H.B. 184 Small Lots and Starter Homes Amendments: transcript

Uh, thank you Mr. Chair and thank you committee, um, especially for the chance to present this bill, um, to you a second time. I will be speaking to the third substitute, which is what I prepared in response to committee comments. Um, I'll say just briefly that it's my belief that unless the legislature is willing to consider some larger ideas, we'll have a hard time making, uh, progress with our housing affordability problem. And it, it's my belief that just the way we have done zoning, um, over decades has made things slow, has made things more expensive, and most importantly has made it very difficult for small homes to be built. And it is in to be permitted, to be built, um, in many cities in many places, and is in that spirit that, um, I bring you this bill, but mostly I would just like to present to you the changes that I made to the bill, um, as the result of the committee feedback that I received, um, last time. So I have on line 58, um, excluded the smaller counties from the bill. The bulk of our problem is along, um, the Wasatch front, so that I made that change. Um, I have clarified, um, and expanded what is required to be turned into the cities so that there will be a clear description of the property with its boundaries and a clear description, uh, and size of the home will be apparent with what is turned in. I have doubled the time that the city has to respond just to acknowledge the submission, uh, to acknowledge the request and request from 40, 30 to 45 days the time that the city has to respond. So that's almost two months in total, uh, to make sure that there is plenty of time to respond if the city wishes to the request. Um, I took out the word vested, uh, to, to make, to make it more clear that this is just considered a permitted use. Not, not that they have the permit because they would, the individual would still have to go through all the normal steps to get the permit. Um, but that it's considered a permitted use. Um, clarified on line 1 33, uh, to clarify that, that thing that after this process, all of the other normal steps to get a permit, um, must be gone through. None of those steps are short circuited. Um, by, by virtue of going through this process, um, I added a timeline by which the applicant must proceed to execute the product. And if that timeline's not met, then the project would lose its designation as a permitted use. Um, and then in lines, uh, 1 47 to 1 54, uh, eliminated the possibility that an applicant could just apply over and over and over again and made it basically so that the applicant would get a single time to request with the opt-out procedure. Um, and then after that time, they would not have that, um, opt-out benefit available to them, so they wouldn't be able to just take up the city's time. In one sense. Um, colleague, this colleagues, this bill is asking for something very small. It is asking only for an easier process for two very specific things, things that we know would make our housing affordability better. It is asking for an easier pathway to build single family homes on small lots, and it is asking for an easier pathway to build starter homes. But in another sense, um, this bill is asking for something large, um, because it is asking whether the legislature is willing to consider any changes or improvements to the overall zoning process. Um, right now, I would say our zoning process provides many pathways to say no. It provides many pathways to delay. Uh, when it does permit things to be built, it often makes requirements that make the final product be more expensive. Um, and it, the process to me seems to prioritize the wishes, who of those who already have a home, um, at the expense of those who cannot find a way to purchase their first home. Um, and so for that, I would ask for your support on, on this bill. It will make it easier to build on smaller lots. It will make it easier to build starter homes. It will do it in a small way that will make neighborhoods better. Thank you. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thanks. Um, Mr. Chair, one question, clarifying question, and I am pretty sure you covered this in your talk or in your, um, presentation, I've been reached out to by the cities I represent, and they're concerned that we're forcing this on them, that they won't have a choice in this matter as, uh, these are presented to their city. Is that a factual statement? And if so, if not, what would the accurate response be?

It, it is not factual that the city will not have a choice. Uh, I've done the best I can. It, it becomes for this thing, it becomes an opt out instead of an opt-in. But I've done the best I can to make the city's ability to opt out as easy as I know how to make it. To say that, um, by a, a vote of the, either the planning commission or the city council, um, and not held to a standard of saying that they need to prove that it's detrimental. But the, the easiest standard I could think of was that they just believed that it would be detrimental if they have that belief that was the broadest I knew how to make it, they would vote the project down and then it would be back to the base zoning. So in every single instance, the base zoning would, could still be honored if the city chose it. I imagine that, uh, that some cities would choose to decide to say, just look, just so you know, we're gonna vote every single one of these down. And that before very long, people would stop bringing them these projects, uh, because they would've made it known that they were not ever gonna approve any of them. Um, I would hope, and I would believe that in other cities, they would say, well, there are some of these that might make sense and that wouldn't hurt anything. And we would be willing to entertain some of them and to put a little thought into it and vote down those that were harmful. But to either vote for or just allow those that were not gonna hurt anything that would make a small improvement, they really weren't gonna hurt anything that some of those would be allowed. Right now, the only way these can even be allowed, even by the city council, is to change the entire zone. We've made it that's such a high bar that we don't have a way to improve one and two little projects that would make things better. Thank you.

My name is Kate Bradshaw. I serve as mayor of City of Bountiful and President of the League of Cities and Towns This year. We've been before you already today, uh, on bills in which we are really proud of our partnership. And one of the most important principles that we talk about up here at the state capitol and that the league tries to represent is partnership not preemption. Last Friday, I testified on HCR six, which adopts a statewide housing plan and is sponsored by your colleague, Representative Whyte. When that project launched a year ago, there was a lot of skepticism and concern on the part of municipalities about what that plan would be, but we took up the opportunity to participate and be part of that process and help shape state housing policy and 63 meetings later, including five different league town halls and presentations to our board. One of your guiding principles that is, uh, encapsulated in that plan is to prioritize collaboration over preemption. The end result of this year long process that we engaged in with you is a plan and a resolution that the League of Cities and towns supported just a few days ago. So why do we oppose this bill? We oppose this bill because it fundamentally interferes with the authority of city councils, negatively impacts our longstanding land use policy, creates a flawed process, undermines infrastructure planning is unfair to those existing land use applications that are already in the queue. And we have said yes to so many collaborative approaches over the last several years, including 14 day timeframes for plan refuse, three day timeframes for inspections, 20 day timeframes and expectations for subdivision applications and subdivision approvals. We've created a process for identical housing plan reviews, a process to release warranty bonds for infrastructure. We've put clarifications around the roles of planning staff of planning commissions and city councils. We've created stationary plans to unlock over a hundred thousand housing units in 98 different stationary plans. Um, we've put prohibitions and agreed to those at the state level on residential design, including that we cannot require homes larger than a thousand square feet. We feel like we've met you on this principle of partnership, not preemption, and we would ask you to continue to meet us on that plane. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Alyssa Daley with the Utah Association of Realtors. I first wanna thank Representative Ward for being so willing to wade into what has become a fairly contentious space and for doing hard work on this third substitute to meet some of the concerns that you as a committee brought up so we can try and carefully thread the needle between protecting private property rights and allowing cities to do their job and protecting the health and safety of their communities. I just wanna bring one thing, um, to mine, is you guys take a vote on this bill. Um, uh, like I mentioned last time when we talked about this bill a few weeks ago, um, at the UAR, we really pride ourselves on leading with good data and we pulled your constituents across the Wasatch front, younger voters on housing attitudes. I won't go into the details that I've already talked to you guys about before, but I I do wanna remind, um, the committee that there is a real cost, a, a true economic cost to our statewide housing crisis. It deserves a statewide response. And, um, when we asked voters who they felt were most responsible for dealing with the statewide housing crisis, it was state leaders, it was the legislature. Um, and so I would ask that you keep your constituents in mind, um, that are blocked out of the housing market, that are facing, um, a really uphill battle in terms of achieving the American dream and gaining the, the economic opportunity of home ownership. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike Oster Millard on behalf of the Property Rights Coalition. I, I, I just wanna say this, that I, I'm not sure there's a legislator who has spent as much time over the last several years as Representative Ward has on these issues. We all, all of us agree. We are in a crisis, we're in a housing crisis. Nobody disagrees with that. And I, Representative Ward, uh, I don't know where his energy comes from, but I want to try to figure it out and harness it because it's, it's inspiring to me and I get paid to work in housing policy. Um, and so I just want to thank him. I wanna thank him for thinking outside the box and for being creative. And I, and also for listening to this committee, I think there was a robust conversation about this issue. Uh, I think it's really clear from the language in the third substitute that Representative Ward went back and said, okay, I'm gonna address all of the concerns that came up from the committee. And the fact that he is trying to come up with an innovative, creative solution that, that hopefully will move the needle, but also still allows cities the same discretion to be able to act and exercise local control that they currently have. And so we'd ask you to consider supporting the bill. Thank you.

