study is going and kind of what it’s expected to inform. There’s a few different areas. So one is identifying both best practices and barriers in land use, public works, and building permit review processes. You know, we’ve heard a lot since HAPO has been open about areas where there are challenges or delays in permitting. And we certainly, you know, need to include those and address those as part of the study. We also want to highlight areas where things are working efficiently and where best practices can kind of be spread and kind of learned from. Also potentially identifying areas where additional resources could help where there’s common barriers across jurisdictions, where that might be able to be addressed with additional resources, training, those sorts of things. And then also recommending legislative action. So parts of the residential development review process where the legislature might be able to take action to address some of the barriers that are identified. So that’s a very broad broad level of the anticipated report outcomes. And then as far as the things you know the project updates and materials, that QR code is a link to one of our HAPO websites that has information on both the statewide study and the local study. So materials will be posted there, updates will be posted there. And you can also stay up to date via DLCD’s GovDelivery. We’ll be posting sort of key engagement and outcomes through through that channel as well. So that kind of that concludes the brief overview I wanted to provide on that study. Joel, I’ll turn it back over to you if there’s anything you wanted to add on to before we turn it over to question and answer.

[00:15:58] Joel Matson: Thank you Ryan. And again, thank you Palmer for providing that kind of high level summary of both of the legislatively directed studies that the Housing Accountability and Production Office is working on. And look forward to folks’s engagement in both these studies as we move forward. Again as I mentioned at the beginning we really wanted to create this space as an opportunity to engage, ask questions about the topic areas that we’re bringing forward but also allow an opportunity for you just to ask other more general questions that may be of relevance to our office. So this time I think we’ll transition into that Q&A. Encourage folks if you have particular questions, concerns, comments on either of those studies that were highlighted by Palmer or Ryan, please feel free to chime in.

[00:17:01] Owen Bonflu: Yeah. Hello, this is Owen Bonflu with Noble Build. I have a question to ask. So, I operate mostly downtown Silverton and one of the issues that has come up out there time. So, let me know if it’s not. But, you know, we have an annexation code that has essentially limited annexations to almost none over the last 10 years after the state legislature passed, you know, the law eliminating submitting annexations to public vote. So, we’ve got a criteria noticed.

[00:17:53] Joel Matson: Owen, I’m sorry to interrupt. However, you’re cutting out. So, I don’t know if this I’m looking at other HAPO teammates to see if I get a nod if it’s cutting out for others or Okay. Owen, I’m not sure if you can get to a spot that has a little bit better service so that we can hear you more clearly.

Owen Bonflu: I’m sorry about that.

[00:18:17] Unidentified Speaker: Alternatively, he could put his question in the chat. Can we see it that way?

[00:18:25] Owen Bonflu: I will try and do that. I don’t know if you can hear me, but essentially annexation is not one of the housing laws. And so I don’t know if and that’s our true barrier out in Silverton. And I don’t know if there’s any interest or on the part of the legislature in addressing that.

[00:18:49] Ryan Markwart: Yeah. And Owen, thanks for the question. This is Ryan and I’ll respond quickly and let any of my other HAPO teammates kind of follow up with more detail. But basically that local residential process that I was addressing, annexation is part of what we want to be evaluating there. So that’s part of the overall process of having a site be ready for entitlements and be ready for development. So it’s certainly an area that we intend to include in that study.

Owen Bonflu: Thank you.

[00:19:31] Joel Matson: Yeah, I see a hand raised here from Scott. Go ahead, Scott Seagull.

[00:19:37] Scott Seagull: Yeah, thank you. Good afternoon and happy new year. Thanks for hosting this. Yeah, so my question is about the scope of the study and of course you know the legislature and the governor have been laser sharp focused on code and policy but as we all know there’s a lot more to the permit process than that. There’s staffing, resourcing, there’s technology, there’s management capability or capacity and administrative tools and whatnot. So, could you talk a little bit about whether or how the study might be addressing those nonregulatory issues or needs whether it’s staffing, other resourcing, making better use or optimizing the technology that we all pay for through our building permit fees that the Building Codes Division administers in the way of the online permitting system just as an example.

[00:20:50] Ryan Markwart: Joel, did you want me to provide an initial response there? Okay, great. And thanks for the question, Scott. Yeah, and we do of course realize that I think that’s going to be a frequent thing that we hear in engagement throughout this study is that local governments as we all know are very resource constrained right now. And that really does affect the ability to get through permit reviews. So fully anticipating that that’s going to be an area that will be part of the study and a topic that we’ll want to dig into. As far as I guess I don’t want to try to forecast what solutions to that might be. I think we kind of want to hear specifically like you know what’s the extent of the problem. Is it being seen more in large jurisdictions, small jurisdictions, or it doesn’t matter. It’s across kind of the entire spectrum there. So yeah, I guess I’ll just say it’s something that we fully expect to hear about and will be a topic that’ll be addressed, but I can’t really predict the outcomes. Joel, I don’t know if you wanted to make that more.

