Colorado transit-oriented density bill hits snag in Senate committee

Updated at 3:10 p.m. April 27: The bill that’s the centerpiece of this year’s attempted land-use reforms by Democrats in the Colorado legislature and Gov. Jared Polis has run into potential trouble, facing an uncertain fate in a Senate committee.

House Bill 1313, which seeks to increase denser residential development in transit-rich areas, stalled in the Local Government and Housing Committee in recent days amid concerns from a Democratic member, Sen. Julie Gonzales of Denver, who could cast the decisive vote. She is the committee’s vice chair.

During an initial committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Faith Winter, a bill sponsor, signaled her plan to strip out provisions opposed by many local government officials — a penalty that would withhold tax funds from cities that don’t comply with mandates, and authorization for a state agency to file lawsuits against those that resist implementing the bill.

But the committee’s vote has been twice delayed since then. Gonzales, a progressive lawmaker who’s backed pro-tenant legislation and has had policy disagreements with the governor’s office in the past, told The Denver Post on Friday that she was still trying to understand the coming changes. She said she was concerned about the plan to strip out the controversial tax money-withholding and lawsuit provisions.

Without them, Gonzales said, “What teeth do you have left?” She’s also expressed concerns about whether changes to zoning rules will spur gentrification and displacement by encouraging more development in Denver.

Winter confirmed that the vote had been delayed because of Gonzales’ concerns and that Gonzales wanted to make sure the bill would help her district, which includes downtown Denver. She said Gonzales hadn’t requested any specific changes.

Winter told The Post on Friday that she also plans to add in more affordability measures — a key priority for Gonzales and housing advocates — and change how local governments calculate their density goals.

As the session’s clock ticks down, Gonzales’ hesitance has sent bill supporters scrambling to save the measure. The bill is tentatively scheduled for a committee vote in the coming week. If it passes, it would also need to make it through at least one more committee before it hits the Senate floor.

Original story: At this time last year, Colorado lawmakers were preparing to gut Gov. Jared Polis’ massive and marquee land-use bill that would have reshaped zoning across the state, spurring a stalemate that preceded the proposal’s death.

Now, after reviving most of that proposal in smaller pieces as part of a new strategy, reform supporters see a finish line in sight. Hurdles remain, but backers hope to avoid brick walls like the one that doomed last year’s effort.

One measure, a ban on most occupancy limits, has already being signed into law. Other legislation has crossed between chambers, including bills that would encourage — and then require — denser residential development in transit-rich areas; eliminate minimum parking requirements; require housing studies by all local governments; and allow for accessory dwelling units to be built on single-family lots.

Unlike last year’s failed proposal, which had been introduced to a cheering crowd, the bills are advancing without lawmakers publicly sharpening their pencils for planned rewrites.

But the underlying tensions surrounding how to require or incentivize local governments to undertake long-term planning and denser development along transit corridors haven’t been erased, either.

The three bills that passed the House and now are headed to the Senate each include limitations on local governments’ ability to control land-use decisions — a major source of tension last year, particularly in the Senate. Another bill is on the opposite track, moving to the House.

With two weeks left in the legislative session, which is set to end May 8, negotiations in each chamber will determine whether any of the policies pass, get rewritten or die once again. The House and Senate, while both controlled by large Democratic majorities, also have disagreed markedly on how to address the state’s housing crisis, adding complications.

The House passed the density-near-transit measure, House Bill 1313, with key and controversial provisions in place. That was a way for representatives to strengthen their hand heading into negotiations with the more moderate Senate in the coming days.

In a nod to the politicking ahead, lawmakers, advocates and lobbyists involved in the discussions have struck an even, careful tone in recent days when describing their expectations for the bills. Officials on either side of the debate praised their opponents and spoke openly about working together to bridge disagreements.

“It seems like the differences between the House and Senate are less severe this year, on this issue,” said Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “I think part of the problem last year was (that) it’s all one bill.”

That meant some people who supported, say, the provision allowing more accessory dwelling units may have hated the transit-oriented development piece or another component.

“It’s different when they’re separate policies — you can digest each individual policy on its own, and it creates a clearer debate,” Fenberg said.

The four remaining bills, which mostly would apply to Front Range cities, aren’t guaranteed to pass. All will almost certainly change.

“It’s a better process” — but concerns linger

Lawmakers have now had more than a year to consider the broader idea of state-led zoning reform and to work on building consensus.

Supporters have taken pains to be more open about the bills’ contents. That’s in marked contrast from last year, when the details of the larger reform bill were kept under wraps until March and local government officials protested that they were learning about its contours from reports in the media.

The new approach has cleared some barriers and made for a smoother debate so far. But it hasn’t assuaged a fundamental disagreement about land-use reform and who should handle it.

That is a gap that likely can’t be bridged, no matter how many Zoom meetings or stakeholder discussions lawmakers and backers organize.

“It’s a better process, which I think is why you’ll see that we’re trying to work (supporters) a little bit more on getting something passed — because we do want to see something passed with housing,” said Heather Stauffer, the legislative advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League. It represents cities and towns around the state and has opposed many of the reforms.

“We’re not in a position to say, ‘Nothing should pass around housing,’ ” she said. “We just want to make sure, structurally, that it works for local governments as well.”

The league has had particular concerns about the density bill. It broadly would require local governments on the Front Range to come up with a minimum housing density goal near transit areas and then pursue strategies to hit that goal.

The state would offer tens of millions of dollars in tax credits and grants — while threatening to withhold millions more in tax money from local governments that don’t comply.

That threat has been a sticking point. Though several House Democrats conditioned their support on that provision being cut in the Senate, the bill cleared the House with the language intact. That was seen as key for future negotiations in the Senate.

“We’ve seen far too often what happens when you bid against yourself and you negotiate (away) everything on the front end,” said Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat and another of the bill’s sponsors, in an interview. “You end up with a weaker policy than you should have.”

Senate negotiations have moderating effect

During an initial committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Faith Winter, a bill sponsor who’s a Broomfield Democrat, said she planned to strip that penalty from the proposal in a bid to smooth concerns from local governments.

Similar negotiations have altered — and may continue to change — Senate Bill 174, which would require local governments to conduct housing needs assessments every six years. The bill is sponsored by four legislators who openly opposed last year’s approach over concerns about preempting local control.

Initially opposed by environmental groups and viewed warily by housing advocates because it was light on mandates and penalties, the bill’s backers have smoothed over some of that opposition. The measure cleared the Senate with near-unanimous support.

“We went all the way up to the line that we felt was appropriate, where we were taking into consideration everybody’s viewpoints,” said Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat. “But we refused to cross the line over into preemption, which was always a very clear principle for us from the very beginning.”

It was a point echoed by Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican and co-sponsor of the measure.