As noted in the last posting, a few bills related to land use and housing were discussed in interim committee meetings last week.  Most motored along just fine with not a lot of questions or concerns.  As the post also noted, probably the most significant was the Utah Housing Amendments draft bill.  What was really notable to me about this bill was that it seems to be one generated by the legislative staff, likely in response to the reaction from legislators to the Utah Housing Policy Audit.  It was not generated by the various working groups dealing with this issue.

Tellingly, Utah League of Cities and Towns Executive Director Cameron Diehl noted in comments to the interim committee that his members had not yet seen this bill, though discussions had been underway about concepts very similar to those put forth in the bill.

A good description of the bill is provided by Utah News Dispatch Katie McKellar (she’s clearly the most clued-in news person on the housing affordability issue) in a piece she wrote at the end of last week, Utah lawmakers’ next big housing bill is taking shape. Here’s what it includes — so far.  She describes the bill thus:

The new bill would allow — not force — cities and counties to implement a “density overlay” in a “housing-eligible zone” of their choice. In other words, the bill would give city leaders another tool in their planning toolbelt to zone for certain, higher-density housing types in areas that are already classified for residential use.

She then also then lists the details of how the overlays could be implemented.  She really focuses on the collaborative aspect of the recent legislative actions on housing affordability, and of this bill in particular (even though local officials were not aware of this specific bill being worked on and its specifics – though legislators promised to do so as the bill now moves forward).

But the bill unveiled Wednesday and now headed for priority consideration during the session doesn’t harness any state powers to force cities to zone for higher density or affordable housing types. Instead, it follows lawmakers’ past playbook of giving cities options rather than strong-arming them.

Senate Majority Whip Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, who also co-chairs the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee, said the bill is all about being “optional, optional, optional.”

“We stayed away from mandates,” McKell said, adding “that’s been a constant concern of this committee, is having strong mandates in the code.”

“Obviously, we’ve got a problem that we need to solve,” McKell added, but he said the Commission on Housing Affordability will continue to work on solutions, and this bill “seemed like a better approach at this point” than handing down local mandates.

Another aspect of this bill that I hadn’t mentioned earlier, but is likely to be a key piece, is the creation of regional housing plans.

Additionally, the bill would also direct the state’s Commission on Housing Affordability to begin preparing a set of “regional strategic plans” for housing across the state, meant to “define success in housing policy for the region” and set metrics and goals to “address housing shortages and projected population growth” in those areas.

The Legislative Housing Policy Audit recommended that a statewide housing plan was needed, and my understanding is that work is underway to do so.  However, Steve Waldrip has made remarks at conferences and to others that perhaps a better way would be to approach it from a regional standpoint.

Steve Waldrip, Gov. Spencer Cox’s senior adviser for housing strategy and innovation, told Utah News Dispatch last month that discussions around the statewide plan would likely focus on “regional” needs and what different types of cities will need to accommodate their housing demands rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

More on this in an upcoming post.