[00:22:05] Joel Matson: Just emphasize that yeah that this opportunity in the studies is also to highlight where things are working well as well, right? And so you know we want to lift up those experiences in this work whenever possible too. So but thanks for covering that Ryan. Yeah. And we do have staff from Building Codes specifically Andy Bolton who is going to be kind of the point person on the part of the study that’s dealing with the building permit review process. So you know we’ll certainly be relying on expertise from him and his colleagues in addressing some of those things that are related to Building Codes. Scott, does that kind of answer basically what you were asking?

[00:22:54] Scott Seagull: Yeah, thank you, Ryan. It does, and we look forward to contributing to the study in any way that we can.

Ryan Markwart: Great. Thanks, Scott.

[00:23:06] Joel Matson: I see a hand up from Derek Moon. Go ahead.

[00:23:12] Derek Moon: Hello, guys. Thank you for having this meeting to kind of go over what you guys are going to be doing in the study. Ryan and I are real close friends, so he knows I’m going to have to open my mouth, so this is how it’s going to go. I heard of things about looking at what works well, what doesn’t work well, but I don’t hear any outside of the box thinking like along the lines of what are other jurisdictions and other states doing. And there has been no talk about those type of things for this type of study. I’m just wondering if anyone’s going to be in charge of looking at other jurisdictions outside the state, maybe outside the West Coast to see how they’re doing things.

[00:23:51] Ryan Markwart: Yeah, thanks Derek. Within the kind of the project scope that’s there right now, there’s not we’re not planning a broad sort of literature review or research of a lot of other jurisdictions across other states. I think what I would encourage is that as we’re reaching out to folks for the engagement on this process, if you know of things that are working well either in the state or nationally, highlight that for us. You know, we’re I think the collective experience and wisdom of all of the folks who are involved in land use and public works and building permit review in the state, you all probably know or have a better sense of what’s working nationally. So,

Housing Accountability and Production Office Open Forum, January 5, 2026#

[00:24:39] Ryan: I think we’re going to kind of rely on that expertise to point us in the right direction of like, you know, models or things that have some promise that could be applied here. So the consultant team, I wouldn’t assume that they’re going to do a really in-depth review of other jurisdictions. Joel, is there anything more you wanted to add on that one?

[00:25:00] Joel: Thanks Ryan. And, you know, not specifically to the local residential development process improvement study that you’re helping lead, but I’ll pitch it to Palmer to comment on that question as it relates to the programs and policy evaluation at the state.

[00:25:17] Palmer: Thanks, Joel. Happy to do that. So, the evaluation of statewide policies and programs does have a look at some activities and actions out of Oregon. Most notably, the governor of Washington, Governor Ferguson, had issued an executive order spring early summer of last year that directed agencies in that state to look at opportunities to reduce barriers to housing production. So, we are tracking that process and seeing what information could come out of that that would inform our study. There were a couple of related executive orders in, for instance, Pennsylvania and we’re trying to track that as well. And then the legislature has a policy and research office that did a very broad high level sort of a meta review of different policies and programs that you can change to boost housing production and we have incorporated that study and we’ll see if there’s some things we can follow up there in other states. So we do have as a part of our project in that particular evaluation an out of Oregon look. It’s not a broad look. We’re not looking at every state or even you know many many states but we do have some research coming from other places.

[00:26:45] Joel: Great. Thanks Palmer. Thanks Ryan. I see a hand raised here. Brienne Margolan.

[00:26:58] Brienne Margolan: Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me?

Joel: I sure can. Yeah.

Brienne Margolan: Oh, great. Hi, Brienne Margolan. I have one question that’s new and then a couple follow-ons to prior comments made. When thinking about the stakeholder group, I wanted to just make a comment there and a request, and this may already be captured in what you mean by professionals engaged with entitlements, but I’d like to ask that in that stakeholder group, you’re sure to include land use attorneys because they often have the more technical knowledge, sometimes even more so than the developers and the contractors do. They’re often brought in with the specific challenges and are the ones running the process. So, and specifically like one that has experience with the environmental requirements because a lot of the land is tied up with environmental restrictions. And so, if you can find a land use attorney in that stakeholder group that has that expertise, I think it’d be really helpful. That’s someone I see missing in a lot of stakeholder groups. So, plug for that. I’m not an attorney, by the way. I’m not plugging myself. I just personally find them helpful in this. And then to kind of tack on to what Derek brought up about best practices, looking outside the state. That is something I’ve been looking at too. So, I’ll be forwarding information there, but I’d also like to bring up one particular topic, and I’m going to send this to you in an email. I sent it to Ingred, but not sure it got to you. And this has to do with looking at the way California addresses something that’s very, very similar to a housing needs production goal and process. They have something you’ve probably heard of called builder’s remedy. It’s been built into their building code or their land use code for 30 years, but it’s really been used only in the last couple years. And I just I’d like you to maybe consider that if you’re only looking at a few areas because that’s something that would take place at the legislative level. So that would fit into legislative recommendations. And the benefit of it is that if cities aren’t meeting their goals under SB537, it allows some sort of automatic triggers for builders to develop that doesn’t require the state to take direct enforcement action. Even though the state can under OAR 660, it never does. And so this kind of accelerates that process without the state having to do a whole lot of work to make the building happen. It allows builders to build to code without having to go through all the permitting steps if a city has not met its housing production goal at the midpoint. And then the last one is I just echo the comment about annexation being a problem. You mentioned Silverton being a problem. I see that as a challenge in other cities. And so if there were state regulations that made that easier across the state so that cities didn’t have so many hang-ups there or their own rules. Like Lake Oswego, you can’t annex for 10 years if you’ve removed a tree. So, you know, like so anything at the state level that makes that easier. I would love to see that included in you know what you’re looking at here. So, I’ll stop there. That’s a lot questions.