Hi there. Lauren Cole with Wasatch Advocates for Louisville Communities. I would just echo what's already been said. I want to take a moment to thank the sponsor, um, for bringing this bill forward. I think whether or not it passes today, I think, um, we all have benefited from the conversation around modest practical reforms that question, the status quo, the status quo is not working for Utah families currently. Um, and when communities are willing to rethink outdated processes, this can unlock real improvements in housing affordability. Um, we don't need to overhaul everything at once. We just need to stop letting bureaucratic inertia stand between families and the houses that they need. Um, we need to be delivering outcomes more efficiently than the status quo currently allows. Um, thank you for considering this bill.

Yeah, can you see me? Yes, we can. Yes. Thank you so much. I agree that, uh, we have a housing crisis here in Utah, but we've been told over and over again that if cities will act, the state will stay in their lane and maintain our local land use authorities. So I just wanna highlight some of the recent actions that Washington City has taken. We've approved multiple projects with 4,000 square foot lots. I live in one of those projects on a 3,800 square foot lot in a very modest home. We have 2,852 final plat, uh, final plat status, lots that are ready to be built on. We're partnering with state trust lands and a developer Coal West. All three of us came to the table and made concessions to bring 200 affordable homes to the market here in Washington City. Those are gonna be on 4,000 square foot lots, and that product will come to market less than $400,000 for a single family detached home. We've made great stride on Aus. We now allow Aus up to 1500 square feet with three foot setbacks. We're doing our part as cities, and so we would respect the legislature if they would allow us to continue to have our land use authority, because there are a lot of good actors out there like Washington City that are working hard to create affordable and, and vibrant communities. Thank you so much for your time and, uh, and, and please, um, not allow this bill to move forward. Thank you for the record.

and where you're speaking from? Gordon Hess, Washington City.

Hi, my name is Krista Hinton. I am, I'm from Santa Clara City. I serve on the city council there. I also serve as the first VP for the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Thanks for giving me a few minutes to talk with you. Today at the league, we often talk about partnership, not preemption. Um, and I wanna reiterate the league's strong commitment to partnership in helping address complex issues like housing affordability. I wanna acknowledge the good faith efforts of the bill sponsor to amend, but this, this bill still has the state interfering with our authority as a city council. As city council members. Um, it's undermines our legislative authority, uh, it to respond to the housing affordabilities in ways that make sense in my community. Santa Clara, we're currently working on an R one four zone, a small lot zone 4,000 square feet with the objective of creating housing affordability. Um, we want to balance the small lot size with flexibility for developers, but also restrict the total home square footage size and also have a deed restriction for owner occupied housing. Um, recent, a few years ago, we also put into, uh, our code a Loa lot a zone with of 6,000 square foot lots. So R one six lots. Hurricane recently created a small lot zone for R one four lots St. George recently created a downtown zone where multiple ADUs can be placed on a single lot. Washington City just talked about the great projects they're working on. Cities are responding to the housing affordability problem and created in unique ways that fit their respective communities. I also want to say that I'm a mother of adult children who are navigating this difficult landscape for housing ownership. Uh, this is something that matters to me. It matters to the members of my city council and, and city councils around my county. Thank you very much for your comments.

Correct. I'd like to make a motion to adopt substitute three.

No, I'll waive Thanks. Okay.

We'll go to the sponsor. I'll waive, But thank you for the motion.

Yes. Thank you. Um, as we've heard from several people and we've discussed over and over talking with constituents, we are in a housing crisis. Um, we feel that our kids feel that the growing generation feels that and doing the same thing over and over grow up. Just building more homes is not necessarily solving the problem. We need new ideas. We need creative ideas. Several ideas, any ideas? And I think this is a new idea. Is it, uh, the best idea? I don't know. Let's keep talking about it. Is it a a viable idea? Yes. Is it at the final state where it's ready to go? Maybe let, uh, but I like it and I strongly oppose the idea of when we bring new ideas, innovative ideas to the table, we squash them right as they are starting to get some legs under 'em. I like the idea of letting 'em, uh, develop. Let's see. If it goes anywhere, let's let some people experiment with it. The sponsor has said, cities can say no all they want, but if it's proven to be a successful idea, I love the innovative approach and, uh, would like to see whether it proves out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would just like to thank the, the sponsor on this. Um, he's worked in good faith. He's listened to feedback from from the committee. Uh, he's tried to work with the league. Um, this is definitely, um, thinking outta the box, which I think we need these type of ideas. I think I've stated my position already pretty clearly and, and directly to the sponsor. Um, I, I fear the state moving in on local control, and I think that's an important piece that cities should keep. But with that said, I think regardless of what happens with this bill, I think what you've accomplished, Representative Ward is this is a conversation that needs to happen and we should continue talking about it. And it should be a wake up call to the cities that they should do their job. Um, if we as the state are going to do our job, which we just passed the bill about infrastructure and investing in that, then we expect the cities to do their part too. And so, although I'll be a no vote, uh, I, I just appreciate the sponsor and his good work On, on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really love this idea. I want so much to support this bill. If freedom were the norm, this would be accepted, but I don't think that we are there. I living in Saratoga Springs, our infrastructure is not in a place to be able to support the kind of housing that I would love us to have right now. I know that my kids would benefit from this. Um, I feel, uh, I, I'm, I really appreciate Representative Shallenberger's comments about wanting to, um, to continue to pursue this because it really does matter. And I really wanna put our cities on notice and say, Hey, we do need to do something about this. Um, and I hope, sincerely hope that cities will consider working with them, um, regardless of how other people are feeling and how outside entities are, are, are saying things, because this really is a good idea. And I appreciate the sponsor for saying, uh, for, for, for even working this hard with, with me and, and, and with all of us, um, during this whole time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Colleagues on the wall in the city Council chambers, uh, at Bountiful is a map of what the downtown city looked like on the day the city was incorporated. Uh, right around, uh, well late 18 hundreds. Um, on that map, it, there is a lot. That is my great, great grandfather's farm, very close to right where city hall is. It's five acres big. Um, looking at that map, you can see that there came a time that people realized that even though five acres was the norm and had served the people that are well up to that time, there came a time where they thought about it differently, where they changed how they thought about it and said, he's gotta be quarter acre lots, so we're not gonna make it. Um, and they, they fundamentally changed, um, how they zoned and what they did. And my feeling is that we're at that time again, many of the zones that we have right now were set 80 years ago, they made sense then they worked well for us then. And we have built up a tradition that in some ways has served us very well. But in other ways, I fear that it has trapped us into things that made sense in the past, but that are making it difficult for us now. Um, and I, we're either gonna figure out some new ways to think about it overall, or maybe we won't, I don't know. But other places around the country don't all zone the same way that we do. There are other places that allow much more broadly projects and homes to be built, um, without having these same kinds of restrictions. And in general, those places have houses that cost less than the housing that we have here. Um, my hope is that this is a small step in that direction, and I appreciate your consideration in hearing me a second time.

