In yesterday’s legislative update, I indicated that among the land use bills we are awaiting was one that Sen. Fillmore was working on, and that we didn’t really know what the specifics of that bill would be.  Well, yesterday the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission (UEOC) met and got a report on various growth-related bills and initiatives, including one from Sen. Fillmore and what he’s working on in his (protected) bill!

As I’ve noted in previous posts, the UEOC has become the most engaged state-level body on issues of growth and housing, and that was borne out again in it’s meeting yesterday.  Most of the meeting was spent discussing various initiatives and proposals the group has been working on and endorsed for the upcoming legislative session.  Reports the body received included one on Limited Infrastructure Development Districts (similar to PIDs, but all private), and the report from Sen. Fillmore on his bill.

Katie McKellar of the Deseret News wrote a very good summary of the growth and housing issues discussed in the meeting.  To borrow from her piece, here are some of the key points.

On the subdivision process modifications, McKellar wrote:

First, the bill would change the way cities would be required to handle subdivision plans. The bill, he said, would “streamline” and “make uniform and predictable the process by which people who are building affordable housing … get those to the market faster.”

Under the bill, there would be an “early stage legislative approval” of a subdivision plan. “But then once that approval happens, the developer can go forward knowing, ‘My plan is approved. I don’t have to go back to this municipal authority every time … I want to just implement what’s already been approved,’” Fillmore said.

Currently, subdivision plans could be subject to several public hearings after initial approval. Fillmore’s bill would cut that down to one public hearing opportunity, at the very beginning of the process. It would also make clear the implementation of an approved plan is an administrative function, and therefore not subject to public hearings.

“It really will streamline the process and make it much more predictable for developers and shorten the amount of time it takes to get such projects to market,” Fillmore said. “Time being money, we hope that also has an impact on reducing the cost of housing,” Fillmore said.

He added the bill would also “take that same concept and apply it to other kinds of development,” like station area plans, or projects oriented around transit hubs.

South Jordan Mayor Dawn Ramsey, who sits on the Unified Economic Opportunity Commission, thanked Fillmore for his work, and added she wanted to make clear that the provision to streamline the subdivision approval process would still allow for an open process and public hearing “at the beginning of the process.”

“There’s absolutely still public input, there’s still an open process at the beginning, but once this project is approved, then yes, it becomes administrative and it just moves forward,” she said.

Weber County Commissioner Gage Froerer also spoke in favor of streamlining subdivisions, saying it would provide opportunity for the public to weigh in on a proposed project, “but at the same time not (give) the public three swings at the bat to derail a development.”

Cameron Diehl, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, told the Deseret News in a statement the proposal to change the process for how cities administer subdivisions “will positively impact all new housing development in Utah.”

“We think this proposal will improve the efficiency and predictability around the subdivision process while still respecting the role of city leaders in planning our communities.”

The subdivisions process modifications was actually a proposal made by Cameron Diehl and the League of Cities and Towns as a counter-proposal to some other ideas that had been floated by the Property Rights Coalition in discussions in the Commission on Housing Affordability.  And some of the League’s proposal came about as a result of discussion that had been ongoing earlier, reflected in a conference session on the role of public input in land use processes that I was part of at the APA fall conference and the ULUI Land Use conference.  You can see the basis for a lot of those presentations by going back to the blog postings for May 10, May 9, and April 25.

Having said that, we still don’t know exactly what the bill is going to say about the subdivision process as we have not yet seen the language.  It will be eagerly anticipated, and hopefully we may have the ability to contribute to that language before all is said and done.

Another issue that will be addressed in the bill is much more controversial.

Second, Fillmore’s bill would also seek to sharpen Utah’s teeth when it comes to punishing cities that haven’t included moderate income housing into their city plans. Currently, Utah law punishes cities that fail to adopt or make progress on their moderate income housing plans by making them ineligible for transportation investment fund dollars, or state money that’s set aside for larger regional projects.

However, Fillmore said that can be sometimes problematic. “We would be in a situation where we might be holding Lindon hostage for Orem’s failure to make progress on their housing plan. If Orem can’t get funding, that just creates more traffic problems in Lindon and in Provo.”

So, Fillmore said he’s aiming to create a penalty that’s “more targeted to cities,” by withholding state money for road improvements known as Class B and C funds.

This has been brought up in earlier discussions, and the League has pretty much said this is a non-starter for their membership.  So, this will set up an interesting clash to come.

Thirdly, Sen. Fillmore indicated that the bill would have some clarifying language about aspects of the accessory dwelling units language that was passed in last year’s legislative session.  What that would be, he did not say.

There was also some discussion about the Limited Infrastructure Development Districts concept from Rep. Mike Schultz and Ty McCutcheon.  If you are interested in this issue, take a listen to the UEOC meeting here.  In fact, it’s worth a listen to overall just to get a sense of the role this body is playing in state-level policy towards growth, housing and economic development.  It is significant!

Okay, that’s it for today.  I’ve already found some more planning related bills, and some interesting other material, I’ll post those in the next couple of days.