[00:29:29] Ryan: Thanks, Brienne. And yes, that, you know, again, annexation, we certainly expect that to be part of what we’re looking at. So, appreciate the kind of emphasis on that point as being something that we really need to pay attention to. And we certainly do include the entitlement portion of things to be both kind of like land use consultants and land use attorneys as well. And we have, I think, pretty good contacts and, yeah, points of contact with a lot of land use attorneys throughout the state. And the consultants engagement team will will kind of be reaching out to those people for for their expertise. And really good point too about kind of needing to highlight the environmental resource portion of that as well. I know we have some experts and folks who have looked at California’s land use and with regard to the builder’s remedy and I’ll kind of turn it over to them for any responses they want to provide on that point.

[00:32:43] Speaker: I guess I’m just going to respond with, you know, we’re not in a position to speak toward any legislative concepts that may be coming forward at this point. And just appreciate your feedback. I guess I would also just acknowledge that you know we’re obviously within a different system in the state of Oregon and I think that the resource that’s available to like HAPO and working in collaboration with housing producers and local jurisdictions is that of working together to produce the needed housing. So, there are enforcement tools that our office has which may include a type of builder’s remedy that you know you could argue that it kind of looks the same if it were to get to enforcement, but really our office’s focus to date and we continue to lean into that is through collaboration and in partnership with local jurisdictions and the housing producers. So, I guess I’m putting a plug in for that approach of collaboration and making technical assistance investments where we can to help address issues of non-compliance and bring them into compliance so that we can meet the housing needs across the state. So, it’s about all I’ll respond to at this point.

Brienne Margolan: There are so many cities that literally achieved 0% over the last 5 years. And for what it’s worth, I’ll just add that the governor has been supportive of this concept and so that might help get additional traction. So I’ll let others go. Thanks.

[00:34:25] Joel: Thank you.

[00:34:38] I want to acknowledge there’s a comment that came in in the chat from Nancy Lion. Do you want to give voice to your comment or question or if you could provide a little bit more detail maybe one of our teammates would be able to address. I don’t know if any HAPO teammate wants to is able to respond there to Nancy’s comment or question.

[00:35:22] Speaker: Yeah, Joel, to your point, I don’t understand the question.

Joel: Nancy, if you’re not able to come off mute, please provide a little bit more detail in the chat and we’ll do our best to respond. Lily Morgan, I see you have your hand up and then also put a note in the chat too, but please.

[00:35:50] Lily Morgan: I just, you know, I live or I work in a small city. We outsource everything. So permits are handled by the county. Planning is our local council of governments. We’ve tried to through grants get the code updated the best we can to try to assist, but really the infrastructure costs seem to be the thing that keeps development from happening over and over. And if there are other things that we can try to adopt to make things easier, I’m not sure how to achieve that or connect with you guys. I mean, I can’t compare to Lake Oswego. We have, you know, 500 homes in this community and so want to try to produce more, but not really sure what to adopt to make that possible, especially when we are on the side of a hill and you have to meet other regulations like storm water runoff and everything else like that.

[00:37:00] Ryan: Yeah, and thanks, Lily. I appreciate the question there. And I don’t think we’re presupposing that all jurisdictions across the state are going to need to adopt a policy that’s recommended by the reports. There may be some planning in permitting contexts where things are operating relatively efficiently but there’s infrastructure or other hurdles that are kind of delaying the process too. And I think the whole topic of infrastructure funding and provision for housing is, you know, it’s not beyond the scope of the study but there is a lot of other work and attention being paid to that in other realms too. So, yeah, appreciate the comment and, you know, it’s good for us to be aware that there are a lot of different housing contexts and different cities where the study is going to interface with different housing markets and different challenges there.

[00:38:07] Palmer: And Ryan, let me also provide a little perspective as well. So, and hello Lily, this is Palmer. Good to hear from you.

Lily Morgan: Good to see you too.

Palmer: Yeah. Yeah. Great. So Lily the study that I’m spearheading, the evaluation of state policies and programs, I think in that study we would love to hear from small communities about the challenges they have around capacity and whether that’s planning capacity and technical capacity or infrastructure. So please, you know, engage and if you know of other small communities you think would be interested, just send them our way. And I want to also say it’s not just a matter of asking can the state do more, although we certainly want to ask that question. We want to specifically look at are the programs that the state has whether it’s technical assistance, planning assistance, infrastructure assistance, do they have procedural barriers or requirements that make it hard for small communities to access? I mean it could be as you know basic and mundane as the process of getting through the application and getting all the information you need to show that you have a worthy request is too onerous too hard or it may be that the financing requirements are just too hard for a city to meet whether that’s a loan payback or what have you. Those are the kind of opportunities that we’re looking for. So, it’s just it’s both on can the state do more, but also can the state make it easier to access the resources we do have.