Thank you. Um, I, I'm questioning some of the statements. I wonder if this does put the city's on notice if we kill it here today, or hold it that the first time it gets, the first time it's heard along this legislative process, it's removed from the process. Does that put the cities on notice? If I'm a city, I'm not very worried, but, um, I support this bill. I'm excited to see where it goes if it goes out.

Vote. So we'll turn the mic over to Calvin. All you, Representative Fiefia. No. Representative Hansen. No. Representative Maga. Representative Miller? No. Representative Owens? Yes. Representative Shallenberger? Yes. Representative Shelley? No. Vice Chair Cutler? No. Chair Hawkins? No. So that it fails to pass.

Uh, chair. Thank You Committee.

Um, thank you Mr. Chair and committee. I do have a handout. May we pass that out? Yeah, That'd be fine. I will note that I do have a second substitute on the system. Those aren't big changes. They're small changes, but that I would hope to have adopted when we get to that point. Um, Colleagues, this bill, um, if I was just summarizing it, I would say this bill makes it possible for a city to say yes or no to building a small, less expensive home without having to change the whole zone where, where that home is built. We have a very difficult housing affordability problem. Uh, we've talked about it a lot. It's this problem has been getting worse across the whole nation slowly over the last 30 years. It is not unique to Utah, um, but it has gotten worse in Utah, faster than it has in other states. And we've gotten to a point where it, it really just isn't realistic for a young family to be able to find a, a home here at the beginning of their career. And I think we need to consider some larger scale things if we're ever going to address the problem. It, to put it in individual terms instead of just overall terms. Um, my intern who's working with me this session, who just handed you that fine handout, um, she and her husband are about to graduate from BYU. He is able to get a job either here in Salt Lake or in Charlotte, North Carolina that pays them about the same. They have been looking carefully at what rent costs, at what homes cost, and have come to the conclusion that if they stay in Utah, there is not a pathway forward for them to purchase a home at all. If they move to North Carolina, they can rent for a few years at a lower cost, and in the suburbs afford a home a few years from now. So they have taken a job and they'll be leaving the state. Uh, and that's just one example that is repeated over and over and over as young families try and make their best decisions. Um, over the course of many years, we've built up a certain way that we do zoning and permitting of housing. Um, I, to me, it's become clear that overall, uh, the way that we do this, uh, permitting and zoning has slowly added to the cost. I think it's added to the expense. Um, it's added to the length of time it takes, and most worst off, worse than any of that is that that process often makes it just flat out impossible for a small home or a less expensive home to be built according to the zoning process, um, that we've set up. I don't think, uh, a thing that comes up sometimes in this discussion is whether there's good cities or bad cities that are doing different things, and I just don't think that's the right way to look at it. I would take for granted all of our cities are doing the best they can to meet their promises to their constituents using the process that we have. Um, they're all, they're all working hard to make those decisions, but I do think the process itself is leading to this problem, uh, that we have. This bill just identifies two things that we know on a common sense basis would be cheaper than other ways that housing is being built. Um, that is if we allowed a new home to be built on a smaller lot, and if we allowed a starter home to be built, which just by definition is a new home that is sold for less than the median home price, uh, to its first owner and is deed restricted to be owner occupied for two years. Um, and then in exchange for being willing to sell that home for a lower cost than the builder, um, is allowed to, to build in some ways that the zoning would not normally allow to build on a smaller lot, to build with less setbacks, to build with a smaller frontage, to build without a garage, all of which are the things that normally make a home cost more. Um, currently, if a person comes to request one of those things, let's just think of a small lot. If I come into a place where it's zoned for a third of an acre and I say, well, I'd just like to build on an eighth of an acre here. This is a great little home that I'm gonna build, and no one in the neighborhood is bothered by it. If you go to the city office and say, can I build this? Um, and it's zoned for a third of an acre, they'll say, well, no, I don't really don't even know what you're talking about. The city office is not at, they don't have within their power to tell you yes, to build on lots because the zone says no. Say, well, what about if I talk to the planning commission? You can talk to the planning commission. The planning commission also is not at liberty to tell you yes, the zone says it's a third of an acre. They don't have in their power to tell you yes, even if you go visit with the city council in general, they would need to rezone the whole zone for everyone rather than just being able to even say, well, that really is fine. We'll just let you build the small home. And that combination is just so difficult that functionally it just doesn't hardly happen ever. And many small projects that could otherwise benefit the neighborhood and the property owner and the family that moved into the home just never get done. This bill would say that for those two things, a starter home or requesting to build on a small lot, a person would just come in with a basic application and just a basic sketch to say, look, I wanted to build on this small lot, or I wanna build this starter home. Here's where it would sit on the lot. And just with that basic application, not not having paid for $10,000 worth of architecture and engineering. Uh, so this is not, instead of the normal process, this is an an additional step that basically happens prior to the normal process. City would have five days just to make sure they had the paperwork turned in right, and then would have a chance to deny the project if they didn't want the project, um, or to vote yes on the project or to take no action. The bill says there's a 30 day period, and this can be either the planning commission or it can be the city council. Either one is fine. They could schedule it on the agenda, they could vote yes and it would be allowed to be built. They could vote no and it would not be allowed to be built. Or if they said, that really is fine, we don't want to take time on that, they could take no action. But after 30 days, if they took no action, then it would become a permitted use. That does not mean it has a permit. It still would need to go through the normal permitting process, the same as any other permitted use to show that you weren't building over an easement and that you were building on ground that was safe and that you met all the other safety requirements. But it would, at that point, be treated as a permitted use that was ready to start its process of coming in to try, um, and get a permit. I'm not trying to make the process by which the city would vote no hard. I am trying in the bill within the context of saying that they need to take an action if they want to block it, to make that as easy as possible. They can vote no because they, if they feel like it would be harmful, they should vote no. If they feel like it would be harmful, they can vote no. If they feel like they don't have enough information, they can vote no for any reason or no reason, um, is what I'm aiming for in the bill. Um, but then if it, if they don't vote no, then it would become a permitted use and be able to go through the rest of its process. And hopefully somewhere around the state, some of these projects would be allowed to be built. Um, and hopefully before very long we'd see that these maker our neighborhoods better. They don't make them worse and come become more comfortable with the idea that these are kinds of things that we need to make an underlying change in the way we use zoning to allow, uh, for them to be built. Um, again, the bill is just to make it possible for a city to say yes or no to building a small, less expensive home because it's built smaller or because it's on a smaller lot without having to change the whole zone. Um, I've visited at length over the course of many months with the League of Cities and Towns, um, about this bill. They have been respectful to me, and I thank them, uh, for that in those conversations. We have not been, despite talking many times, been able to come to a place where we had an agreement on the bill. Um, unfortunately, and I, I think that's to, to me, I think it is needful that we find some way to change how we do zoning to make it easier. It's the underlying process that must change somehow, somewhere, or we'll keep, keep having the homes that are permitted to, to be very expensive. We won't make headway, um, on our problem, uh, with affordability. Other places around the country do not all do zoning the way that we do it. And other places around the world do not all do zoning the same way that we do it. There are other places who make it easier broadly for things to be built. And those other states and other places around the world that allow it more broadly in general, have considerably less expensive housing just because it's less expensive and quicker to get through the process. So I'm hoping that somehow, some way, starting with this bill, I hope today we can make our process also a little easier, a little cheaper to do something to lower our average cost of housing. Thank you. I'm open to questions from the committee.

