As we get closer to the holidays, when much of the legislative-related action comes to almost a complete stop, here’s a wrap on what land use and housing related bills are anticipated.

• A complete reorganization of the housing function in state government. Housing will be taken out of the Department of Workforce Services and put in the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity.  The housing financing programs will also be moved into this office.  The Commission on Housing Affordability will be gone, as will the position of the Governor’s Housing Advisor.
• Detached ADUs – a bill has been promised on this, the parameters are still being worked out, and the League has been working with its members to determine what parameters would be acceptable to local governments. The majority of league members said they were open to the idea of allowing conversion of detached garages into ADUs by-right, by would prefer to be able to regulate DADUs for setbacks and some level of design standards, and be able to not allow DADUs in front yards or areas where infrastructure may be lacking.
• A revamping of Moderate Income Housing Plans (MIHPs) to allow for better crediting of larger, long-term projects approved in communities, better options for meeting standards, and review of reports.  This effort is being called “MIHP 2.0”.
• Removing the provisions for a required annexation policy plan from the annexation code (10-2-8), and instead move much of the planning language to LUDMA as an element of the General Plan. This move will help streamline the annexation process, and incorporate planning for future municipal expansion into the general planning process.
• Allow for small (2-acre? 5-acre?) annexations of unincorporated islands with minimal process requirements, but still dependent on property owner willingness to annex.
• Modifications to preliminary municipality incorporation process (still under discussion, no details yet)
• Better defining of and time limits for what constitutes “reasonable diligence,” used in the context of when subdivision or land use approvals expire.
• Allow for single-stairway multi-story residential buildings, likely up to about 4 stories (this follows a national trend).
• Planning commission training requirement additions, including explicit instruction on administrative v. legislative actions, and ethics.
• Infrastructure development requirements standardization – this has been a topic of discussion for several years now. There seems to be some level of agreement coming for some basic, minimal standards, such as thickness of road base and asphalt and maybe pipe sizes and quality, but we shall see.  It’s not there yet.
• A bill proposed by Rep. Ray Ward that would establish a state “preference” for certain uses in land use codes (it would actually be state-required uses in all communities) for minimum lot sizes of 5,400 sf, DADUs, and no garage requirements. A municipality or county could vote to override these required uses in individual projects on a case-by-case basis.
• Lincoln Filmore has stated his intention to sponsor a bill that would provide for, if a builder commits to build a state-defined starter home (affordable + ownership), then state law approves it by-right regardless of local zoning. Have not seen any language on this yet.
• Cal Roberts has stated his intention to sponsor a bill that would provide state funding for infrastructure that is designed to allow for building of more housing. Various ideas of how to repay such funding, from impact fees or increment financing or other ways.
• The League has been working with a group on a proposal to establish a program they are preliminarily calling “Edge Communities: Know Before You Grow.”  The idea is to provide state money to assist in funding planning, and for technical assistance in reviewing and shepherding complex projects through the local approval process.  Concept for this is still developing.
• Language clean-up for some bills passed in the last legislative session, such as SB179 which requires every local government to have a process in its zoning code to allow for determining whether a newly proposed business land use is similar to those currently listed in the code. The bill seemed to allow for a legislative decision to be challenged in an administrative appeals process – that would be corrected in this new bill.  There were a couple of other corrections needed in other bills as well.

That’s what we know about so far.  There have been rumblings about individual legislators possibly wanting to put forward other bills on these topics, but nothing concrete yet.  There are always surprises in every legislative session, no worries there!  We’ll try to keep you updated as things move along.