[00:40:02] Joel: Ryan, Palmer, just want to give an opportunity to follow up to Lily’s question that she put in the chat about how to connect to give more info.

[00:40:13] Ryan: Thanks, Joel. Yeah, and I’ll give a quick response on that. The notices and for engagement that hasn’t been sent out yet. So stay tuned for more communications from HAPO and the consultant that’s working on the project. And yeah, we will try to be consistent and give as broad an outreach as we can for the engagement.

[00:40:46] Joel: Great. And if there’s another HAPO teammate that could put a link in on, I think we in our presentation we had that QR code to our website where folks can continue to stay abreast to what’s going on with both studies that we’ve referenced. If you could put that in the chat that’d be appreciated. Yeah Mariana Crawford please I see your hand up.

[00:41:11] Mariana Crawford: Thank you. Thanks so much for doing this. I guess I just wanted to share with you guys that as a result of this study, it would be really nice to see tools that small, medium, and large jurisdictions could use and apply or cross collaborate. One of the things that we’re finding, especially in smaller communities, is a challenge with who’s on first, who’s on first on zoning, who’s on first on entitlement, who’s doing what, and who could possibly be doing the least. So, or the most, we’re just having trouble even locating who to speak with. Now, I’m coming from the developer side of things and I understand that communities want affordable housing, but if we can’t even get the zoning form signed, we can’t get affordable housing on the ground. It’s as simple as even four units. So if there could be technical tools that cities and counties could just go to your website and cross collaborate and apply, that would be a really helpful outcome out of the study. So that’s my two cents. Thank you.

[00:42:38] Joel: Thanks for that, Mariana. And Ryan, as you’re thinking about if you do want to respond, I also want to queue up Sean if I could on kind of our office’s focus on that technical assistance and technical support. So first let’s keep it focused on the studies. See if there’s any response there, Ryan, that you’d like to provide before handing it over to you Sean.

[00:43:04] Ryan: Yeah, thanks Joel and thanks Mariana for the comment. Yeah, these are the types of things we want to hear about from the engagement with the studies and you know in part so we can develop case studies and kind of learn from things but also just so we can see where this particular barrier is a problem. Is it more kind of among small communities or does it kind of span populations geographically those sorts of things too. So, thanks for highlighting that for us and, yeah, we certainly want to kind of coalesce that into the broader picture of the development review process for residential development in the state. But yeah, I’ll turn it back over to you Sean.

Sean: Yeah, sure. This is— Oh, go ahead.

Joel: Yeah, Sean, if you could just speak more just kind of broad strokes on our office’s technical assistance program kind of outside these studies.

[00:44:04] Sean: Mhm. Yeah. So there, you know, in recognition that a lot of these problems are things that we’ve been aware of, we have been working on different ways of helping cities, especially smaller cities or more resource constrained cities to aid implementation. There’s a few ways that we do that. One way is by providing technical assistance and support to cities that are say doing code work, doing the necessary things that they need to do to comply with different housing laws to make sure that their processes are well set up, that type of thing. But we’re also developing resources that are especially designed for smaller cities that they can take off the shelf and utilize. Just recently we actually adopted a series of model codes that have some features built in to enable cities like hey say you want a process to do a basic process for plan check of a housing type, that type of thing. Well we’ve got one ready and available and it’s designed to be utilized right off the shelf. So that’s something that smaller cities will be able to take advantage of and we’ll be working in this next year to help kind of get up and get the word out for folks to take up. So yeah.

[00:45:19] Joel: Thanks. And I see Brian, you had raised your hand.

[00:45:23] Brian: Yeah, I have another question. Could you explain how you go about studying best practices and barriers? And I’m thinking about this for the number two report, the local residential process improvement study. So, do you look at specific city codes? Are you, you know, are you asking the stakeholder groups? How do you go about doing that research across the state?

[00:46:01] Ryan: Yeah, that’s a very good question. And you had cut out just a little bit in the middle there, but I think you were kind of asking about just like how are we identifying best practices and areas to go look at to kind of get that listing of best practices.

Brian: Yeah, that’s exactly right. I imagine it being daunting like just figuring out the code in one city is like nearly impossible. So trying to figure out themes across the whole state, you know, because you can’t fix every little thing. How do you go about it?

Ryan: Yeah. Well, for one, the consultant team that we have on board, I think, is going to be a pretty key resource for HAPO with that. And this is just kind of a plug about the who’s on the development team. So it’s being led by Econw Northwest, great subconsultants there are also MIG, AKS Engineering, Salazar Architecture and the University of Oregon IPRE to kind of manage the engagement. So, we do have a lot of, there’s a lot of depth of experience with the consultant team within zoning, building permit review, public infrastructure review. So I think there’s going to be a lot of familiarity from them about codes across the state, how they operate, but I think to your point there’s it’s also going to be kind of a conversation in the engagement, you know, as we’re learning about what barriers there are. We’re also going to be learning from local government staff about the barriers that they see, areas where they can identify process improvements in their own code too. So I don’t think we’re not planning to do a deep dive into the codes and policies and procedures of every single jurisdiction. But kind of through that conversation in the engagement and then sort of the background knowledge of the consultant team I think we’ll be able to develop a pretty good list of policies, practices and best practices to share out.