There, here we go. Sorry. Sorry I'm late. I just came from another committee meeting. I didn't get a chance to ask or, or hear this, but, uh, so did the, uh, counties that we talked about get excluded, Though? There is a second substitute that is on the system, and in that substitute, it excludes counties of the fourth, fifth, and sixth class. I mean, it says that it, it applies to counties of the first, second, and third class in the second substitute. Did you adopt the second sub?

We will need to do that, but I'm hoping we will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just have a, a couple of questions here. Um, my first question to Representative Ward is why should zoning vest before a completed land use application is reviewed? Because when we require a completed land use application, that is by itself a very expensive process. We require a lot of up upfront money and preparation, which chases many projects from even being able to be considered. In this particular case, we're we are asking for something that is not a permitted use. Um, and which presumably would in any other circumstance just be told no, you could bring in architectural drawings or engineering or whatever you wanted, and it would just be told no. So in some way, I'm trying to get it to be considered as, as that to be permitted for the small or permitted for the starter home without a large monetary investment. If we require a large monetary investment before you get told no, then no one would ever have a reason to even bring one in. You invest $30,000 and you're just gonna get told no again, after you put in the $30,000. There needs to be some way to make the request because you might still get told no, the bill is very clear. You could get told no for any reason or no reason. You could get told no, but you need to know somehow upfront, without putting in a lot of money, whether you're going to be allowed to proceed with the normal permitting process, you still will have to bring in all those drawings. You still will have to not build over an easement. All the other requirements that a permitted use would have to go through before getting the permit, you still would have to go through. I guess my problem though is you have, you are granting permanent zoning rights before that full and rest process is, is conducted. That concerns me because if there's infrastructure issues, um, if there's other issues that come later, you've already zoned it for the approval. And, and I, I think second to that, I, I can appreciate the, the thought of keeping costs low, but I think the definition in here is, is worrisome just because it can be a sketch. I, I mean, I've, I've worked in construction a long time. There's, there's a way to do it properly, and then there's a way to just turn something in that could be approved by a sketch. And I understand it just, it just is worrisome that we're granting zoning rights before the full process. Um, did you guys come to an agreement with cities to say, this is what a threshold that could be meant to ensure that we are keeping costs low, but we're also meeting some requirements that if we are gonna zone this and give permanent zoning rights, that you've actually met a certain threshold.

So the, so the zoning rights explicitly in the bill don't apply to anywhere else. They apply to the single project. And if, like, as you mentioned, the other things that come later that might show a problem if there was an easement or if there was a safety issue with what you brought in, all those other parts of the process are still in place. This is an additional step before you go through all the rest of those things that do routinely turn up problems that make it so you can't functionally build something there, but you would still have to get over all of those regular hurdles. But the question is just if I can get over all those other hurdles, am I also gonna be just told, well, no, because a lot, because you can't build on a lot that small or, or am I gonna be told? Well, you will still have to meet every other normal hurdle, but if you meet every other normal hurdle, then we will let you build on a small lot, even though that's not our baseline zone. So you'd have permission with respect to lot size to build on the smaller lot, and then you would still have to meet every other hurdle that was there. Similar to how if I come in and say, if it's zoned for quarter acre and I come in and say, I want to build this home on a quarter acre lot, is that a permitted use? They would say, well, yeah, that's a permitted use. Doesn't mean you have your permit. You still have to go through all the other steps to get your permit, but you, you just know it would be permitted to go through the rest of the permitting process. And then once you've met those requirements, then you could get your permit.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple more questions. Is that okay? Sure. Yep. Um, can you talk through, uh, what prevents abuse or gaming of the 30 day clock?

So the, the 30 day clock on here is my best guess for what's reasonable. If, and I in talking with cities, if there, if there were some other kind of clock that then made it so that it was, uh, more agreeable to cities, I'm open to other ideas in that respect. Again, this is not in lieu of the normal process that you have to go through to get a permit. This is in addition to that. So I don't want it to be a long additional step in addition to the normally what you would have to, to get through to get a permit. But in, in ex I guess if you're balancing, I would think the shorter clock, if you will, is balanced hopefully by how easy I have tried to make the process of saying no, including if a city feels like they just didn't have enough information, then they could vote no because they didn't have enough information. And if the exact nature of the clock should be a little different one way or the other, I'm, I'm open to that idea if that makes someone somewhere more willing to consider the idea. But so far I haven't really got over the hurdle of whether

or not the idea itself is, is going to be considered. Okay. Just, just a couple concerns with that piece is there's, there's no limit on serial filings. There's no bad faith provision, there's no penalty for strategic filings. I, I think, I think everyone wants to avoid that, but I think that probably should be addressed in some way, shape, or form of just the bad actors of filing and filing and filing and, and having the default yes, is well, I just keep on filing until they miss it, and then it's a yes. So if any of those provisions would make you or any legislator on the committee be willing to vote for the bill, I'd be happy to, to try and address those concerns.

Um, in visiting with the cities, I, uh, before I tried to parse out if any of those change would changes would make a difference to how they looked at it. But at the end of those discussions, it didn't seem to me like it would, I would need, uh, so I would need a willing partner in the cities to be able to write language like that in order to get a provision like that that functioned well. Um, but at some point, I think to be able to even have that conversation, we need to decide if we're gonna consider the idea, which is what I hope the committee will vote to do.

Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I wanna commend this sponsor for taking on such a rough issue. I like the idea, the concept of how could a city consider a request quest without and and ha from an individual without the individual spending thousands of dollars, uh, to prepare a site plan or spend a lot of money to prepare a rezone request, which, um, some of those can be expensive and time con time consuming. So I really like that idea. But there are also some challenges, uh, in my opinion that the, there's a particular challenge line 2 45, and I'm looking at the original or two four, um, 2 42, where it, it basically says if, if the city, if the planning commission or the county legislative body, uh, expressively approves or does not deny a request, this is just based on a sketch, um, or basically they, if they don't do anything, then the preferred land use described becomes a vested permitted use. I think that's very problematic to give somebody a permitted use, um, a a vested permitted use on, uh, you know, a sketch or, or an idea. But I like the idea of can I start with a a, a sketch and an idea and move the process forward? And maybe there's a way to, instead of setting up a vested use, could we set up a a a variance process that doesn't give someone a right. Because if you give a vested right to one individual based on, uh, an idea or a sketch and another developer comes in and you don't give them the same vested right, based on similar criteria, then they're gonna sue the city and that's gonna cost tack or, or there's the possibility of a lawsuit which could, um, cost taxpayers. But is there another way to continue the process of investigating, Hey, would a starter home work out here without giving them a vested zoning? Right. The the other, and, and maybe this is where I, uh, have a question for you. Well, the question is, would, would you, have you thought about or, or discussed, um, and maybe the, the league or others have this about the idea of does a variance process have a different legal connotation than a permitted use or, or a vested use of vested permitted use? The other thing that was, is on that same set, um, section that I think is, is legally problematic is that the preferred use regulation, if the city does nothing, it's considered a led legislative adoptive land use regulation. So I, I think that can be problematic to say, if the city doesn't do something, then they have legislatively adopted this based on a sketch and an application. I'd like to see, is there another way to move the ball down the field towards building a home without saying this was a legis legislative decision that has been made there. So, um, uh, can you think of any other case where a lack of a decision is considered a legislative adoptive use? Uh, I'm happy to reword it if there's some other rewarding that that gets the idea across. Um, I guess what I'm shooting for is to say that we want to move the needle enough that this is a kind of an opt out. Instead of an opt-in, I'll make the opt out as easy as I know how to make it. Um, but that there would need to be some kind of an auction, uh, action taken or else it would be a, a permitted use knowing that you, that did not mean that you had your permit. But I'm open to other ways of wording that if that, uh, if a minor change in the wording can still get to the same place. Um, with regard to the, the threat of legal action if people are, are treated differently. My, my, what it seems to me is that we have said, well, I'm afraid that if I treat people differently, then there might be a lawsuit. And so my solution, which will on the one hand, will be a great solution, is to tell everybody, no. If I tell every single person who comes in and asks to build on an eighth and maker, no, well, then no one can sue me because I treated them differently. But no one would be able to bill it, build it. So I, last year came before a committee at this legislature and with a bill that said, well, I think building on an eighth of an acre should be, should be just a permitted you, you should still have to get your permit. And at that time, the League of Cities and Towns did not like that and said that you should not do that. And so this bill really is my attempt to compromise following that previous experience to say, okay, um, if you, if you don't want it to be set to yes, is there some way that I can set it to yes, but let you override it? So this is kind of my attempt to compromise in that respect. I, I understand, I've not persuaded yet them to, to agree with it, but that was kind of what led to this being brought. And if there's any other suggestions that the committee would have, we've gotta do something to make it easier to build these. And right now, they're just not, there's not a functional process to have them happen. You will not find this happening on a widespread, uh, basis anywhere that I know of special projects or development agreements that happen, but individuals who just come in and ask to build something like this, I don't know if folks getting told. Yes. Thank you for answering my questions.

Uh, thank you. I wanted to read some of the questions I've got from my city council members and the mayors trying to get some clarification for them. Um, would your bill and the way this is written or their proposed changes, does it Helper, does it erode the authority of the cities, uh, in, in place of the legislative audience, in place of the legislature, in the state?

So that, I, I would say it changes a balance in some instances. And if what they want is to say no to all of these projects, it will make them do a little bit more work to say no. Um, if previous, right now, if they just say, no, that's, that's not zoned for that, then they never have to say anything else. No one at their office or the planning commission or even on the city council can really approve them one at a time. They're, in this instance, if the bill were to pass, then they would have equal final authority to have the final say. I want, if I need language to write it differently, to say, you can say no to whatever you wanna say no to, but you would need to take an action to say no.

Thank you. Um, may I have some more questions? Yes, chair. Yep. Thank you. Um, would this create a preferred land use that would overrule local zoning?

No. Uh, the cities would still, in all cases, retain the ability to honor their zoning, if that's what they wish they would have the final say in each case.

Thank you. Uh, another question is, cities are planning out the future growth, you know, electric, uh, electric, sewage, water, and the, uh, infrastructure. Does this undermine the city's ability to plan for the appropriate infrastructure?

I would say no. They still have the final say on each project. If something requires additional infrastructure, the the new addition still needs to pay its impact fee to it. Um, all, all of the costs, uh, need to be paid by the person building same as they normally would.

Thank you. And, and two more quick ones. I think, uh, my rep, my friend, my name representative from uh, Harriman also mentioned these. Does it create whether through the 30 day window or a five day window, does it create cracks through which bad development or bad projects can slip through?

I don't think so. Uh, if, if the city feels that this is just not enough time to consider it, then say no, it, it does not get around the per the permitting process that you would have to get through. You still have to go through the same permitting process. So if a project comes in and doesn't meet, um, an easement or doesn't meet, it doesn't meet a safety thing according to building code, you tell them no, same as you would tell that other project that came in that, that, hey, you didn't meet the easement and you didn't meet the building code. You would tell them no, because they were going through the same permitting process, but they, but once you got through the 30 day window, then at least they would have the same option as someone building on a larger lot to come try and get that permit.

Thank you. And, uh, one last one. Does this put more of a burden on cities to review sketches or non-professional drawings where it might be on the back of a napkin or just very informal type thing that now they, they have to take seriously as legitimate proposals If there is some intermediate word that gets it across the idea better or more clearly so that it's not a, a napkin with a scribble on it?

I think that the, what I'm shooting for in there is a basic drawing of the lot and where the home would sit on the lot, but not having to go through a costly long, um, procedure to be able to get an initial thumbs up or thumbs down to then go through your permitting process. This is, does not short circuit the normal permitting. This is an additional step prior to the normal, uh, permitting.

Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank

Well, I, I, I think that you're answering questions for me, um, representative. Thank you. I, I just, I, I'm so curious to find out why the pushback from from cities

I should not speak on their behalf. Yeah. They will soon come to the Table and Tie that out, tell you their reasons. And I mean, like, and, and has, like, I I, I'm assuming that you've done everything in your power to, I've met with them many times over a couple years, and they have treated me respectfully and I've treated them respectfully, and we've had a bunch of different discussions about these things. Um, in the end, we just have a fundamental, we, the reason we haven't negotiated something is 'cause we have a fundamental difference. I think this is the way we do zoning is a part of why our homes are expensive. So I'm looking for some way that still is a partnership with them, but that makes it easy. Some process to allow that is different than the normal way we do zoning that tips it in the direction of allowing some smaller homes to allowing some smaller lots. And for now at least that to the cities, uh, I mean, that is not acceptable as best as I can understand. So just at the beginning of this week, I sent one last email to them saying, uh, and is there any changes you would want me to make in the bill, even if I knew that you would still oppose it? Uh, uh, and they said, no, there aren't. At this point, I think there kind of is this basic question that needs to be asked. First is this committee, uh, or the, our legislature as a whole, willing to consider some changes to the underlying way that we do zoning, um, that makes these things easier? I think I kind of feel like that's the question we need to answer first. Um, and if the answer continues to be no, uh, we're doing the best we can, but to me, I, I think we won't make an improvement in how much things cost.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, um, I really love the idea of, of having cheaper housing. Like I have kids who are looking for homes and, and, and trying to find places to stay that are not like 400, 500, $500,000 homes. So I'm assuming that small, small lots like this would be a whole lot cheaper. Um, but where I, where I live and where high density is, it's, it's such a trigger for, for my city. And, um, this is such an ugly dilemma. I don't even like being a part of it. The, the things that are contemplated in this bill are not what we normally mean when we say high density. So these does not, these are not multi-family housing units. These are not apartments. All, all of the things that the two policies in this bill are single family detached homes. One, just can it be built on a smaller lot? And can you, if you build it below a certain cost, will you be allowed to not forced to follow the other typical zoning requirements that serve to make it more expensive?

