Well, the post yesterday about mandated general plan consistency vs. advisory has generated a lot of reaction.  Let me say up front, this has all been generated by two words in SB262 proposed to be added to the definition of general plan in LUDMA, “by ordinance.”  I don’t think doing just this would make Utah a mandated consistency state because of other provisions that are still in LUDMA, but regardless, it appears to be the intent of the sponsor, Sen. Lincoln Fillmore.  From some others who have discussed this with Sen. Fillmore, it appears that what he wants is a shortened, vested process for housing projects to help make them more affordable (by reducing time spent in the government review mill, and limited potential reactions that can kill projects).  He appears to think that it is possible to stipulate that once a general plan is adopted by ordinance and made mandatory, projects then are approved by right without having to go through any further legislative process.  That is an incorrect assessment of how land use planning and regulation works.  General plans, whether mandatory or advisory, are only the first step in this process.  Plans do not contain the detailed standards and regulations that projects must then follow.  That is accomplished in the next step, which is the crafting and adopting of the land use regulations that implement the plan, including zoning of property.  And that is another legislative step, open to public input, and ultimate approval.  It’s possible to make projects approvable by right in such regulations, but the general plan step is not enough.  It almost seems to me that the good Senator may be thinking of general plans as being primarily future land use maps, and once that is adopted, that sets the zoning and accompanying regulations in place.

If we do wind up subsequently heading down the road to making Utah a mandatory consistency state, I believe it will mean a wholesale change in the way land use planning is done.  General plans will get much more attention to detail, and they will become the battlegrounds for land use fights, switching over from rezonings and ordinance adoptions (they won’t go away.)  Making such a switch means that many jurisdictions will then likely jump into recrafting of their general plans, which will likely mean a delay of project applications.  And there’s the whole question of deciding what level of consistency will be required – just the general policies, or all the way to the details of the future land use map (many plans today no longer do future land use maps, so what would that mean?).

Here’s another comment I received on this issue from John Janson, former West Valley City Planning Director, now retired and doing substantial planning consulting work:

There is the issue of plans being long term and some aspects may not be good today but are good tomorrow.  Some communities may want to incrementally move toward the longer term land use goal and not jump to the end goal just yet. Communities can make that decision themselves and don’t need the legislature to “force” that on them.

 I worry that the unintended consequence of mandatory consistency will result in “knee jerk” reactions like more areas suggested in the plan for low density or agriculture so that every increased density proposal has to go through a rezone and general plan amendment process, which people come out of the woodwork on (as we know)!

 Also, changes to the Plan add additional time and cost to communities – map changes and text changes.  Some communities don’t have any expertise to work within the GIS and InDesign programs that are often used, and will have to obtain outside help all the time.

 Good ideas/proposals that aren’t part of the Plan can be addressed with concurrent plan changes with zone changes, as Ralph said, but there are costs associated with those changes.

I have seen many communities that have adopted their advisory GP which includes recommended strategies, such as development of a new ordinance or revisions to an existing ordinance, but it takes them years to achieve that work.  I’ve also seen communities where the plan suggests ordinance changes and then when the actual ordinance is presented via the public process, the City decides not to do it.

 Are we going that far with “consistency” or just the future land use map?  What if the City doesn’t have the ordinance to support the FLU map suggestions?

John’s comments are similar to several other comments I’ve gotten.  As I said, I don’t think the change in SB262 will necessarily accomplish general plan consistency mandate, but it appears to be at least the opening salvo for an upcoming “discussion.”