Brian: Oh great. Is there a way for those participating in this process to provide information or things that we see? I’m sure you don’t want to hear every complaint about every permit and land use code, but things that may have broader implications.

Ryan: Yes. And the engagement that’s going to be kind of launching here over the next week or weeks and month. I think that’s probably sort of the best way to stay engaged and be able to plug in and provide that input. If you, I think we posted our contact info. So if you want to send a follow-up email and just say, you know, I listen to the open forum. I’m interested in any and all engagement opportunities. That’s a great way to do it. And that way we’ll be sure to have you on the list when we do those outreach opportunities.

Housing Accountability and Production Office Open Forum#

January 5, 2026#

[00:49:21] Speaker 1: Thank you. And that goes for everybody listening in as well, of course.

[00:49:45] Speaker 2: Yeah, Stephen Heimmes, please.

Stephen Heimmes: Hi, thank you for putting this on. This is Stephen. I’m with the City of Portland. I have a few questions and maybe thoughts or comments. I’ll just kind of run through them one at a time if you don’t mind. First, responding or reacting a bit to Scott earlier, wondering if kind of permit system, like the fee structure, kind of revenue structure for jurisdictions’ permitting and development functions will be part of this study or not. I could see that being a really beneficial aspect of the kind of resourcing, and especially hearing from resource more resource constrained cities on the call, you know, critical to fund this function in every jurisdiction. I think there’s a lot of unevenness across the state about how various jurisdictions fund this critical, you know, public service. So interested to know if that’s part of this study or not.

Speaker 3: Yeah, and as a quick reply, yes, it certainly is part of the scope of the study overall within the context of identifying barriers to the production of housing.

Stephen Heimmes: Okay, that’s really great to hear. Really looking forward to seeing that. Second comment or question, I think on one of the slides you talked about diversity of housing types. Let me see if I can find that one. Oh yeah, the residential development variety slide. I see kind of implied in there a distinction between infill development versus more suburban or subdivision type housing development. I think from the Portland perspective, you know, we don’t see very many subdivisions, hardly any. Most of our development is infill. And I think I’ve seen in the past a little bit, you know, on statewide studies, maybe more of a heavy focus on the subdivision type of development and not always seeing our type development types reflected there. So I just want to put a plug in for that type of diversity and variety as well.

Speaker 3: Yeah, and thanks for paying attention to that. And yes, I did mean to include kind of those different development contexts as well. So infill, greenfield, all the way up to master plan communities. So yeah, we certainly intend to be, the general theme is we’re casting a pretty broad net on anything that can be considered residential development as part of the study and looking at the process and ways to improve any and all of those contexts.

[00:52:31] Stephen Heimmes: Okay, yeah, that’s great. And especially in the context of the public works public infrastructure permitting side of things, it’s just a very big difference in terms of what gets required in those different, you know, infill versus subdivision contexts.

Speaker 3: So, and I will say here too, I mean, I’ve kind of given this answer of like, you know, we want to be broad, we’re trying to include all types of housing developments and those sorts of things. That will kind of limit to some degree, of course, the amount of detail that we can go into in any one of these areas too. We have a very definite time limit of when we need to deliver the report. And, you know, given that we do want to have it be broad as possible and covering things like infrastructure, local government funding to the degree that that plays in, annexations, it’ll need to be somewhat of a broad view and won’t be able to go in great depth on any of these individually. So just wanted to identify that dynamic and make sure that’s out there in people’s minds.

Stephen Heimmes: Got it. Yeah, thank you. One more question and then I think just a closing comment. Maybe you covered this already and I missed it, but how exactly should we signal our interest in participating going forward? And know what are you looking for from us, both external and, you know, jurisdictional folks in terms of further involvement?

[00:54:06] Joel: Well, I think again, particularly engagement in this study, please feel free to let us know, which you’re letting us know now, so we’ll put you on our direct outreach list. And there are other ways to keep in touch with HAPO more broadly, right? Our email is put in the chat. Please feel free to engage with us through that. That’s a team email address that is monitored. So welcome your engagement through that. Also, we have a resource hub that I just wanted to call attention to. And in that within that resource hub, if there are particular inquiries or complaints about H relevant housing laws associated with HAPO, we welcome those coming through that intake form. It allows us to assign and track and monitor part of that data collection of what’s going on in the universe of housing production. So encourage you to utilize that platform as well. So a variety of ways for staying engaged with our office and we welcome your engagement in that.

Speaker 3: And Stephen, just to add on a little bit here, you know, I think with a jurisdiction like size of the City of Portland or even a few of the larger jurisdictions across the state, we may want to do a little bit more coordination about the engagement in this study with those larger jurisdictions so that we can kind of have good coordination and smooth flow of information and feedback between all of the various, for Portland, the departments and bureaus. But also just, you know, larger jurisdictions that have a lot of different departments, a lot of staff. We may want to try to coordinate that communication flow a little as it relates to this study.

Stephen Heimmes: Got it. We can be in contact a little bit more with City of Portland staff and others about that, too.

Speaker 3: Okay, that’s great. Thanks.