Um, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lauren Cole, and I'm here on behalf of Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities. Utah faces a shortage of at least 37,000 homes because there aren't enough options. Housing has become a cutthroat competition that has made Utah the ninth most expensive market in the country. This is not just a market fluke, it is a direct result of how we've chosen to build and whether we allow things to be built at all. For decades, we've made it nearly impossible to build the kinds of starter homes that are desperately needed when 70% of our residential land requires at least a full acre for a single house. We are essentially mandating high prices and pushing development further into our open lands. And it's not just lot sizes preventing housing choices. It is the process itself. As Representative Ward has spoken about today. The path to building a simple home is often blocked by bureaucratic web between excessive upfront requirements and inconsistent rules. Planning commissions can delay or stop development through complex discretionary procedures that drag on for months or years. HB 180 4 is a step towards fixing this problem. It allows property owners to contribute to the incremental growth of their own neighborhoods, creating starter homes that can be sold for less than typical in the area. And by allowing for homes on smaller lots, we're lowering the barrier to entry for working families. By cutting the most significant cost barrier upfront land, these choices can provide a path to home ownership for the nearly 60% of young people who are currently considering leaving Utah just to find a place they can afford. This bill makes local government more responsive by setting clear, fast timelines that prioritize people over paperwork. It respects local authority while demanding the transparency and urgency that this crisis requires. It lowers the barrier to entry for property owners who want the freedom to build and for working people, seeking home ownership in the communities they love and contribute To. Thank you for your time. I urge you to vote. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Kate Bradshaw. I serve as mayor of the City of Bountiful and as president of the League of Cities and Towns. And I'm here to represent our opposition to the bill. Uh, I will, um, agree with Representative Ward that we have had the most cordial of conversations about this bill and this idea over the last several months. Um, but we do remain at a fundamental policy disagreement. Zoning matters deeply because zoning is how we plan for infrastructure and how we plan for services. And to ignore that important process gets us to a problem where we find ourselves today. There are several bills moving through your process that I would point you to that will help us unlock lots of housing units in just a handful of cities in Salt Lake County are 109 a thousand entitled units that are not moving forward because 88% of them lack the needed infrastructure. We're also not necessarily seeing a correlation between smaller lots and affordable housing. Um, in Salt Lake County in 2024, um, we had the smallest median lot size in generations, yet we had the biggest houses we've ever seen on those small lots. So I would point you toward a number of, of bills, some, um, that some of you are running, some that your colleagues in the body are running that will help us in unlock those infrastructure dollars that'll help us move forward significant housing, some, um, of those of course, on small lots without, uh, undoing the work that cities do with general plans and planning for infrastructure. And Mr. Chairman, I have brought, um, we, we believe deeply in the league as a policy shop and having, um, good data and giving you good progress reports. And so I have brought for you a copy of our progress report with what different cities are doing. And I will leave them over here, Mr. Chairman, in, in case, uh, the committee is interested in looking at them. Thank you.

Thank you for your time today. My name is Kurt Magleby. I'm the managing, uh, partner of Flex Ready Homes. It's a Utah based group of, uh, construction and development companies coming together. Were focused on affordable single family detached homes. We've recently got recognition from the governor with the Utah First Homes Award for our collaboration in Ephraim. You'll see our, our billboard as you go out to Ephraim Utah's most affordable homes starting in the mid three hundreds. Uh, our commitment is to bringing back affordable homes to the most underserved section of Utah families and individuals. And that's in that price range. We have faced a myriad of zoning issues that we're always trying to break down. The reason we're in Efram is we did spend a lot of time working with them on a zoning overlay to get down to a 40 foot frontage. Many people are very concerned about small homes, affordable homes, but if you look at Sugar House, the avenues daybreak, most of those homes are 35 to 40 foot frontages beautiful homes, uh, preferred still after, you know, 30 years, 40 years in, in, in Sugar House, for example. Those are built on lots that we can no longer build on today 'cause they're too small for the vast majority of almost everything zoned in Utah. We're trying to get back to those lots, individual, single family homes, tree line, streets, alley load. You can bring two to three cars parking. It's very efficient. Uh, 1200 square feet to start. Or the reason we call our company Flex Ready Homes is you can start with a base home. It's designed also for expansion. So you can start with a three bedroom, two bath home, good to move into when you're ready and your equity grows, you can expand that to a four or five bedroom home. So we really feel that the time is now in Utah to make a change. Uh, we, we continue to fight most of the places we have to work in. For singular family homes are multi-family home zones. You have to be modified. So I appreciate your, appreciate your willingness to, uh, support a dramatic change to get incremental change.

