Action yesterday on SB199 – Local Land Use Amendments, the land use referendum bill. See the February 9 blog entry for discussion about this bill. The bill was passed out favorably by Senate committee with a 4-1 vote, and then passed 2nd Reading by the full Senate with an 18-6 vote.
In the growth workshops held in various locations around the state last fall, the issue of referenda stymying local communities’ attempts to provide for more and more varied housing was raised, with the comment that something should be done to tone them down. In the follow-up to the growth workshops, ULUI has identified the top issues identified and enabled a series of topical papers and workshops, one of which is referenda. This topic will be presented at the APA Utah Spring Conference in May.
A good story in the DesNews this morning describes what happened in the legislature yesterday on this bill. Sen McKell, the bill sponsor, said during the committee hearing,
“What’s happening across the state is the referendum process is being weaponized to hurt developers and cities as they plan for the future, as they promote projects.”
Virtually all the land use bills in the legislature this session are being justified on the basis of the housing affordability crisis, and the same is true for this bill.
“We have an affordable housing issue in this state, and it’s going to be really difficult to address and tackle affordable housing if we don’t respect the private property rights and those that choose to move forward with projects,” McKell said.
Even Governor Spencer Cox has mentioned referenda in reference to the housing crisis.
Cox, while unveiling his budget proposal, also said the referendum process can impede housing solutions because, in some instances, small groups of people can shut down any type of development.
“Everyone wants more affordable housing for their kids and grandkids but they want it to go where they can’t see it,” Cox said at the time.
In the past, however, when measures have been taken by the Legislature to restrict the use of referenda, the courts have stepped in to say this is a right enshrined in the state constitution, and measure that make them effectively impossible or very difficult to undertake are not constitutional. A member of the public who had attempted to do a referendum in Spanish Fork city, spoke to the committee, saying,
“Exercising this right that is guaranteed under the Utah Constitution should be made easier for the people, not harder.”
There was some pushback on the bill, both in committee and on the Senate floor. It will be interesting to see what happens with it in the House.
On another matter, former colleague and friend Nick Norris, Salt Lake City Planning Director, called my attention to a bill that I wasn’t aware had any land use implications, but it certainly does, even though it makes no changes to LUDMA. The bill is HB331 – Microenterprise Home Kitchen Amendments.
The provisions of this bill make changes to a Section of the Utah Health Code for Microenterprise Home Kitchens, which defines them as “a non-commercial kitchen facility located in a private home and operated by a resident of the home where ready-to-eat food is handled, stored, prepared, or offered for sale.” Local governments could still regulate them as they would any home occupation, but this bill would have changed that. It would, in essence, have incorporated land use provisions into the state health code.
The bill would have enacted the following:
A political subdivision may, but is not required, to establish reasonable regulations
202 regarding:
203 (i) the maximum number of customers or customer vehicles that may be at a
204 microenterprise home kitchen at one time, except that a microenterprise home kitchen shall be
205 permitted to allow at least 10 customers to be on the premise at one time;
206 (ii) the hours during which a microenterprise home kitchen may operate, except that a
207 microenterprise home kitchen shall be permitted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.;
208 (iii) the external appearance of the microenterprise home kitchen, except that a
209 microenterprise home kitchen shall be permitted to post a sign outside of the microenterprise
210 home kitchen that is three feet high and three feet wide; or
211 (iv) the maximum number of employees from outside of the household, except that a
212 microenterprise home kitchen shall be permitted to have at least two employees from outside of
213 the household at the microenterprise home kitchen at any given time.
214 (c) A political subdivision may not enact a regulation that creates specific requirements
215 for a microenterprise home kitchen except those that are specifically authorized under this
216 section.
When the bill was heard in committee on February 6, however, it failed on a 4-6 vote. So the bill is dead – maybe. It is possible that it could be resurrected if there is sufficient support, particularly from leadership. We’ll keep an eye on it.