Stephen Heimmes: Just one more comment and I’ll then I’ll go off camera. Just flagging that I’m really interested in this study. And I’ll just say specifically the kind of the best practices aspect of the housing process study itself. As a jurisdictional person and representative, I think I can speak for many if not all of my peers on this call that I think that’s something we all want to see and kind of want to see having that broad overview to learn from and to kind of, you know, pick and choose off the shelf like what could we try in our jurisdiction. Learning from other peer cities across the state is going to be really, really valuable. So thank you for taking this on.

[00:57:34] Speaker 2: I don’t see any other hands raised. I think we’ve addressed questions that have been brought forward in the comments, but going to encourage folks that may have other questions or comments for the HAPO team to not be shy here. We’ve committed our involvement here until I think 2:30. So we have some more time yet to field some questions or comments that folks have and hopefully that will spur others like Adrianne to raise their hand. Go ahead.

[00:58:11] Adrianne Iona: Hi, Adrianne Iona also with the City of Portland. I just wanted to add a little bit more to what Stephen’s talking about. I’m particularly in, I work for Bureau of Environmental Services. We do sewer and stormwater and I’m particularly interested in how you guys are thinking about the public works and infrastructure elements of, you know, constraints to housing development. You know, even though in Portland we have relatively developed infrastructure for infill development, we’re really struggling with infrastructure needs and improvements because we still have places in the city that don’t have sanitary sewer service. We still need to build a storm system. We have places that don’t have sidewalks. And so on this lot by lot development, that pattern that we have, getting those improvements along with development is quite challenging. So anyway, I’m curious if you guys have any thoughts on how you’re thinking about that already from the infrastructure side.

[00:59:16] Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks for that point and question. So the person that’s leading kind of the infrastructure side of this is Maddie Phillips from our DLCD housing team. And she’s a public infrastructure planner. She’s unfortunately not on the call. She might be able to speak to that a little bit better than I would. So yeah, I mean aside from, you know, we obviously hear that the conditions of approval that are tied to extending transportation, water, sewer, all of those pieces of infrastructure, that’s certainly a challenge in housing production. And obviously, you know, cities are needing to make sure that development is adequately served by all the urban services, but the question of whether that’s paid for by the jurisdiction or whether that’s more heavily put on the developer, again, that’s something we fully expect to hear as part of this study. I’m really not sure that the study by itself is going to be able to address or make recommendations because that’s, it’s almost kind of a topic that’s a little bit beyond just the process improvements. And I’m also kind of looking to my colleagues here to see if they have any thoughts on, you know, just kind of that general point and what’s being done at the state level on that topic.

[01:00:56] Palmer: I can speak to the state oriented study. I should say this because I think there were some other comments in the chat about the need for infrastructure and I think I’m on safe ground to say that HAPO as a team and DLCD and BCD totally appreciate that infrastructure funding is a key impediment to more housing production. But as I think it’s been acknowledged in other places in this call, that’s largely a legislative decision about what type of tools the legislature is going to provide cities, what kind of funding sources they’re going to make available, and, you know, whether the state’s going to more heavily invest in infrastructure funding. I think the evaluation project that I’m leading will call attention to that matter, but, you know, whether we’ll have a lot of recommendations about additional funding sources, I don’t know that I foresee that, but I won’t judge it totally one way or the other. And if that’s a comment that local governments and others want to share in the process, then we want to hear that. We want to take that input. I can say the one thing that we are really trying to focus on in that evaluation study is where the state does have resources and I’m speaking specifically to infrastructure funding and financing that could be used better or leveraged in more creative ways or get us different results than we’re getting now. We are very interested in that question. I think we are particularly focused on that because that kind of keeps us like within the checkbook that we have now. How can we spend the money more effectively and better? And that’s a good place to go with a set of recommendations to the governor and the legislature. Again, I don’t want to totally foreclose, can we expand the checkbook? Can we increase the amount of money going to infrastructure? I think we’d be happy to take comments on that, but it feels to me like we haven’t asked that question in a while at the state level, like how are we using our existing resources and are we using them most effectively? So if you all have thoughts, if you want to get engaged in that part of the study, I think we’ve dropped it in the chat, but feel free to reach out to me or others on the team and we’ll get you plugged into our evaluation and we’d love to hear those comments.

[01:03:51] Speaker 2: Joel, you may be talking. You’re on mute, I think.

[01:04:08] Joel: Can you hear me? I was just mentioning Tabitha Boschetti. I see your comment in the chat. If you want to come off mute and give us some voice to your comment and question.

Tabitha Boschetti: Yeah, sorry I’m multitasking, but I was curious kind of if you’re, I mean obviously you’ll evaluate this in time, but your thoughts on a framework at this point because of course there’s barriers, but we need to articulate that there are, you know, very different severities of barriers like, you know, I can’t build on a floodway. I can’t, you know, I can’t just drain the wetland and have that be successful for my houses long term versus like, oh man, you’re making me put in windows. And like how much that slows down housing has, you know, a great variation in severity, especially context dependent. But then on the other hand, there’s also ways of evaluating, you know, why do we have those barriers in place? Like I think you’re seeing a lot of not necessarily one philosophy in place in our legislature right now about say, you know, goal one and what does it mean to have, you know, meaningful engagement as part of our processes. Engagement is a barrier and it has benefits at the same time. So it seems like we’re going to need some kind of matrix in this study for evaluating the severity and magnitude of a barrier as well as articulating the types of trade-offs that are involved and making that clearer for the legislature who doesn’t usually engage in land use.