Hi, thanks to the Chairman and committee. My name is Emma Wilson. I'm here on behalf of myself and also the City of Saratoga Springs. Um, thank you for the sponsor for explaining his intent. I truly, um, support the sponsor's desire to create affordable housing is something municipalities are also working towards. But our overarching concern is the preemption of local authority and land use authority. Um, it bypasses our local communities and our processes. Let me, I'm recently elected to Saratoga Spring City Council. Let me tell you about our city. We said that over 70,000 people were less than half built out. We have over 33,000 entitled units more than that lady mentioned just in our city alone. Um, we processed the second most building applications in the state, over 2000 permits annually. And we are worried that these new applications would get to collect the line. The five day turnaround would mean that we would have to hire additional city staff, um, to complete this, which increases the cost for everyone looking to build in the city. Um, it ignores our careful sitting planning around, um, infrastructure, roads, water rights, um, and other local planning. And it keeps municipalities who are really close to our constituents from being able to make the decisions that benefit our communities. Um, Saratoga Springs is frequently zoned for smaller lots. My own house is on one 10th of an acre. Most of my neighbors are two. Um, we're often not seeing starter homes built on those smaller lots, even though we have the zoning in place for them. So, as a new city council member, I'm already looking for ways to streamline our building process. We absolutely want to find ways to create affordable housing in our cities. I have a brother who's looking for a house, but we remain worried about the repercussions of this bill on the city and elsewhere, especially in fast-growing cities on the state like Saratoga Springs. So I ask you to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Committee members Alyssa Daly with the Utah Association of Realtors. I wanna say it's an honor to get up here and support, um, Representative Ward. First and foremost, nobody works harder on housing issues, I think, on the Hill than Representative Ward. It's also a pleasure to disagree with the league because we agree on so much. Um, we all want Utah families to thrive, and home ownership is a huge part of that. We also believe that local control plays a really important part in the health and safety of communities. Um, the, the woman before me, um, mentioned preemption, and we hear a lot up here about, you know, collaboration, not preemption. And we believe that Representative Ward Bill is trying to thread that needle and balancing the, the rights of private property owners with the roles and responsibilities of local, um, governments. We also believe in the power of good data. And before the legislative session, we actually did a Wasatch Front poll to talk to voters about housing attitudes and how they're feeling about housing. And a few things came up that I think are really important. The first being that, um, millennials and Gen Z, um, are our biggest portion of people looking to enter the housing market right now, are willing to compromise on the type of home that they're willing to buy. Um, we have an idea of home ownership in Utah. That's the, you know, big homes on a big half acre lot. And we're seeing some flexibility in consumer attitudes towards that if it means that they can start receiving the benefits of home ownership sooner. Um, and I think Representative Ward Bill is actually trying to meet the market and consumer desires where it's at within, um, the, the bounds of health and safety that local governments need to, to protect. Um, finally, I I wanna mention that, um, in our polling data, a third of non homeowning millennials, um, have said that they plan to leave Utah and leave the Wasatch front in the next two to three years. Largely citing affordability and housing affordability is number one issue. So we'd urge you to, um, pass this out so that we can continue the conversation and address the concerns that have been, um, brought up here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm, uh, Frank Ginelli, Foxley, Elli, Kelly, and Styler. Uh, as, as dealer speakers have mentioned, it's always great to work with, uh, Representative Ward. We'd have, uh, some minor concerns with legislation, well, major concerns, legislation, we do all, we could work it out with them. Should this bill proceed? One, it's unique in Summit County is the mean purchase price is 1.6 million. So we think the affordability should be tied to household income. And the standard should we suggest, should be 80 to a hundred percent of the area median, uh, income. Otherwise, we were, we, we worry about codifying the affordability crisis. Uh, secondly, uh, we also have the same concerns about the legislative authority and zoning. We believe some of these issues, especially on affordability, we can discuss with the sponsor and we look forward to working with him on that. Uh, we do appreciate his concern and the concern of the legislature and the governor for affordability, and we are willing to work with everyone in, in order to resolve that. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Chris. Les. I'm president of Ivory Development. We're the development arm for Ivory homes. I'm also president of the Utah Property Rights Coalition. And as, uh, the Property Rights Coalition, we are, we, we do talk about property rights all the time. We, and, and we also do our best to remind people that cities don't have rights and we don't get our rights to use our property from cities. We, we have those rights. And so this, this concern about preemption, I, the word I want to leave with you is the presumption. And what Representative Ward Bill does is from a property right standpoint, says the presumption is that the property owner should be able to use their property. And that doesn't take away local control, doesn't wait, take away planning. We understand all those things are very important. Um, this year is the 20th anniversary of the Property Rights Coalition and the, the, uh, Utah, uh, land use task force. We've been meeting for 20 years collaboratively. And I just wanna say Representative Ward, you know, he just, he comes to these meetings and he has these ideas and he says what he said today we're, why are we thinking about this in just this one box? There are gotta be other ways that we can do these things. And I just really wanna congratulate him. Um, and for, for the time. He, he takes, um, cities have done a lot. I'm going to, I, let me just say that the cities have come to the table, particularly in the last six or seven years as this affordability crisis has become more and more acute. They've always been at the table and we've appreciated the collaboration that we have with them. But, but we have done a lot and, but we haven't done everything. And now we can do some small things. And perhaps there's a way that this can be fine tuned to be, you know, in infill areas so that a city like Saratoga, you know, where the, where most of their entitled lots are in development agreements couldn't be changed anyway, but maybe we could write some things around that. So thank you for your time. Appreciate you, uh, supporting this and sending it forward. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Cameron Dale, executive director of the League of Cities and Towns. You heard from Mayor Bradshaw a moment ago, and I just wanted to address some of the questions that have come up in the committee here. And again, thanks to Representative Ward. We have had good faith discussions and I also want to thank Chris Camillas who spoke a moment ago about the efforts to date. I think it's important for you as a committee to recognize that in collaboration between the league and the legislature, we've enacted several bills in recent years that have tried to improve the land use process. For example, we worked on legislation with you to create a timed process around subdivision so that there was certainty for builders, uh, certain amount of, of days in, in code for when a city can approve a subdivision. We've worked on timeframes around plan review. We've worked on timeframes around inspections. Uh, cities have also been implementing centers such as stationary plans. In fact, cities have contemplated more than 108,000 new housing units around centers where you have transit stops right now. And we are trying to figure out how can we spur those units to get built. Uh, many of them are like an infrastructure. The reason for the concern about this particular bill comes down to a couple of things. Number one, the, the bill does have the state legislature putting its thumb on the scale, scale of the decision making authority of local elected officials. And you've heard from two of them today, and it does discard the planning around infrastructure and services that a city will put in. Zoning doesn't happen in a vacuum. So you do your zoning, you plan for the infrastructure, and then if, if you had the ability basically for anyone with an incomplete application to come forward, now you've actually added a layer of bureaucracy to explain why the infrastructure and services don't work in that particular area. Representative Fiefia, you referenced, uh, Mr. Chairman, Representative Fiefia asked the question about complete applications. And that's an important point because that complete application is something we've worked on for a decade of when does your right vest? Now we need that complete inform application. So we have the information we need to make a decision, and then that gives certainty as a vested property right, for the property owner. So we're supportive of many efforts in this space and we feel like we've had a good track record, but we are opposed to the bill is drafted. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. It's great to have you back from Italy. Are you going back soon? No. Yeah. Too bad. I'm sure you want me to go? Yeah. Taaz b singer with the Utah Home Builders Association. It's been said that the definition of insanity is to keep doing something over and over again and expect a different result. It was less than four years ago. Utah's housing shortage of affordable housing was roughly 15,000 units as been stated today. Uh, already today it's about 37,000 units. And Envision Utah and the governor's office estimate that in less than or less than 25 years, that number will be 200,000 units short if we keep doing what we've always been doing. What this bill does is it has the development, development and building community have made an effort to try to help resolve this societal crisis, uh, by agreeing to put deed restrictions in place. One regarding ownership, making sure that it's owner purchase, uh, owner occupied purchase, not a large corporation. And secondly, the, the, the price of that home on the first sale is restricted in an effort to build this type of housing. It does not take any authority away from local government. Local government still retains all the authority to say no. Now, many of you have told me, and your colleagues have said you've ridden around and it's been referred to by the, some of the rep previous witnesses, that there are many lots already, uh, planned for and allocated by the cities, uh, for this purpose. Well, assuming that's accurate, I just don't personally understand why the cities, uh, have an opposition to this bill. If they've already planned for it, why won't they allow and accept the deed restrictions that will a better effort to try and guarantee who buys this and at a reasonable price. So we're, we're asking you to support this bill. Thank you.

Is it working? Yep. Awesome. Right. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, Kevin Green with Americans for Prosperity Utah. Uh, just urging the committee to support this bill. I think it's important, um, as we celebrate 250 years of our country to remember that home ownership really is the epitome of the American dream for a lot of people. And unfortunately, it is becoming unavailable to too many Utahans. Um, I think Utah is an amazing place to live, and so naturally there are going to be costs associated with that. But where government can get out of the way, uh, to create more affordable housing, I think they should take those opportunities to do so. Um, this is a, a simple tweak that hopefully, um, communities who want to opt in can make these changes. It will be allowable for them to do so as the bill states, those cities that want to continue to deny everything can continue to do that. Um, but as we talk about local control, I also think it's important to remember that the most local you can get is the individual. And I think the individual and property rights should be at the forefront, uh, of the policy decisions that the state decides to move forward with. So we would just ask, uh, the committee to support this bill. And thank you for your time.

