Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
League updates members on housing and land-use bills; staff warns against ‘binding general plans’ language
Summary
League staff briefed members on a package of housing bills and urged cities to provide feedback. Staff recommended opposing language in SB262 that would require general plans to be adopted by ordinance because it could make general plans effectively binding.
The Legislative Policy Committee heard an extensive update Feb. 18 on housing and land-use legislation and a request to provide written feedback on the League’s Housing Strategic Plan Phase 1 by March 19.
League staff said several bills are moving together as a package, including Representative Dunnigan’s political subdivisions bill (House Bill 37), House Bill 360 and House Bill 368 (elements in the Commission on Housing Affordability package), and other measures addressing parking, density overlays and land-use tools. Staff noted House Bill 320, a code-enforcement bill, would allow incremental civil penalties to escalate if a property owner receives repeated violations (after three penalties a municipality could impose a higher fine for a fourth violation) and said cities supported that approach.
Staff updated members on SB280, a bill clarifying the geographic test for retail incentives (allowing qualifying housing to be within one quarter mile of a retail facility rather than strictly in the same building) and setting a 6-month finality period for GOED review of reported incentives. Members also heard about SB181 (parking changes) and that these measures are being considered together in the housing package.
Staff recommended opposition to SB262 as drafted because it contains two words — “adopted by ordinance” — in a state code change that could be interpreted to make a city’s general plan binding and prevent local zoning decisions from deviating from an adopted general plan. League staff and members warned that a general plan is traditionally aspirational and distinct from zoning, which implements regulation. The League’s view is the proposed language creates uncertainty and the potential for future efforts to lock municipal zoning to a general-plan standard.
Staff emphasized the importance of cities’ collective engagement. Members were urged to contact legislators on committees reviewing the bills and to submit City feedback on the housing strategic plan by March 19 so League staff can aggregate city comments for state staff and bill sponsors.
Ending: League staff will collect city feedback on the housing strategic plan, push for clarifying language on the general-plan issue, and continue to track and testify on housing package bills through committee and floor action.