[01:05:44] Joel: Thanks, Tabitha. And Palmer, I’m going to pitch it to you to first focus on this question as it relates to the program and policy evaluation. And then you can hand it back to Ryan.

Palmer: Yeah, thanks Joel. And that is a key question. So I appreciate that you raised it. When, because and again just for context, the study that I’m leading is the evaluation of the statewide policies and programs and we have talked extensively with the consultant and our project team about the fact that these state regulations serve a lot of important public purposes and you named a few: environmental protection, water quality, protection against natural hazards, they ensure good safe infrastructure, or in the case of transportation facilities, the movement of people and goods. I mean, so there are, you know, key public purposes that are served by these regulations. But at the same time, you know, we have a housing crisis. So it’s worth asking what of these regulations, what of these barriers, need to be looked at, not so often I think to change the standards per se, but maybe the process that leads to the review and approval, for the authorization to build or to develop. So we are wrestling with that question and I think at the end, at least a part of the study I’m working on, we’ll have to acknowledge that there is a balancing test between the public good that the regulation advances and the need to address the housing production. And ultimately it’ll be a set of recommendations influenced with, you know, the data and research we have and the public comment that go to the legislature and they will have to sort of weigh that balancing test of, you know, the purpose of regulation serves versus the need to try to boost housing production.

[01:07:48] Speaker 3: Yeah, and thanks Palmer for the context on that at the statewide level. And Tabitha, I think that’s a really great way of kind of framing it or at least one way of presenting, sort of putting a matrix to prioritize the barriers that we’re looking at. You know, those that are related to a statewide planning goal versus those that may be more kind of something that’s in a local development code that, you know, if it’s causing a lot of barriers and complications, you know, sort of looking at the benefit of that. So I think that’s a really great criterion to kind of place on any of the barriers and solutions that we’re looking at.

[01:08:59] Speaker 2: I notice a question and comment in the chat from Owen and I know you were having challenges with your audio earlier. So HAPO team, take a look. I don’t know if this is best suited for you, Sean.

[01:09:17] Sean: Yeah, I could take this one on. So Owen, yeah, there actually, I’ve got some good news on this front. We actually were directed to develop at least a set of model codes governing the development of housing. It’s not universal. But it includes development standards for a few different housing types for different population sizes of cities. And we’ve actually already done this. It was adopted by the commission this last year and we found it, it’s already been helpful for compliance purposes. Like if we need to help a city with, you know, a particular code issue, we’ve already been referencing sections in this code. And we’ll be getting it uploaded onto our website pretty soon here now that it’s adopted. I’ll note it doesn’t cover all aspects of development. For example, it doesn’t include like subdivision standards, things like that. But we already know that we’re going to be building on this model code with different compliance modules for different state laws that the legislature has passed to aid local implementation, things like that. So that way we can build on that as an implementation resource for local governments as well as housing developers.

Speaker 2: Sean, what are some of those modules that we’re going to be focusing on here next couple months?

Sean: Oh yeah, yeah. So for those who have tracked recent legislative bills, most of the things that we’re going to be tackling in this next year are related to bills that were passed in 2024 and 2025. Some examples include the mandatory adjustment provisions that were in Senate Bill 1537. The residential homes and facilities bill that was passed, that was House Bill 2005 in 2025 that includes some land use provisions that are housing laws. And then also SB 974 is another example with different kind of provisions around how, you know, there are some provisions around procedure as well as these things called residential design standards. And we’ll be working on kind of compliance modules that will be a implementation resource for local governments going forward. Yeah.

[01:11:23] Speaker 3: And I’ll just tack on in addition to the model code opportunities there with Silverton that Silverton actually did get awarded a grant for the 25-27 biennium. So HAPO will be interfacing with City of Silverton staff on a code update specifically for residential standards. So the city will be kind of looking at all of the current legislation, trying to get any areas that are not consistent, get those into conformance and potentially using model code as they might see fit as part of that process. So that’s of course specific to Silverton, but just wanted to mention that since, Owen, you’re planning to sit on the committee. Great. So you already know about it.

[01:12:22] Owen: And I agree with Jason about Jason being a good partner. He’s been great to work with on getting it set up so far.

[01:12:44] Speaker 2: Again, I’ll put a call out for any questions or comments about either one of these studies that we’ve been focusing on here this afternoon or anything more broadly related to our office. Feel free to give us your question or comment.

[01:13:14] Yeah, Elizabeth.

Elizabeth: Yeah, good afternoon. I guess I would say broadly, I know you have this new intake form and I’m wondering if your office is the right place to go for interpretation questions around some of the, you know, provisions in the latest legis, round of legislation that’s always coming at us these days. And I recall from some earlier discussions that there’s like some new pathways about who can offer interpretation and what interpretation means. And if this is the place, I do have a question about SB 974 and planned unit developments, but

[01:13:52] Speaker 1: Um, let me know if I can ask it.