Alright. Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart. I'm from American Fork. I'm representing myself and I'm a father of six children. And, uh, one of the biggest challenges that my wife and I face when we've gone house hunting in the past is the limited lot sizes. And, and this is a problem that, uh, is not unique, but Utah does have unique, uh, condition to the, requires the federal government to come and see all of the unincorporated. And that's one of the major reasons why we've had this, uh, housing. And I think it too,

Um, but yeah, I would, I would just urge us to, to examine the real underlying problems, the, the causes behind this housing shortage. Because there is ample space, there are regulatory hurdles that are preventing us from making use of the space that we have. Um, it is one of the most complicating factors in a home search. Uh, just trying to find an adequate lot, lot size. And, you know, a quarter of an acre or a few thousand square feet is nowhere near big enough for a growing family of children. They need space. Families need privacy, they need rent to grow, they need rent to garden and so on. And so just normalizing super small homes is not the right way to go. There are ways to deregulate and make things better for families. Uh, but we, I owe energy to go and allow us to make use of land, actually, uh, that actually belongs to us here in the state. Thank you.

Representative Owens, Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion to hold the bill for some additional work and, uh, with the expectation we bring it back shortly to if, with a new version.

No, I think they've been aired, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I'd just like to say thank you to the, the good representative for his work on this. I know this is, this is a tough issue and it's touchy for a lot of people. Um, I just, I just have to state where I'm at just so this is maybe more, um, self therapeutic than anyone else needs. But, um, I just want to be clear. I support housing, I support starter homes. I support making housing affordable and for families to purchase their first home. But in my, in my listening to this bill and kind of hearing both sides, one, I'll be honest, I've gone back and forth on this issue, but I'm not sure that we're diagnosing the problem correctly. Um, as you've heard from people from cities and city councils, we've heard that in my, my part of the state alone, we have over a hundred thousand vested units. That means that zoning is not the bottleneck, the legal right to build already exists if those homes are not being built. The constraint is not lot size, it's not setbacks, it's not square footage requirements, it's infrastructure. Um, it's roads that are already congested. It's water pressure zones, it's school capacity, it's impact fees and timing. I've lived in Herriman for 10 years, and my family has moved three times, and the lot sizer and the square footage has gotten smaller, but for some reason, the price continues to increase. And so my, my thought here is this is not the answer. Even though I appreciate the efforts here, I think it's gonna feel really good if we pass this, and it's gonna give us the idea to point fingers at the city and say, look, they've declined every request that's come, come in. And I think that's the problem with our housing policy is the state developers and the city, we all like pointing our fingers at each other. And we also like stepping outside of our zone and what we should invest in. And so I appreciate the good work here. I just don't think that this is the solution. And so I, I will vote in favor of holding.

Thank you. There we go. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Um, well, I, I support the idea of holding it, I think, I think it's still a long ways off. And, and, uh, I had talked to a representative and, and told him that, uh, if he were to exclude the rural counties, then, you know, whatever, because I, I don't understand the, the urban areas as well as the rural areas, but I, I do as I, as I look at, so, so one person came up and testified of a great thing they did in E rm. Uh, it absolutely divided e RM because, uh, they were told that the starting homes would be 300,000 and the first house was put up for sale for 380. So they didn't, they didn't stick with that. But, but I got, I got following another path and, uh, and it, and it falls in the Great Salt Lake. And so I, I just sat up here and did a little bit of research. The average home uses 242 gallons a day. And if there's 1.2 million people in the Salt Lake Valley and an average of three people, this is just stuff that I searched, there's an average of three people in each home that's 35 billion, 332 million gallons a year. That doesn't flow into the Great Salt Lake. And because of that, there's always legislation that the whole state has to pay for, to somehow spend money for water. And I don't know how money makes water, but that's, that's what happens. And so there's just this trickle effect. And, and so ultimately, it, it really has to come back to the city saying what is reasonable for our city. And, and that's why I, I'm not even sure I'm in favor of the hold because it's, it seems to be going the wrong direction where, where the cities no longer can manage their own city. They have to, they have to opt out rather than opt in. And so, I, I guess for that, I'm, I'm opposed to that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I think this is a healthy discussion, and I, again, like the concept of bringing forward a, a request for starter home, that that doesn't have to meet every single, uh, uh, element of the, the current zone. So what, what would I, what could get me from a no to a yes, I'd be extending the five day response to 10 days, extending the 30 day window to 45 days, and figuring out how can we keep the process moving for a request without providing a vested zoning, right? That might open up for legal liability. So, uh, I don't have a great answer to that, but, uh, I'm willing to, um, push, push, uh, and, and talk to folks and try to help you with that.

The motion. Thank you. Yep. Um, thank you. So thank you for that feedback. If the answer is that we're holding it just because we just don't like it and we're gonna hold it, then that will be that If there are changes that can be made to it in some way. So I, I mean, I'll come to each of you afterwards to see if there are other changes that could be made that would make you see some, uh, pathway forward, um, to the issue that was brought up about the number of entitled units that haven't been built on. My question back to anyone who is holding that up is just to review first, which of those units are in development agreements? Um, everything that is in a development agreement by definition was told, well, you don't meet the zone, so you can build only if you meet what the city says. Right? That's what a whole development agreement is, is a fallback plan where it didn't meet the zone, which with is the way we have zoning, it almost never meets the zone. And then it's a one on at a time negotiation in which things were requested that often make it more expensive, wider, wider sidewalks, uh, nicer homes, uh, wider streets, wider park strips, other things about those units often make them more expensive, which then makes it be more often that the, the developer comes back and now looks at what's what has been required in order to build the development agreement. But then that makes it so that they, they can't find a pathway forward by which they can build the, that home, um, and still come out with a profit. My question to the committee is, I believe in local control, and I know that you do as well. And my question is, when you, when we say local control, do you mean always and only municipal control? Is local control just identical to the city making every decision? Um, or does local control also mean, which I think it does, that property owners do have rights, um, and that when we let property owners make their property better in ways that benefits themselves, I guess my next question is, in general, if a property owner is gonna pay the money and go to the trouble to build something on their property, particularly a small home, is it your belief that in general, that will damage their neighbors in the community? Or if what they were trying to build was on a small lot or a small home? That in general, even if it wasn't according to the zone, that if we let that property owner build that thing in, generally would also benefit the community. So to me, what we're, what I am shooting for is, is not so much to put the state's thumb on the cities, but in some way to get the cities to take their thumb off of property owners that are doing things that would benefit them and their families and the other people who are able to, to buy their homes. So, um, I'm at the, we'll, we'll have the committee with the vote, and then I will come speak with each of you to see whether or not there's any pathway forward or not. And if there's not, I'll be back with something next year.

I made the motion with the expectation that we try to work on it and get something Workable. Thank you. Thank

Oh, let me just restate the motion if I can. The motion is to hold, um, and work on it, uh, to, with the intent of possibly bringing it back. So that's the motion.

Representative F? Yes. Representative Hansen. Representative Jack? Yes. Representative Maga? Yes. Representative Miller. Yes. Representative Owens. Yes. Representative Shelley? Yes. Vice Chair Cutler? Yes. Chair Hawkins?

Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson. Kwan McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton. President Adams Lemme know.

Motion to Concur.