Speaker 2: Well, first of all, before I pitch it to you, Sean, for responding more thoroughly here, just another highlight for I think what you’re referring to, Elizabeth, is our HAPO’s intake form. There was a link put in the chat earlier on the HAPO resource hub, and within that resource hub you can find our office’s intake form for complaints and inquiries that are connected to the housing laws associated with our office. So, but I’ll hand it to Sean to respond more directly to your question.

Sean: Yeah. And just on that note too, any type of question like that, feel free to pitch it to us. We’re always happy to respond, and of course if we can’t answer the question or something like that we make that clear. If there are other people who are worth talking to we can try to connect you with those folks, that type of thing, so we try to take a no wrong door approach to that. But this is absolutely within our wheelhouse. One caveat I’ll just say is that when it comes to interpreting statute, so trying to interpret the meaning of words or things that aren’t actually written in the statutes themselves, we have limits on our ability to interpret statute without adopting a rule first, right? So a big part of the work that we’re going to be doing is trying to provide interpretive clarity in any future work that we do on rules that we adopt related to this section. But feel free to ask your question. I’ll see if we have any more insight.

[01:15:20] Elizabeth: Yeah. Okay. Great. So the last section in SB 974 talks about planned developments have to go through this modified type two process with no public hearing. And I’m not trying to advise the cities I work for on how to skirt the law or I’m just trying to truly understand the basis. But some cities have things like master plans or like other discretionary flexible processes for large residential or not always large but just different residential developments that may or may not be called a planned development. And I’m just curious, there’s no definition of planned development or planned unit development in that law. And so I’m just like, does a city just need to call it a master plan to get out of that, you know, to have a different pathway in terms of the procedure they apply, or is there going to be more refinement around what that means, or is there an existing definition of planned development somewhere that might, you know, offer some clarity on this?

Sean: You know, I’m not aware of any statutory definition for planned unit development. Ryan or Rachel, I don’t know if you guys have identified any. But assuming that there isn’t, then yes you’d be right that the term is undefined and we can’t really offer any additional interpretive clarity about what a planned unit development is or is not. We could if we adopted a rule, for example if we adopted a model code module that defined what a planned unit development is, that would be an avenue that we could provide that clarity.

[01:16:47] Elizabeth: And I’ll just—oh.

Sean: Just if a jurisdiction has a master plan process right now, how is there a way you might advise them about whether or not this type 2-ish requirement procedural requirement applies to that?

Elizabeth: Yeah, the advice would be definitely consult an attorney.

[01:17:12] Ryan: And just one little note in ORS 94 kind of dealing with real estate, I think the term planned development or planned unit development does appear there. I make no comment about whether that has any applicability within statewide land use law. But just that’s the one place I have seen it within statute. There could be others.

Elizabeth: All right. Thanks.

[01:17:44] Speaker 2: There you have it. Testing the on the spot housing law expertise of our office, too. So, thanks Sean and Ryan for diving in and for your question, Elizabeth. I’ll pause in case there are other questions or comments that come in. And I guess while you’re thinking about this last opportunity for today, I want to put a plug in for our colleagues at the housing division who host open forums as well. So, next month’s open forum will be hosted by DLCD’s housing division with Ethan Stucker and his team. The focus will be on ONA guidance and resources as well as the Oregon homes and middle housing rulemaking. So please feel free to join the housing team and be encouraged to join the housing team at their next open forum in February.

[01:18:46] Nancy, did you want to give some voice to your comment you just put in the chat? I’ll give our teammates a second to see if you can respond here.

[01:19:48] A member of HAPO team, if you want to speak to a response or try to type in a response to Nancy’s comment or question in the chat. I can respond Stephen to your comment about are there specific details of complaints filed with HAPO viewable on the web or just the summary dashboard data? And just want to acknowledge like we are working to on our data philosophy yet at within our office and to get to a point of providing more detail on the formal complaints that have been filed to our office. But at this point it is just the summary dashboard data that we have up there.

[01:20:35] Stephen: Oh, got it. Thanks. Um, one more follow-up on that. I see it broken down by county but not by specific city jurisdiction. Is that correct? Or is there a way to slice it even further?

Speaker 2: We just have it at the county level at this point and not specific to jurisdictions within the county.

Stephen: Mhm. Okay. Thanks.

[01:21:05] Speaker 2: And going back to Nancy’s comment, Nancy, if you’re able to either put your contact information into the form that was linked or send it to the email or if you’re comfortable putting it in the chat, if you could leave that, I can follow up with you just to get a little bit better sense of the question you’re asking and how we can incorporate that into the study. That’d be great if you’re willing to do that.

[01:22:13] Well, again, thank you all for joining us this afternoon and for your engagement with our office. Really appreciate the feedback, comments, the questions, and many of your commitments to engage with us more intentionally on the studies that we’re working on. So really appreciate it. Thank you so much for participating this afternoon and please keep that engagement coming, whether you’re participating in a future open forum that we have. We’re going to continue to host these every month again as I mentioned with alternating with our colleagues at the housing division. So the HAPO focused open forum will be back again in March. You can join us then. But also in the meantime we’ve put up some resources and opportunities for how to engage with us in the chat, accessing through our website, sending emails, welcome all of that. So thanks again for your participation and look forward to our work together. Hope you have a great rest of your day.